The gaming world has seen its fair share of meteoric rises and falls, especially in a year where some of the best releases of the decade have graced our screens. But amidst the shimmering jewels, a few gems have failed to catch the light, like, for example, Immortals of Aveum.
At its core, Immortals of Aveum presented as a promising venture with its debut at The Game Awards last year and the involvement of Ascendant Studios, comprising mostly of ex-Telltale employees. But after its release, the game saw a peak of just 751 players on Steam, a number that has since been on a downward spiral.
As of the time of writing, 332 players are playing Immortals of Aveum on Steam – atrocious numbers that put it in a rare company that makes it even “worse” than Godfall and Atlas Fallen, two games that also suffered mightily at launch.
What could be the reason for Immortals of Aveum’s failure? Surely, it wasn’t a bad game, right? At the time of writing, Immortals of Aveum has a 67% rating from critics on the PC, 71% on the PlayStation 5, and a surprisingly high 82% on the Xbox Series X.
Based on these metrics, Immortals of Aveum is a good, but not so great game, so what gives?
Some blame Electronic Arts leaned too heavily on its streamer-based ad campaign. EA undoubtedly spent large sums to do these sponsored streams, but the return on investment seems to be minimal. Once the sponsorships had dwindled, a lot of viewers dropped the streams as the viewership plummeted to a mere three digits and things have gotten worse since.
There’s an alarming disconnect here: streamers were paid to play, but few continued playing the game out of a genuine interest. This might indicate a deeper issue with the game itself, beyond its marketing approach.
The game’s high system requirements further dimmed its appeal. Requiring components that catered to only about 15% of the player base felt more like a high-stakes gamble than a strategic decision. It only makes sense to compare it with Crysis, which famously made desktops melt more than a decade ago, or at least that was its selling point. But Crysis, in contrast, scaled down well and was also a genuinely engaging game. Immortals, with its high requirements, yet without showcasing any technological breakthroughs in the same vein as a modern Crysis, seems to have missed the mark.
The aesthetics of Immortals of Aveum came under scrutiny as well. While it aimed for high-end graphics, it was said to have a somewhat generic art style. The game seemingly prioritized graphics over gameplay, mechanics, and narrative. Such a strategy might have been commendable if done right, as some believe there’s room in the gaming world for games that focus on tech and aesthetics, even if it’s for a niche audience.
However, beyond the graphics, the gameplay and art style of Immortals failed to resonate with many gamers. To make matters worse, the timing just wasn’t right.
Sandwiched in between Baldur’s Gate 3, Armored Core 6, and Remnant 2, it’s not difficult to see why gamers might shift their attention elsewhere.
The aftermath of the game’s lukewarm reception raises concerns. Will this outcome deter publishers from investing in a new IP, leaning more towards established sequels? It would be unfortunate if the lessons learned from Immortals of Aveum’s performance led to such conclusions.
Instead, Immortals should serve as a cautionary tale about understanding market dynamics and player expectations. In a year teeming with exceptional releases, standing out requires more than a hefty ad campaign or ambitious graphics.
It’s no wonder then that the likes of Remedy Entertainment and Ubisoft made last-minute changes to the release dates of Alan Wake 2 and Assassin’s Creed: Mirage, respectively.
