This game will bomb for 2 reasons

[Tactrix]

#1 it's not free, a game that REQUIRES a high population to be viable will always fail if you have a paywall barrier to entry, especially since no one knows about it.

#2 it has a KERNEL LEVEL ANTI-CHEAT mandate. Yea... no thanks, anyone who even remotely knows anything about security and safety would never let a kernel level anything be installed on their system, especially for 1 game.

And I didn't even realize that it would have that kernel level anti-cheat until I looked at the steam store page and saw it right there on the right hand side in yellow text.

[Morgan]

Regarding the price barrier, while free-to-play games attract more players, they also struggle with monetization issues, cheaters, and overall game balance. Many successful multiplayer games (Escape from Tarkov, Hunt: Showdown, etc.) have upfront costs yet maintain active player bases. The key factor is not just the price but whether the game delivers enough value to justify it.

As for kernel-level anti-cheat, yes, it does raise security concerns, but it’s also one of the most effective ways to counter cheaters, especially in competitive games. Games like Valorant and Call of Duty rely on it, and while some players avoid such systems, others appreciate a cleaner, cheat-free experience. It all depends on how well it’s implemented and whether the developers are transparent about it.

Instead of assuming failure, I think the real test will be how well the devs handle these aspects post-launch. If the game offers strong content and fair anti-cheat policies, it could still thrive.”

[BasedHeals]

let the damn game launch first then judge

[Tactrix]

Originally posted by lukas.mixa:

Regarding the price barrier, while free-to-play games attract more players, they also struggle with monetization issues, cheaters, and overall game balance. Many successful multiplayer games (Escape from Tarkov, Hunt: Showdown, etc.) have upfront costs yet maintain active player bases. The key factor is not just the price but whether the game delivers enough value to justify it.

As for kernel-level anti-cheat, yes, it does raise security concerns, but it’s also one of the most effective ways to counter cheaters, especially in competitive games. Games like Valorant and Call of Duty rely on it, and while some players avoid such systems, others appreciate a cleaner, cheat-free experience. It all depends on how well it’s implemented and whether the developers are transparent about it.

Instead of assuming failure, I think the real test will be how well the devs handle these aspects post-launch. If the game offers strong content and fair anti-cheat policies, it could still thrive.”

Tarkov has been bleeding players since it came out, and it has more cheaters than regular players. Valorant and CoD are widely regarded as the bottom of the barrel in games, they are an example of what not to do and btw also have been plagued with hackers. The people who play them legitimately don't care about good quality, otherwise they would very literally play anything else. You will not find a single game, paid or free that's hacker free, especially if it has a high population. Why? Because anti-cheats don't work. They have never created one kernel level or otherwise that has stopped hackers. And what's even more funny is that they've been told this repeatedly by the people who create anti-cheats.

[Tactrix]

Originally posted by BasedHeals:

let the damn game launch first then judge

Oh I see you think this is a judgement? No no, you misunderstand, I'm simply stating the facts. Fact it will cost $25, fact it will mandate anti-cheat, fact based upon the previous facts and history it will fail.

[Morgan]

It’s often claimed that Tarkov has been ‘bleeding’ players since its release, but there’s no official data showing that cheaters actually outnumber regular players. Valorant and CoD might not be everyone’s cup of tea, yet they rank among the biggest titles in esports and among gamers in general, so it’s hardly the ‘bottom of the barrel’ of the gaming industry. An anti-cheat system (including kernel-level) will never be perfect, but implementing one still makes sense because it demonstrably makes creating and deploying cheats more difficult (see Riot Vanguard or RICOCHET).

Completely eradicating hackers is unrealistic, but claiming anti-cheats don’t work at all seems more like extreme frustration than reality. Players who care about quality continue to invest time and money into these titles, so it’s really about how developers keep tackling cheating and how swiftly they hand out bans. I definitely wouldn’t see it as so black-and-white that everything is just ‘wrong.

[Morgan]

I see that you’re trying to present your arguments as undeniable facts, but some of them are more personal interpretations than objective truth. So, let’s look at this logically:
1. Game price = failure?
You claim that because the game will cost $25, it will automatically fail. If that were the case, no paid multiplayer game would ever succeed. Yet, games like Escape from Tarkov, Hunt: Showdown, or Rust prove that paid PvP games can sustain strong communities if they offer quality content. The price alone is not a valid argument for failure.
2. Kernel-level anti-cheat = useless?
You argue that anti-cheats don’t work. Yet, Valorant with Vanguard has significantly reduced cheaters to the lowest level among FPS games. Call of Duty’s RICOCHET still faces cheaters, but their system actively disrupts aimbots by feeding cheaters incorrect data. Your argument ignores the actual impact these technologies have.
3. History suggests failure?
What history? There are games that struggled with cheaters and still grew (PUBG, which was flooded with cheaters at launch). On the other hand, there are games with minimal cheating issues that still failed. There is no fixed pattern. Arguing with “history” without proper context is misleading.

Summary:
Saying something is inevitably doomed just because you don’t like it isn’t a fact—it’s speculation. Yes, the game could fail, but if you want to be taken seriously, it’s better to use real numbers, statistics, and verified examples instead of unsupported claims.😛

[Tactrix]

Originally posted by lukas.mixa:

It’s often claimed that Tarkov has been ‘bleeding’ players since its release, but there’s no official data showing that cheaters actually outnumber regular players. Valorant and CoD might not be everyone’s cup of tea, yet they rank among the biggest titles in esports and among gamers in general, so it’s hardly the ‘bottom of the barrel’ of the gaming industry. An anti-cheat system (including kernel-level) will never be perfect, but implementing one still makes sense because it demonstrably makes creating and deploying cheats more difficult (see Riot Vanguard or RICOCHET).

Completely eradicating hackers is unrealistic, but claiming anti-cheats don’t work at all seems more like extreme frustration than reality. Players who care about quality continue to invest time and money into these titles, so it’s really about how developers keep tackling cheating and how swiftly they hand out bans. I definitely wouldn’t see it as so black-and-white that everything is just ‘wrong.

You want official data? Go play the game, see for yourself Tarkov is bad, and you can check any forums and reviews about that game to find out just how hacker ridden it is. Valorant and COD are ranked among some of the FEW titles in e-sports. And both of them are run by AAA corporations who have had multiple decades of horrible games to the point of where they were bought by different companies.

I have seen no hacker decrease at all in league of legends, and I say that as someone who's been playing it since roughly season 3. And that's with vanguard implementation. And whoever told you it makes it harder to deploy cheats just lied, because cheats of any quality at all would be undetectable because they don't change anything inside the game, they simply run outside of it and change the standard for the hardware, a good example of this is razer mice and keyboards having built in software that lets you macro, mod, and speed your way through anything. Vanguard doesn't even look at it, because it assumes it's just regular software, which it is.

[Tactrix]

Originally posted by lukas.mixa:

I see that you’re trying to present your arguments as undeniable facts, but some of them are more personal interpretations than objective truth. So, let’s look at this logically:
1. Game price = failure?
You claim that because the game will cost $25, it will automatically fail. If that were the case, no paid multiplayer game would ever succeed. Yet, games like Escape from Tarkov, Hunt: Showdown, or Rust prove that paid PvP games can sustain strong communities if they offer quality content. The price alone is not a valid argument for failure.
2. Kernel-level anti-cheat = useless?
You argue that anti-cheats don’t work. Yet, Valorant with Vanguard has significantly reduced cheaters to the lowest level among FPS games. Call of Duty’s RICOCHET still faces cheaters, but their system actively disrupts aimbots by feeding cheaters incorrect data. Your argument ignores the actual impact these technologies have.
3. History suggests failure?
What history? There are games that struggled with cheaters and still grew (PUBG, which was flooded with cheaters at launch). On the other hand, there are games with minimal cheating issues that still failed. There is no fixed pattern. Arguing with “history” without proper context is misleading.

Summary:
Saying something is inevitably doomed just because you don’t like it isn’t a fact—it’s speculation. Yes, the game could fail, but if you want to be taken seriously, it’s better to use real numbers, statistics, and verified examples instead of unsupported claims.😛

So let me get this straight you can name like 3 games out of a million that didn't immediately fail, and that's your argument for success? LOL wow, welcome to dreamland. You need to do some actual research, because if you think there isn't a long history of video game failure as a result of releasing just like they are you are flat out delusional. And btw PUBG is free to play genius, making it completely irreverent in this discussion as it squarely falls on my side and not on yours. Cheaters will be in every game, but no anti-cheat will change that no matter what world you live in.

[Morgan]

Of course, when conducting research, it’s essential to rely on credible sources and multiple references; otherwise, arguments become misleading. Without proper evidence, claims can only be regarded as opinions rather than facts.
Claiming that forums and reviews are ‘official data’ is absurd. Those are subjective experiences, not hard statistics. If you want real numbers, look for studies from developers or analytics firms. Quoting forum complaints isn’t the same as providing factual evidence.
League of Legends doesn’t even use kernel-level Vanguard, so your example is irrelevant. If you want to argue about Vanguard’s effectiveness, look at Valorant, where Riot actively tracks cheating trends and ban waves. Saying you “haven’t seen a decrease” in LoL doesn’t disprove Vanguard’s effectiveness—it just shows you don’t understand where it’s used.
Yes, hardware-based cheats exist, but that doesn’t mean software anti-cheats are useless. Vanguard and RICOCHET have already implemented protections against spoofing and hardware modifications. Just because a small subset of cheaters uses external devices doesn’t negate the impact of anti-cheat systems on the majority of common cheats like aimbots, wallhacks, and memory injections.
Razer macros are not cheats. You’re confusing software automation with actual game-breaking cheats. Anti-cheats target unauthorized modifications, not built-in features of peripherals.

In short, your arguments are based on anecdotal experiences and personal frustration rather than verified data. If you want to argue with facts, bring real statistics instead of misleading assumptions.

[Tactrix]

Originally posted by lukas.mixa:

Of course, when conducting research, it’s essential to rely on credible sources and multiple references; otherwise, arguments become misleading. Without proper evidence, claims can only be regarded as opinions rather than facts.
Claiming that forums and reviews are ‘official data’ is absurd. Those are subjective experiences, not hard statistics. If you want real numbers, look for studies from developers or analytics firms. Quoting forum complaints isn’t the same as providing factual evidence.
League of Legends doesn’t even use kernel-level Vanguard, so your example is irrelevant. If you want to argue about Vanguard’s effectiveness, look at Valorant, where Riot actively tracks cheating trends and ban waves. Saying you “haven’t seen a decrease” in LoL doesn’t disprove Vanguard’s effectiveness—it just shows you don’t understand where it’s used.
Yes, hardware-based cheats exist, but that doesn’t mean software anti-cheats are useless. Vanguard and RICOCHET have already implemented protections against spoofing and hardware modifications. Just because a small subset of cheaters uses external devices doesn’t negate the impact of anti-cheat systems on the majority of common cheats like aimbots, wallhacks, and memory injections.
Razer macros are not cheats. You’re confusing software automation with actual game-breaking cheats. Anti-cheats target unauthorized modifications, not built-in features of peripherals.

In short, your arguments are based on anecdotal experiences and personal frustration rather than verified data. If you want to argue with facts, bring real statistics instead of misleading assumptions.

Umm yes it does, Vanguard is 100% kernel level. Razer's macros are cheats first of all, second of all they aren't the only cheats they use. The other cheat is so prolific that they wanted to ban their keyboard when it released. Here check the video out yourself.

https://youtu.be/Feny5bs2JCg?si=W0KeadkL3I4hRU-4

[Tee_Orr]

Originally posted by Tactrix:

#1 it's not free, a game that REQUIRES a high population to be viable will always fail if you have a paywall barrier to entry, especially since no one knows about it.

#2 it has a KERNAL LEVEL ANTI-CHEAT mandate. Yea... no thanks, anyone who even remotely knows anything about security and safety would never let a kernal level anything be installed on their system, especially for 1 game.

And I didn't even realize that it would have that kernal level anti-cheat until I looked at the steam store page and saw it right there on the right hand side in yellow text.

Get a job brokie

[Tactrix]

Originally posted by Tee_Orr:

Originally posted by Tactrix:

#1 it's not free, a game that REQUIRES a high population to be viable will always fail if you have a paywall barrier to entry, especially since no one knows about it.

#2 it has a KERNAL LEVEL ANTI-CHEAT mandate. Yea... no thanks, anyone who even remotely knows anything about security and safety would never let a kernal level anything be installed on their system, especially for 1 game.

And I didn't even realize that it would have that kernal level anti-cheat until I looked at the steam store page and saw it right there on the right hand side in yellow text.

Get a job brokie

Why is it that all of you unoriginal trolls can't even come up with an original insult? Like you should pat yourself on the back, you're so lazy that you can't even do the only thing you're trying to do correctly.

[Meffia]

Originally posted by Tactrix:

#1 it's not free, a game that REQUIRES a high population to be viable will always fail if you have a paywall barrier to entry, especially since no one knows about it.

#2 it has a KERNAL LEVEL ANTI-CHEAT mandate. Yea... no thanks, anyone who even remotely knows anything about security and safety would never let a kernal level anything be installed on their system, especially for 1 game.

And I didn't even realize that it would have that kernal level anti-cheat until I looked at the steam store page and saw it right there on the right hand side in yellow text.

Translation: Hi, I am a clown who most likely has no knowledge or competence in game design, marketing, or anything else related to the video game industry, and despite this, I am here to say that this game is KO even before its release.

[Vilidius]

If this game "fails" as hard as Tarkov I think everyone waiting to play it and everyone involved with making it will be very happy with that "failure." It's only fools like the OP who'll claim that kind of failure somehow proves they were right about everything turning out badly.

It's easy to predict a game will "fail" if you define not failing as "this is the game everyone will still be playing five years from now." You imagine you're some kind of oracle for declaring something so ridiculously obvious? I hope and believe the game will be fun. And if it is, for even a few dozen hours, that's money well spent. The only people who can't see that are terminally online socially maladjusted children (or sadder still, adults who haven't gotten over being that) who can't understand how reality works.

[Zane]

I have my own opinions about the topic that I won't share, however I did want to point out one glaring issue. Kernal Anti cheat still allows cheaters to get through. I been playing a lot of Marvel Rivals and it has Kernal anti cheat and i still get enemies who use aim bot catching them red handed in the act and getting in-game mail that the person i reported has been banned for cheating. So yeah... no matter the anti cheat system, cheating going to happen always.