[motform]

I think Reason 2 really hits the nail on the head. Very few multiplayer get away with properly rewarding player skill. The new Quake seems to have the same problem. Most of the population consists of veterans, which makes it so that new players have a hard time getting opponents at their level, thus creating a nasty feedback loop. Getting into Artifact today would probably be a similar experience. I think it is a peculiar trend, as single player games seems to be going in the opposite direction with titles like Dark Souls, the plethoras of insanely difficult indie titles and speedrunning like practices growing more popular by the day.

The most efficient way to adress this "problem", while still keeping the qualities of a high skill ceiling, seems to be scale and strict matchmaking. With that in mind, it is sad that Artifact never got off. The evenly matched games that I had during the first week of release where some of the most exciting experiences I have had.

[georgeecollins]

The world is full of games that properly reward skill and some people really enjoy them. But the mass market (including me) prefer entertainment to challenge. This is why gambling is much more popular than chess. The alchemy is to create a game with enough luck that a casual / unskilled player is occasionally rewarded, but skill ultimately dominates. Like poker for example. Pure skill games tend to have small audiences.

[reroute1]

I would say in general I agree with your point, but there are many pure skill games that have large audiences. Like most sports have incredibly low RNG compared to something like poker, but have giant audiences.

[georgeecollins]

True. Gymnastics, for example, is very popular but it is a pure skill competition. The problem is that the world doesn't need a lot of new pure skill competitions because competitions for most natural skills already exist. And they often have big audiences. But the business of games is usually selling entertainment to participants.

[JoeAltmaier]

Conflating audience with participant? There are a miniscule number of sports participants compared to the sports audience.

[reroute1]

Professional players maybe, but how many millions and millions of recreational players?

Most gamers aren't pros either.

[JoeAltmaier]

I'd bet civilian/recreational players are also a tiny minority. Depends upon where you are of course. But hard to reconcile the 'obese American' with the image of a nation of sportspeople, for instance.

[reroute1]

They probably are a minority, but how does that relate? There are still millions of people participating in the game, having more spectators doesn't negate the participants. If anything I think that would reinforce it being a good game.