(Unofficial) If Gears 6 happens discussion

Been playing tons of Gears 5 recently with no actual reason, Just been having fun with it. The more I play it the more I think about whether or not Gears 6 will happen. I don’t wanna beat a dead corpser on the release date and how much time they should spend on it but more or so expectations.

Lot of questions I wanted to ask some fellow gears players aswell. I’ll probably ask some of my friends these too for the hell of it because I’m curious.

Should the next Gears of War title cost money or be F2P?

Not sure If I’d want it $60 or Free. If its 60 bones I’d be more inclined to believe there was more work put into it and we aren’t just downloading a free base game with content added overtime. Pull us in immediately.

Should Cosmetics be free, money or both.

Both. Free ones to shut people who complain about paid cosmetics and money ones for people who realize that this is just the time we live in and it actually helps the game incorporate more updates.

Can Gears of War be anything but an arena shooter?

Far as how Gears of War plays now I doubt it would succeed with things like perks or loadouts sadly. There would have to be some massive changes to its tactical playstyle allowing better balance. I would like to see something with more weapon customization though.

Should Gears of War bother with eSports?

I think so. Just don’t let the pro scene be so impactful to the games meta. No favoritism and such. TC claimed that everything eSports related came out of the pockets of people who bought eSports skins which I thought was cool.

Change PvE?
Nah I think Gears PvE is in the best spot its ever been in. Tons of diversity and plenty of modes to choose from, even the classic ones for people who don’t like change. Not saying make the PvE 1:1 but the baseline for it is pretty solid, hope to see it again.

But yeah, any other thoughts people have about Gears 6 It would be awesome If you put it here. I’d like to discuss this more but I know this place is super dead now and days lol. Tons of other things I didn’t touch on like stats, comp and campaign if anyone wants to add something.

Off to play more Gears 5 :sunglasses:
Q9jznon

I honestly prefer the 60$ model… just in recent years playing old games and new, when I think of my stand-out favorites, Red Dead, Elden Ring, Mass Effect, Cyberpunk, etc, they fall into the former category.

I find myself playing F2P titles more often but ironically spending less money. Say Red Dead, I spent more money on the online mostly out of respect for the game and how good it was, versus a subpar Goku poppin the griddy on 12 year olds. Mostly because I play Destiny and Apex with friends, but I don’t equate time spent with good quality. I mean I have however many hours on Gears 4, 5 and even Judgement and those aren’t normally top 3 as far as Gears games go. The whole 60+ hours for a 60$ game thing? Nah. Plague Tale and Hellblade were both ~8 hours and both less than 60 so… honestly it doesn’t translate in my experience.

In the end I think Gears 5 nailed cosmetics on the head (skin wise) with GC. If you don’t mind spending 5-15$ on a skin to get it early then go for it. If you also don’t mind a month or so and some grinding to get it for free, awesome. I think both is a good approach, but would love to see serious “lore-focused” skins related to in-game milestones or Campaign achievements like in the Legacy games, with other skins being store focused.

With PvE it’s on the verge of games like Vermintide/Darktide, PvP… I think some massive changes need to be made to freshen the experience up. I said this the other day but Gears in 2006 and 2022 almost play exactly the same give or take some QoL improvements and cover changes here and there. But for the most part they look identical from a framework perspective. Of course tunings and nuances change, but it feels dated. At best it’s a fun mindless target-shooter. At worst, it’s a mindless dull target-shooter. Most of the depth in gameplay comes from card loadouts and movement in PvP, but after 6 years of 4/5 PvP it’s started to dull.

I don’t think gears players nor gaming communities (the majority) care. It feels like a wasted venture that wastes time + money that could be spent elsewhere. Just seems like another attempt to make the game mainstream.

621 Hours
1,281 Hours in G4…

Damn maybe I don’t play as much Gears as I thought.

1 Like

Stick with current formula and improve on it. Don’t try forcing class locks that have no actual effect on gameplay because “new and different is better”. Classes are good. “Heroes” can burn and stay where it came from. Not to mention the sheer number of characters that can be pulled from making this something of an unfeasible approach for Gears anyway.

And for god’s sake, tone down every enemy’s damage, with a few exceptions, by 50% at least in Horde.

If it brings it popularity, sure. Doesn’t do any harm if it doesn’t affect proceedings for the general playerbase too much. Otherwise, I’m not convinced it’s necessarily a positive addition - sure havwn’t been a fan of the Gears scene at any point since its introduction, though part of that is likely down to generally not being a PvP guy.

But stream locking any in-game item that is not directly eSports related(unless throwing an item like the Desert Lizzie skin into an eSports stream when it would otherwise have qualified as a regular store item is somehow reasonable and not a completely boneheaded idea) is a practice that needs to fly out of the window as soon as possible. Or rather never return. At the very least provide BOTH monetary purchase and time investment as an option to earn the item if it’s offered as a stream incentive.

As long as some decent [challenge] earnables are provided and the priced items aren’t Gears 5 store at launch expensive(mainly weapon skins, though I suppose you could argue 10$/€ is a little on the high side for character skins), I don’t see anything wrong with it. Even if some people seem to think buying cosmetic items is completely worthless and ridicule others for it(even if satirically and not directly).

If Infinite is something to go by I’m not sold on the premise of making MP components F2P being a good thing if the live service component is not delivered on, and the game launches with subpar state and content. Neither of which are aspects TC has convincingly delivered on in Gears 5, with a few exceptions. And the game started winding down heavily after said exceptions, on top of losing momentum from the botched, barebones launch.

Two words : War Journal. Well, and functional stat tracking from the get go.

My concern is 6s Campaign is going to feel like a rush job for TC to throw the Swarm arc out of the way, or throw in some unfulfilling cliffhanger ending(beyond the usual ‘catch your interest’ bait). Beyond that, I can’t speak to it much. Oh, and stop killing the Carmines for god’s sake. Especially in increasingly stupid ways where everyone involved stopped using their brains to lead to an impossibly dumb to witness cutscene, once you’re on following playthroughs.

1 Like

I’m old fashioned and prefer the old standard $60/£50 package for the whole lot. Some people have been saying that they wouldn’t mind the Halo: Infinite approach where the campaign is sold as standard; but the Versus mode is FTP (but would this be PVE as well as PVP?)

I’m okay with additional DLC, but it needs to be meaningful stuff that adds gameplay and additional campaign content fits that bill. GOW has had decent campaign DLC in the past - Road To Ruin was an out-take and short, but enjoyable. RAAM’s Shadow was arguably the peak; while Hivebusters is also very good.

I’d want unlockable stuff; and things to be purchaseable via in-game currency. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, but GOW4’s awful RNG system ate up alot of goodwill on my part (while I didn’t spend a penny on the “normal” Gear Packs, I did spend an embarassing amount on the eSports ones). Sure I knew what I was getting myself into, but it doesn’t make it any better. With GOW5 TC moved toward a better system. No more RNG was great, but the prices and conversion rate for Iron wasn’t so good and was also inconsistent and Iron eventually became extremely devalued, which was a kick in the teeth for people who bought Iron and wanted to continue supporting the game through MXT’s. I think TC need to come up with a fair system and stick with it.

I think GOW has a distinctive style and TC should stick with this particular niche style. For all it’s flaws, it has the 3rd person cover-based shooter down really well and has a distinctive style which (to the best of my knowledge) no other TPS has been able to replicate. I’ve played lots of cover-based TPS in my time and none come close to GOW. Lots of TPS I’ve played can seem slow, sluggish, difficult to move as effectively (because they don’t take the same approach to wall-sliding and movement).

Ultimately GOW is a niche game. It may be an AAA title, but it’s toward the smaller end of the AAA market. GOW6 and eSports in all likelihood won’t propel the franchise to the same heady heights as Halo, COD, Fortnite, PUBG, Starcraft, League of Legends etc (who all have strong eSports scenes). Even leaving aside the eSports element, GOW is unlikely to even return to the same levels of popularity enjoyed during the GOW2-3 days.

As much as I believe that GOW5’s PVE experience to be the franchises’ absolute peak so far, I wouldn’t want GOW6’s PVE to be a carbon copy of GOW5’s. There needs to be some changes in order for the PVE scene to grow and innovate. I don’t want major things changed, because it wouldn’t be necessary. But if you look at how say, Horde has evolved over the years, there have been significant chances from each iteration to the next which have improved it game on game.

GOW2’s original Horde was bare-bones, but it was new and fresh. I couldn’t go back to it nowadays, but I loved it at the time. There were no classes, no fortifications, no bosses, no perks (unless you counted the Blood Mounts as a sort of boss). It was just you and up to 4 other players; whatever weapons spawn on that map, ammo boxes and a backs-to-the-wall experience.

GOW3’s Horde innovated it by added the concept of bases and fortifications, although they were obviously fixed position. It also added the concept of power which was to be collected and used to buy things. It also added multi-factions and bosses.

Judgment - while it didn’t have Horde, it is for all intents and purposes where the concept of class-based PVE in the GOW universe began, so for all Judgment’s flaws, the GOW PVE community do at least owe this to Judgment.

GOW4 built on Judgment’s foundations for class-based PVE play; and also took GOW3’s fortifications and gave players much more freedom in base building.

And GOW5 carries over the same fortification philosophy of GOW4 (on a basic level), but expands on the PVE classes massively; and most significantly for me changed the way melee combat works. In my opinion GOW5’s melee system cannot be overstated - it’s such a major innovation compared to how melee worked in previous games (which was a single slower swinging punch-attack) and has added a totally different dimension to PVE; and also made melee classes possible.

Whatever happens in GOW6, I’ll just have to put my trust in TC to pull it off. In terms of PVE, they’ve earned some level of goodwill and trust from me in that regard. GOW5’s PVE at launch was a mess, but TC managed to rescue it. If you’d told me at launch that TC would eventually fix it, I’d have laughed… I’d want TC to retain the current melee-system in some form. At most maybe make some minor changes. Perhaps different classes may have slightly different melee attacks? We kinda have this on a smaller scale with the Brawler having their big haymaker punch. And in PVP there is a smaller melee system in place, so perhaps a 3-tier melee system depending on class? Big Brawler punch > PVP single punch like GOW1-4 > Curent GOW5 PVE faster double knife-slash-leading-into-combo?

Also, ensure that all classes serve a role and don’t duplicate them too much. There’s not an awful lot of point in multiple classes who specialise in explosive launchers. It’s just needless overlap. They all need to be distinctly different from one another. GOW5 does this pretty well, but there are some gaps that need filling.

2 Likes

No. As someone that loves watching Esports (I mostly watch Halo nowadays, but do enjoy the occassional CSGO or Valorant tourney) Gears of War is simply not difficult or interesting enough to be a solid competitive title.

We recently had an uproar where a dev said that Halo had always been a competitive title, people came out of the woodwork and straight up bashed them for it, that being said Halo has had a strong compettive scene since CE days bruh, so compared to a lot of Esports titles Gears is simply not good enough to really support a thriving Esports scene.

Gears has been attempting to become a larger Esports title since Gears 1, it simply isn’t well suited for it. If they really want to have it they’d have to create a more sophisticated and more entertaining mode to support it. Overrun 2.0 would be more likely to push the Esports forward than anything, they need something that is far more interesting than what Gears 4/5 were competitively.

I wasn’t actually around for this but in the many Gears of War complain videos I’ve seen this was one of the biggest/most addressed issue you’d hear. Glad they’ve redeemed themselves in that field.

As crazy of a statement this sounds I completely get why you’d say this. Overrun would just be more enjoyable to watch from a average players perspective. This would drastically change the competitive nature of the game.

Try hard players would no longer be playing the bread and butter that is hill objective game modes because that isn’t what the esports players are doing. I’m not saying changing the meta would be bad but I don’t know if the veteran high skilled players are ready.

This title is hilarious If Gears 6 happens like the bar is at it’s absolute lowest point.

One of the main reasons I hate B2P MP and like F2P is precisely because they don’t make any money if they don’t release a good product, which both pulls people in and keeps them there. With B2P they can make money off marketing, brand strength and general hype.

I also like the monthly subscription model, but that’s obviously very antiquated and absolutely would never work on a console game like GoW.

And obviously the story-portion of the game should be B2P. If you’re trying to create a campaign/pve style game, B2P is superior. There’s an absolutely perfect precedent set for a free MP, B2P Campaign Gears 6 experience with Halo Infinite.

Edit: I’m 100% convinced that as far as multiplayer is concerned, the game is going to be exactly the same whether its B2P or F2P, just with F2P we should in theory see more content and a longer lifespan. Gears 6 could cost $60, $90, $200 it’s going to be filled with microtransactions anyway.

You gotta have both — with paid cosmetics it’s better if they go quantity over an attempt at quality. Ideally by the 12 month after release mark, there should be 500+ different weapon skins. Trying to go for “Quality” when you’re talking about essentially an art-piece is absolutely farcical. Everyone is going to like different things, so make a lot of different things for different people.

The best thing TC can do with regards to GoW eSports is to allow another eSports company to handle everything.

Everyone here seems to wrongly believe that eSports is the reason for everything they don’t like — that’s completely wrong — but at the same time TC is horrible for GoW eSports. Licensing the rights to MLG, or some other organization would be the literal dream scenario.

Edit: It was always kind of embarrassing to see eSports marketed in the game’s main menu. It’s being so aggressively shoved in the faces of people who simply don’t care, and it’s gaining viewership because of weapon skins. In a lot of ways I always saw it as disrespectful. This is the same kind of thing that EA does with FIFA eSports, but it’s even more shameful here.

1 Like

I believe you are massively overrating the Esports scene in Gears. they get like 15-20k peak viewers lol. That is simply not enough to support a game long term.

I was curious what the actual stats indicated about Gears of War Esports, what I saw was very underwhelming. They host LAN’s and they get like 40 teams bruh in Mexico… That’s absurdly small compared to basically any other Esport title.

Now I don’t want to say that Gears has zero potential for Esports, but I think its clear the enthusiasm and interest is simply not there. The general popularity and interest was low to be fair, but I cannot see Gears Esports really going anywhere. If I were a TC dev I would not care remotely about the side of the Gears community, they’d be better off doing almost anything else comparatively.

Huh? My post wasn’t an attempt to overrate it at all — I said it was embarrassing see it marketed on the main menu, said that it was shameful to rope people into AFK tabbing the streams to get skins, and said that the best thing for eSports would be if TC let another company handle it.

I’ve never even seen this many in Gears 5. GoW4 had extremely high numbers — I once saw it hit 100k.

eSports doesn’t support the game.

This is inaccurate, every Mexico event sold out their team passes. The number of teams is also a bad metric because you can’t have unlimited teams at a LAN.

eSports goes as the rest of the game goes. If you have a hyped, popular game that a lot of people play — eSports is going to be massive. If you have a horrible game that no one plays, it’s going to suck.

They don’t have to care — they really don’t have to do anything at all.

By far the worst thing TC ever did for eSports was trying to tune the game for eSports.

According to the website escharts the peak viewership of the franchise overall was about 60k in 2019…

Now the game overall might’ve had higher from a mix of costreams and what have you, but in terms of the numbers from the main channel they clearly never hit that amount. If you can show me better stats or sources then great.

yes companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars for no reason whatsoever, they’re all just stupid.

Esports does support games. Its basically free advertising for the game and various partners, to put this into perspective Halo Infinite had a Super like a month ago and it had 70k peak viewers, considering that’s like half the overall population of the game (if not more) that’s nuts. Esports can be extremely lucrative. That being said Gears Esports is so small that it could easily be ignored without much of an issue.

I looked at the Gears Esports Wiki and it said the single biggest event in Gears 5 had 40 teams… That is horrendous numbers for any real Esports title. Now venues only have so much space but then they should just have more room dude. Its 4v4, not 12v12 or a BR type game. Esports Wiki for Gears is a bit lacking though, doesn’t seem like they put it in all the information.

Competition itself is one of the hallmarks for any title competitively, low competition breeds stagnation.

That’s not entirely true. Obviously general popularity and interest translate to interest in the competitive side of a game, but there are tons of examples of games with good solid overall popularity that have next to no Esports scene at all.

I love when people say this yet they literally turn around and ask for competitive features. You are not asking for new modes or experiences that would be more casual, your just gonna say “we need more lancers” lol, despite lancers being far more relevant at top level play.

Edit: The general competitive vs casual conversation is boring. You are going to pretend the story or the PvE or whatever gripes you personally have with Gears 4 or 5 are completely related to Esports, in reality its unlikely to be related at all.

Their stats for peak viewership are skewed. They’re not combining YouTube/Twitch streams for Eleague, and there are always co-streams.

The one thing this chart shows is that the better video game performed better. GoW4 was on an upward trajectory until the end, and then fell right off a cliff in Gow5.

I literally have no idea what you’re talking about. No company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on their eSports.

No, at best it’s marketing but from a marketing perspective it’s horrible marketing. How many people’s first introduction to a video game was due eSports? It’s absurdly low. The examples of would be games like Starcraft or DotA, however someone would likely already have to have an interest in eSports to even be in position to have eSports-focused games marketed to them.

To re-focus your perspective — in 2017 Gears of War had a tournament with peak viewership of 43k, two years later the majors were averaging 50-60k. A mere three years after this, Gears of War doesn’t even have 30k active players.

GoW eSports only goes as far as GoW itself. Trying to work out the exact formula for percentage of active players who watch/care about eSports is an impossible task.

Where?

So Gears 5 had two LANs due to COVID.

One shows 47, the other shows nothing at all. The teampasses sold out each of these events, and after this the events were online only due to COVID.

You had to qualify to compete in the online majors, you didn’t just get to show up and get first rounded for free. Some of these say online tournaments say “24 teams” or whatever — that’s because the other 100 or so online teams were knocked in qualifications.

It’s not even about getting more room, you’re not running out of square footage as fast you’re running out of monitors and xbox’s. I’m pretty sure the most teams ever at an event was like 96 in GoW2, and to facilitate that it was best of 3, first to 3 execution and you had to play split-screen.

What’s an example of a team-based multiplayer shooter with no eSports scene? GoW1/2 weren’t supported by Epic, and the scene did really well for itself. The only thing I can think of is Battlefield, but a google search showed that they had one to some extent.

I have 2,300 posts here and I have not once asked for any feature. I’ve supported the idea of a Gears BR, and that’s it.

These are always horrible — they’re always horrible and no one plays them. They’re putrid gamemodes that everyone knows are horrible to play — like Arms race or Arcade — and they always die. Casual players don’t want to be pandered to, and no one is interested in these gimmicky modes.

I literally made a thread, and a video for the sole purpose of mocking people who think the lancer is underpowered, or that we need more lancers.

How can you possibly think that I don’t know that?

I literally don’t know anything about the story or PvE.

You are not familiar with Microsoft or Epic Games or Riot Games or basically any developer I take it?

What? I find the chances that somebody had never heard of Gears or Halo or whatever franchise unlikely, and even moreso that their first impression was based off tournament play. I think you are missing my point.

Source.

Its not equal for every game or franchise. I’d argue that Battle Royales have horrendous viewership numbers when you take into consideration how popular they are on average. Peak viewership for Fortnite was like 600k which sounds insane but when you consider it probably gets like 5 million players a day its actually pretty absymal.

Yes and that’s alarming as hell from a business POV. I wouldn’t touch the series with a 100 foot pole if I were an org or an event organizer.

Siege prize pools alone are in the hundreds, let alone streaming, tech, staff, tournament, organizers, etc.

the reference I use is a site called EsportsEarnings.com

Now they are not the greatest in terms of updating their site, so they may be months behind, but they are great at looking at tons of different games and comparing everything and what have you. They give tons of info like specific player earnings (only prize pool earnings though, no like sponsorships or subscribers or whatever)

It is not crazy at all for an Esports title nowadays to have tens of millions of dollars in prize pools over a few seasons. The big bois like Valorant or CSGO easily have like 10 million dollars in prize pool money throughout the course of a season (which means a year for those of you unaware) so yes they do spend craploads of money into Esports.

edit: also I found a good site for tracking twitch data, its called SullyGnome.com
It seems to be funded through patreon so not as bad as others. You can look at specific months/timeframes and it gives you decent idea of popularity of a tourney or event.

1 Like

I feel like I’m going insane in this thread, genuinely. I feel I’ve found myself in some twilight zone.

I say that no company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars, so 200m+ is the minimum to qualify as “hundreds of millions” here but if we’re being honest the phrase “hundreds of millions” most likely means 300m+ — and you reply to me showing me Rainbow Six Siege with a prize pool of 27million lifetime???

Am I going insane?

Let me do your job better for you

Click the years, add them together, you get hundreds of millions in prize pool.

That still isn’t the companies “spending hundreds of millions” because the company isn’t spending it from their own pockets, it’s not money they would have anyway.

Genuinely I feel like I’m losing my mind.

Name one developer which has spent hundreds of millions on a singular games eSport — spent as in they either lost this money, or outlayed it first. Games like league and valorant to a very large extent are able to self-sustain their eSports — riot games isn’t just pissing away 50million.

Go play 1 match of Control, check your rank. Nearly three weeks after the season reset and we’re just over 30k players ranked in the mode — if you play 4-5 games, the number drops significantly. No other playlist is even near 30k accounts ranked. Edit: I also said “Active players” — not people who played 3 games two weeks ago. “Active players” as in they play one game every 1-2 days, it’s probably about 10-15k. Nothing suggests we have even 30 or 40k players.

Using that metric to attempt to argue that Fortnite is bad as an eSport is a damning indictment of that metric.

If we go with this horrible argument though, it just bolsters my position further — focus on making a game that’s fun, that a lot of people want to play and the larger your game gets the better it will be for that games eSport.

There’s always going to be an org out there would take a chance on a new GoW game — not Gow5 that’s fully ran it’s course but a new GoW game.

edit:

I’m going insane.

Edit: Net Spend — for the love of god I need people to learn about Net Spend.

Good, finally.

1 Like

“Should Gears 6 cost $60 or be free?”

It should be free to play. $60 is a thing of the past. At least for multiplayer focused games like Gears. A few years ago I would’ve said $60 but the industry has proven that they’ll still sell you an unfinished/broken product for $60 (in some cases $70 now) and promise to fix it later AND still have egregious free to play style microtransactions. So I’d rather the next Gears of War be free and have egregious MTX, rather than pay $60 upfront just for them to double dip with an upfront cost and MTX

“Should cosmetics be free, money or both”

I agree with both. Have paid skins in a shop of some sort (hopefully no FOMO with rotating items) and have free skins for people to earn via skill/achievement unlocks.

“Should Gears of War bother with esports?”

Honestly I could take it or leave it. I only ever tuned into the streams for the skins. Watching other people play videogames isn’t interesting to me. Plus the fact that TC basically caters to the esports meta amd ignores the majority of the playerbase.

1 Like

It’s a shame that it works. I spend more on the persistent packs like the black steel characters in 5 than I would a rotating store in any other game, but I know that’s not the rule. Unfortunately these things continue because it works.

People will buy into fomo.
People will believe that F2P is inherently better.
People will excuse a half-baked AAA game.
People will talk crap for a week then forgive.

Anthem wasn’t people holding EA accountable, Anthem was just a speedbump. Otherwise 2042 wouldn’t have also been so bad. This might just keep happening until it reaches an ultimate extreme with gamers or in a big enough game like it did for Battlefront 2.

(Another great example is AC Valhalla which gets nothing but ■■■■ from AC fans but was also one of the best-selling Ubisoft games of all time. It could have made roughly 42% of the Q3 2020-Q3 2021 revenue for Ubi, even plagued with balance issues, bugs, day-one MTX, etc).

Well yeah. It’s what I call the venn diagram of hypocrites. COD for example. Ever since about black ops 2/Ghosts it’s been popular to say COD is the same thing every year and it’s boring and unoriginal now. But despite this being a very popular stance/opinion, COD continues to sell gangbusters every year. So there is an undeniable overlap of people who are talking smack about how much COD sucks now and people who are still going out and buying it.

Same thing goes for pokemon. Sword and shield on the switch is one of the most hated entries in the franchise. Mainly because of low quality graphics and the lack of ability to “catch 'em all”. But despite all the hate it gets, it’s the fifth best selling game of all time on switch.

1 Like

Gears of War forums discover brand strength.