Can widespread rigging be the reason of the PUBG success?

Have you considered why PUBG is such a runaway success? Here compared with the #2 and #3 games on Steam:

Sure, the killers vs achievers scheme matters a lot, allowing two kinds of players enjoy the game at the same time. But nothing explains this success. After all, the basic gameplay is FPS, shooting other people, which was implemented zillion times and much-much better than bug-ridden PUBG.

I believe its success has a lot to do with widespread rigging and P2W. Players are tired that their skill or even effort means nothing next to their credit card (either used above or below the table). That devs, either as a company, or as corrupt individuals skew the table.

How is PUBG different? Is the company and its devs are saints? Far from it. They sell lootboxes which are totally cosmetic (I’m sure that if you spend a bigger sum, the circle centers on you for a few games), and they openly declare streamers above the law.

But the PUBG game design is inherently unfair, which is refreshing compared to the “we are totally fair game” schemes. It’s 1v99. Everyone on the map is your enemy. Everything tries to kill you. Losing 1v99 is much less frustrating than losing a totally fair game. Winning 1v99 is much more rewarding than winning a fair 1v1. Also, the autoaim cheaters, dev’s friends and crate buyers are not necessarily killing you. They are also killing each other, giving you a chance to climb high.

A game of open chance, where circle placement heavily influences the outcome, where random loot can decide if you are fully decked after a house or have nothing but a pump-action shotgun after 10 is better than one where you expect fairness but there is none. PUBG success is the symptom of the frustration with lack of game fairness. The abandonment of the hope of fair 1v1 and embracing 1v99 instead.

I’m sure that the next runaway success won’t be some new design, it will be simply an old design, with a binding contract, with data transparency and third party audits to create a game which isn’t “better” than the ones on the market, merely not a scam.

Author: Gevlon

My blog:

15 thoughts on “Can widespread rigging be the reason of the PUBG success?”

  1. Nice eve post, why eve doesn’t die is because it isn’t fair duh. I am amazed that you tell folks “don’t play eve its not fair” and then post this saying “of course it isn’t fair and that’s why it works” or this gem “losing 1 v 99 is much better” how about losing 1 v 40,000. I don’t know gobs it really sounds like you walking yourself in a circle here: This is bad here but good here, this matters here but not there. Eve is inherently unfair. Null superpowers vs anything else (well except low sec groups, the wormholers, and good merc forces)


  2. Well, one thing is that PUBG is marketing a new Game Genre: “Player Battle Royale” (the 1v99 you mention).

    DOTA was massively popular because it was creating a new Game Genre (MOBAs). Riot took the idea and turned to eleven with League of Legends (plus secret rigging =p).

    Jeff Atwood (a famous programmer) talks about PUBG success in his latest post:

    He also mentions a free PUBG clone with Open-Source code: Fortnite’s Battle Royale mode, maybe it’s a way to help prevent rigging and cheating?


  3. @Provi miner: no. In PUBG all other 99 players are forced to play against each other. In EVE, the RMT coalition acts as one. EVE would be OK if some mechanic would force Goons and PL and RMT Russians and whatnot to fight each other. But instead they can make deals and split up the world.

    @Alessandro: sure it’s a new genre, but it doesn’t explain success. I can make up a new genre in a minute, it will be stupid and no one would play it. WHY is this battle royale genre is successful?


  4. PUBG success is not a surprise, it was a trend that started a few years ago with DayZ mod on Arma3.
    PUBG is a modern iteration on the survival fps, the dev understood the market and condensed the action in 20-30min games (ideal for mass market players) by boosting loots and forcing players to gather in zones to force conflicts.
    Also, not every game engine can handle 100 concurrent players in a large map at the same time, that’s why we don’t see hundreds of DayZ clones on steam but only a handfull.

    I played hundreds of hours in DayZ with friends but I’m not touching pubg, too “been there, done that” for me I guess. But I really understand the mass market success.


  5. At the moment about all you can say is it’s popular because people are playing it and people are playing it because it’s popular. It’s one of the endless series of zeitgeisty fads that boom in every genre of entertainment and always have done. If it’s still #1 by a similar margin a year from now – or even more significantly five years from now – then its success will be worth analyzing. Until then it’s just another fire in a bottle.


  6. @Bhagpuss: And what initiated this “popular because popular” cycle. Why did the first 100K players joined? It’s not Overwatch with Blizzard behind it with huge marketing. It was a small indie game (and its quality/cheat detection suffers because of it)


  7. PUBG is so popular because every time somebody dies he has a ready excuse for his death.
    It is CS with random elements turned up to the maximum. Therefore the bad players keep playing even when they die, while they would quit any fair game in a heartbeat so that they don’t feel like the losers they are.
    Then the good players have the potatoes lining up agianst the wall for them, so they are even happier.


  8. What’s there to analyze here?

    You’re always winning. If you’re alive in a match, you’re on the front edge of winning. It doesn’t even matter if your kill rate is low. As long as you’re surviving, you’re winning the match.

    And when you DO die, you jump right into a new match. You’re never trapped in a match where you’re losing.

    As a concept, it’s brilliant. Even if you never ACTUALLY win a match, you always have the potential to do so as long as you’re alive.


  9. “And what initiated this “popular because popular” cycle. Why did the first 100K players joined?”

    Streamers were the initial spark, which is why they are also “above the law”, as you put it. They (the devs) contacted a lot of popular (or less popular) streamers and got them to play the game. After that people bought into the hype, and for some people it was the opportunity to jump in just to troll/play with them on-stream. After that, the game was solid enough to recommend to friends etc. and so it grew.


  10. “@Smokeman: the same is true for World of Tanks.”

    What? Are you being deliberately obtuse? It’s completely different. You can EASILY be “losing” in WoT, your side can be behind, you can have crap score… etc. But in PUBG you are always winning as you’re on a team of you and survival counts more than kills.

    No one cares if the TEAM wins, they care if THEY win.


  11. In EVE, the RMT coalition acts as one. EVE would be OK if some mechanic would force Goons and PL and RMT Russians and whatnot to fight each other. But instead they can make deals and split up the world.

    Is this inevitable in a game like EvE or are there ways to prevent it? Every empire building game I’ve played has devolved into deal-making.


  12. @Smokeman: you are self-contradicting. “No one cares if the TEAM wins, they care if THEY win.” vs ““losing” in WoT, your side can be behind”.

    As long as you are alive in WoT, you have at worst 0 kill 0 death. If you scored any kill, you already have positive score.

    @Dornier: it can be prevented to make deals for out-of-game reasons. The problem isn’t that two empires collude to survive against a stronger one on the battlefield. The problem is that two perform actions that hurt their empires (= members) but help their credit card.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s