Would A Battle Royale Have Saved Halo Infinite?

thegamer.com:

Halo Infinite came out of the blocks firing on all cylinders. Multiplayer shadow dropped and was so good I put it on my Game of the Year list. The campaign shortly followed, and was an enjoyable enough experience, but for me and many others, we instantly reverted back to the multiplayer.

With all the best Halo game modes from days gone by, combined with smooth movement, great-feeling guns, and well thought out maps, it was the best Halo multiplayer experience since Halo 3. However, just five months after launch, players have all but abandoned the game. According to Steam Charts, Halo Infinite averaged 102,732 players in November, its launch month. That number has halved in every subsequent month, leaving a daily average of just 6,446 players in March.

Related: Halo Dev Admits That The Community Is "Out Of Patience"

A couple of caveats to this: not everyone plays on Steam, or on PC. Also, not everyone here was necessarily playing multiplayer, and I imagine a significant portion of the initial drop off can be attributed to players finishing the campaign and subsequently uninstalling.

However, it shows a negative pattern. For live service games, you need to keep your playerbase engaged. For example, Apex Legends has maintained a steady rate of between 120,000 and 200,000 players for the past year. That’s a lot of variance, but an upwards trajectory and seasonal content drops spell out a positive future for the game. Taking a non-battle royale shooter, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive released to an average of 15,475 players in August 2012, and maintained that average for its first five months. There are plenty of differences between the releases of the two, but keeping the same players engaged for its first year allowed it