Buying MP Games on Console is Such A Risk

Arsic

Arsic

Loves his juicy stink trail scent
I can't be the only one who thinks it should be required for Sony, Nintendo, and Xbox to have to share player numbers on all titles to have similar websites like SteamCharts be available.

It's such a risk to buy a MP game and not know what the concurrent player base is especially on an older or niche title. It's manageable when it's cross play with PC since you can assume if the pc numbers are good that it's even better if you inject console players to boot.

However, I'm an avid fighting game fan and sometimes I wonder how do player counts for games stack up on console. Perhaps they have better community sizes?

This ultimately leads to anti consumer practices if you ask me. The company wants to sell the product but isn't willing to share this critical data. What good is City of the Wolves if it's sub 100 players on ps5?

Have you ever been burned because of rolling the dice on a MP title for console that ends up being dead?
 
Agreed on player counts though I will say there is something to a game with a small community of players. I got to know the other 20 or so people playing Call of Duty Ghosts on the WiiU really well.
 
Jaybe said:
Agreed on player counts though I will say there is something to a game with a small community of players. I got to know the other 20 or so people playing Call of Duty Ghosts on the WiiU really well.
Click to expand...
I mean if you were looking for a tight knit community then this data also helps you find those smaller ones too.
 
I was never able to find an online playing Borderlands 3, Not one other person on the planet was playing the game at the same time as me.
Well, It was Borderlands 3, so that kind of makes sense.
 
I think we define risk differently.

Case in point: recent COD WW2 fiasco. RcE exploits putting your PC and personal info on it at risk. On console? You might get kicked or stats reset.

I get what you are saying, but console is the safest place to play MP games. A bit of research online can let you know what playerbases are like. Or just stick to modern MP games.
 
Last edited:
are you implying that any mp game will not be a failure if it is released on pc!? because that is a bold thing to say (almost naive, i dare to say).
 
Eh, most games are cross play so arguably there's less risk now than there once was.
Publishing the player count would basically destroy any game that didn't have a large enough player base in the first week, sales are front loaded as it is, it'd basically guarantee a game's failure if they had a bad opening week or if another big title was scheduled to launch the same day or near to it.
 
Why crossplatform has become so Key, I thought Division 2 on Xbox would be dead compared to playstation but was surprised.
 
Mr.ODST said:
Why crossplatform has become so Key, I thought Division 2 on Xbox would be dead compared to playstation but was surprised.
Click to expand...
Crossplay is super critical for niche and older stuff. Especially important in fighting games.
 
Last edited:
If enough people don't buy a game because they are worried about it having a low player count... it will end up having a low player count. Almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
This is why I prefer games like Eden Ring and Monster Hunter which will has offline mode from the get go.

They have MP and yet I have the option to play them completely offline if I want to and never worry about if the server get shutdown because I mostly playing it offline.
 
Last edited:
I would never buy a purely multiplayer game with the intention of playing it forever honestly. These are obviously going to be transient experiences and we all know they're not going to be supported forever. It's a game not an investment.

I'm probably in the minority here though. I go into those types of games with the expectation that I'm going to play it for a while and move on once something new and better comes out. I don't really get why people spend all their time buying and upgrading hardware to play old as fuck games for all eternity, but you guys do you.
 
Last edited:
Arsic said:
I can't be the only one who thinks it should be required for Sony, Nintendo, and Xbox to have to share player numbers on all titles to have similar websites like SteamCharts be available.

It's such a risk to buy a MP game and not know what the concurrent player base is especially on an older or niche title. It's manageable when it's cross play with PC since you can assume if the pc numbers are good that it's even better if you inject console players to boot.

However, I'm an avid fighting game fan and sometimes I wonder how do player counts for games stack up on console. Perhaps they have better community sizes?

This ultimately leads to anti consumer practices if you ask me. The company wants to sell the product but isn't willing to share this critical data. What good is City of the Wolves if it's sub 100 players on ps5?

Have you ever been burned because of rolling the dice on a MP title for console that ends up being dead?
Click to expand...
Some games used to include player counters, but the fear of numbers plummeting and players running away due to that has made very rare to see any developer putting active player numbers in their games again. I'm glad Helldivers 2 has that.

As for fighting games. If you want to ride the high you got to be there from day 1 and enjoy it to the max before it ends up as a Discord Game. Anything beyond SF6, Tekken, MK, and ArcSys games are generally doomed after 6 months.
 
Such a huge risk? It's like $50. That's not a huge risk.

I get what you are saying and agree in principle but if $50 is a huge risk for you, I'd recommend only buying things that are super well established or not buying at all. I'm just saying let's not be too hyperbolic.
 
Trogdor1123 said:
Such a huge risk? It's like $50. That's not a huge risk.

I get what you are saying and agree in principle but if $50 is a huge risk for you, I'd recommend only buying things that are super well established or not buying at all. I'm just saying let's not be too hyperbolic.
Click to expand...
It's cool you think flushing dollars to help protect to big million/billion dollar companies is a good mindset. I enjoy also making someone feel "poor" or shitty about financial investments because I can afford to flush money and not care.

Or you know, head out of ass for a second, just a thought—- how about we are given enough info about something where a dollar exchange is to take place? I don't care if it's $1, or $100,000 I want to know what I'm getting so I make a sound purchasing decision.

Or do you go buy cars just for the color of the paint or do you want to know what the mileage is, if it has new tires, what comes in an upgrade package, etc?

I'd like to know if a MP focused game I buy is going to be playable any given hour of the day so I get my moneys worth. I don't want to discord dive to actually play a game of GTFO on steam.

I also don't care if a company selling something isn't successful with their product if it is shit/dead. I'm concerned about my end of the bargain - giving them money and in turn me getting a functioning product within reason.

But as always video game consumers will shovel shit on their plate and swallow it up, then go ask why games suck nowadays. Hmmm…
 
Arsic said:
It's cool you think flushing dollars to help protect to big million/billion dollar companies is a good mindset. I enjoy also making someone feel "poor" or shitty about financial investments because I can afford to flush money and not care.

Or you know, head out of ass for a second, just a thought—- how about we are given enough info about something where a dollar exchange is to take place? I don't care if it's $1, or $100,000 I want to know what I'm getting so I make a sound purchasing decision.

Or do you go buy cars just for the color of the paint or do you want to know what the mileage is, if it has new tires, what comes in an upgrade package, etc?

I'd like to know if a MP focused game I buy is going to be playable any given hour of the day so I get my moneys worth. I don't want to discord dive to actually play a game of GTFO on steam.

I also don't care if a company selling something isn't successful with their product if it is shit/dead. I'm concerned about my end of the bargain - giving them money and in turn me getting a functioning product within reason.

But as always video game consumers will shovel shit on their plate and swallow it up, then go ask why games suck nowadays. Hmmm…
Click to expand...
Really pulled out your jump to conclusions mat there didn't you.

Who the hell said it was ok? I LITERALLY SAID I AGREE WITH YOU in principle but I said you shouldn't act like it's a major risk. Your aren't dealing with your health or something expensive. I said don't be hyperbolic. Calm down.

Don't be sensitive and put words in my mouth
 
Trogdor1123 said:
Really pulled out your jump to conclusions mat there didn't you.

Who the hell said it was ok? I LITERALLY SAID I AGREE WITH YOU in principle but I said you shouldn't act like it's a major risk. Your aren't dealing with your health or something expensive. I said don't be hyperbolic. Calm down.

Don't be sensitive and put words in my mouth
Click to expand...
Fuck I'll kiss you I swear to God.

I just disagree that $50-$80+ isn't a risk. It isn't just money, it's time invested, and I like to spend what free time I have enjoying it.

No it isn't losing a kidney, but nothing related to video games is that level. Nor should it be. That doesn't mean it isn't an issue or should be hand waved via "hyperbolic."

Shit sucks and needs a fix.
 
Arsic said:
Fuck I'll kiss you I swear to God.

I just disagree that $50-$80+ isn't a risk. It isn't just money, it's time invested, and I like to spend what free time I have enjoying it.

No it isn't losing a kidney, but nothing related to video games is that level. Nor should it be. That doesn't mean it isn't an issue or should be hand waved via "hyperbolic."

Shit sucks and needs a fix.
Click to expand...
We're all good and you are not wrong.

A risk is 100% a risk but I find that people tend to freak out about stuff that needs to be looked at more objectively.

It sounds harsh but if $50 is a big worry for a person and will move the needle in their life ( and I was there myself once too) then I'd say they shouldn't be gaming at all (I stopped for a while to focus on more important stuff). They should focus on the stuff in life that truly matters. Games are fun but food on the table and medicine are the types of stuff to me that are huge risks. Maslow's hierarchy of needs type stuff. It's probably not something that everyone agrees with and that's probably ok.

The time invested thing… I could not agree with you more. You see stories of people who put hundreds or thousands of hours into something and it just gets taken. That isn't cool.

People need to support the current work on this exact topic though so games don't just "die" and this is less of an issue.
 
As much as i like sreamdb, it probably is a met negative when it comes to multiplayer games.

It just helps bpost the player numbers of the games that dont need it and actively hurts anyone who does. Many games would probably still be around with decent active playerbases, but a lot of people will leave games or not even try them when they otherwise would, at the first sign of some struggle. And what people percieve as a bad sign could not even be an issue. They see a game that had 300k CCU and now only has 50k after 6 months and will think it's dying, but if the playerbase stabilized at those numbers it would still be incredibly healthy. But it creates chain reactions of people leaving and not starting at all.

But either way it should never be a risk because multiplayer games should be free. If they're not you're asking for your game to die.
 
Last edited:
Brakum said:
As much as i like sreamdb, it probably is a met negative when it comes to multiplayer games.

It just helps bpost the player numbers of the games that dont need it and actively hurts anyone who does. Many games would probably still be around with decent active playerbases, but a lot of people will leave games or not even try them when they otherwise would, at the first sign of some struggle. And what people percieve as a bad sign could not even be an issue. They see a game that had 300k CCU and now only has 50k after 6 months and will think it's dying, but if the playerbase stabilized at those numbers it would still be incredibly healthy. But it creates chain reactions of people leaving and not starting at all.

But either way it should never be a risk because multiplayer games should be free. If they're not you're asking for your game to die.
Click to expand...
Maybe a small compromise would be a 3 check system? Green means the game has a very healthy pool and you can find games no issue near instantly always, yellow means more limited and may be subject to time of day, and red means either dead or you better discord up.

Then it's less number centric and more player experience centric.
 
Last edited:
I think it depends on the game, I've had a few matches online the last couple of weeks in games like ultra street fighter IV, Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3, Street fighter II, MvC collection, Capcom fighting collection 2 and a few more.

All on PS5.

But City of the Wolves don't have too many active players, even on Steam.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to think anyone savvy enough to make a vBulletin post about gaming in 2025 can probably get a read on population counts. Is there a certain game you're worried about OP?

Danny Dudekisser said:
For real - you never know if the community's going to be down for some casual racism.
Click to expand...
My mom used to say "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me". Seemed like good enough advice. I took it for granted up until the past five or so years when it became obvious how many people did not get that part of the operating system patched at a young age. Instead, we just have most big games forgoing public voice chat altogether. Going the wrong direction down the gaming innovation tech tree. There are only a billion better solutions. It's really had a far more negative effect on the quality of online gaming than the people trying to get a rise out of you with slurs.
 
Last edited:
Arsic said:
Maybe a small compromise would be a 3 check system? Green means the game has a very healthy pool and you can find games no issue near instantly always, yellow means more limited and may be subject to time of day, and red means either dead or you better discord up.

Then it's less number centric and more player experience centric.
Click to expand...
People would just interpret yellow as the game dying.
 
Brakum said:
People would just interpret yellow as the game dying.
Click to expand...
Dying and not dead means viable to pick up.

If we want to be more distinct green can be games with 100,000+ active players. Yellow can be 5,000-99,999, red can be below 5k.
 
I treat gaming as entertainment instead of an investment or hobby. It makes "risking" my money easier to swallow that way. Compared to what I spend on concerts gaming seems cheap.

I buy MP games where my friends are and when the population dies I stop playing.
 
Last edited:
No but I'd say buying MP games on PC is an even bigger risk with all the hackers ruining the games in that community. I can't stand the fact that everyone is praising cross play. Cross play with other consoles? Fine with me. With PC? No thanks.
 
Only buy cross-play enabled titles. Problem solved.

Tj_los.gif
 
simpatico said:
I'd like to think anyone savvy enough to make a vBulletin post about gaming in 2025 can probably get a read on population counts. Is there a certain game you're worried about OP?


My mom used to say "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me". Seemed like good enough advice. I took it for granted up until the past five or so years when it became obvious how many people did not get that part of the operating system patched at a young age. Instead, we just have most big games forgoing public voice chat altogether. Going the wrong direction down the gaming innovation tech tree. There are only a billion better solutions. It's really had a far more negative effect on the quality of online gaming than the people trying to get a rise out of you with slurs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, CS GO was basically an online chatroom with a mildly amusing game (with terrible hit detection) attached. Public voice chat makes these games.
 
Last edited:
Arsic said:
Dying and not dead means viable to pick up.

If we want to be more distinct green can be games with 100,000+ active players. Yellow can be 5,000-99,999, red can be below 5k.
Click to expand...
And people would think the game is fine at 100k and then the game loses one player and it causes a chain reaction because now it shows yellow.

People dont actually care that it's healthy, they see what they consider bad signs and leave.

People dont start leaving the games right now because the queues are getting to high. They can have 10 second queues but the numbers are down 80% sincr launch and they think it's dying. Even when the population is still very healthy for the game.
 
There's a way bigger problem IMO of console gamers not trying new games(shooters)

Like Valorant didn't even crack top 10 I think on PlayStation when that came out. Thats insane to me and that was a way better effort than CSGO on 360 back in the day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Buying the losing console
2 3 4
196
8K
Wolfhearth replied
  • Poll
Outside of the games library, what aspect of a console is most important to you?
37
284
PlayStaytion replied
ZOOM says games like GTA, Dukem Nukem are at risk of being censored
Social 
44
336
digimaster7 replied
Copycat game now on console
4
289
IbizaPocholo replied
Xbox April Update: Buy Games with the Xbox App on Mobile, Stream Your Own Game on Console, and More
17
1K
LordCBH replied
Top Bottom