I want to love this and I put in a few hours every other day but it's issues are just too bullshit to ignore. They need to sort it out or I'll move on.
The article only mentions that the player base on PC, PS4 and X1 halved within 2 weeks. They did not include recent PS4 and X1 numbers.People don't read. They assume because PC means that it doesn't mean much.
Isn't this pretty typical for most multiplayer games?
That doesn't make it 'better'.
They're calling The Division one of 2016's biggest bombs?
Just because a game loses its players does not make it a bomb. The Division sold fucktons.
Ubisoft makes the best-selling games that everyone forgets about a week later.
I wonder why R6:S grew but this fell off so quickly.
Why would a pseudo fighting game (as told by the people who play it) be definitive in a place where it's not at 60fps?
He's actually right. Console players also leave in droves after only a couple months. I mean, just look at Battlefield 1. No one would doubt that's a console focused game.It puts it in context though. For Honor just "feels" like a console game. I can't imagine anyone is surprised it doesn't have a dedicated PC community.
I'm sure PS4 is doing much better, but some level of audience tapering off is expected.
IIRC, fighting games don't tend to do well on PC. I hope AAA to start using crossplay with consoles.
But the article says it's going through the same predicament as steam albeit a bit slower currently?I dunno, ask the console community that's playing it.
They removed player counts back in Feb. So no idea how this site is getting numbers from anything BUT steam.Games as a service means post-launch dlc, events and updates. It gets all of that.
It's not a free-to-play title.
It's also one of the best fighting games ever, and best on PC thanks to 60fps.
Just loaded it up now and got into a dominion game of 8 players in 30 seconds.
I swear before it used to tell you total player count (ie steam + uplay) but can't seem to find that stat anymore. It was available cheaper on uplay than steam. People who don't care about price likely just play games for a short while before moving on anyway.
The Division was a bomb? Wtf even is this article?
Dedicated servers, better support, less gouging on the micro transactions.I wonder why R6:S grew but this fell off so quickly.
But the article says it's going through the same predicament as steam albeit a bit slower currently?
They're calling The Division one of 2016's biggest bombs?
Just because a game loses its players does not make it a bomb. The Division sold fucktons.
Not only that, but For Honor represents a unique case where increasing your skill level actually makes the game play worse. Let me repeat that: the game becomes more and more boring to play the more you invest into it. The defensive meta at high-level play makes for extremely boring, incredibly stale gameplay that no one really wants to deal with. That is going to kill anything resembling a competitive scene before it can really get going.Unfortunate given the interesting concept but issues with networking, micro-transactions and just the fact that the game is tough to be competent at without moderate amounts of time investment all went against it.
Fighting games are hard
The fact that article refers to The Division as a bomb is actually embarrassing
I think The Division has more players than For Honor.
Edit: Apparently yes.
No, no, no. I see this repeated a lot, I own both games, own the season passes for both games and R6 Siege is easily worse on microtransactions. For starters it takes ages to buy a single DLC operator. Additionally every single item in FH is under one currency, R6 siege has three (real dollars, renown and R6 credits).Dedicated servers, better support, less gouging on the micro transactions.
Siege kinda flopped it's launch but had loads of good word of mouth following it, a good start to the pro league and good support.
For Honor was the opposite, great launch in terms of sales, but the support (balance changes, exploit fixes) just wasn't there for it.
Follow that up with the competitive scene being who can learn said exploits and use them most effectively to win and the poor p2p servers.
if you consider long time player retention, yes
if you consider initial sales, no
It sold fucktons but chances are they were expecting more from DLC sales to go even/profitThey're calling The Division one of 2016's biggest bombs?
Just because a game loses its players does not make it a bomb. The Division sold fucktons.
Are there any games that don't lose player base, to some degree, over time? R6 Siege is the only one I can really think of that's truly grown. I'm sure there are more too, but this isn't exactly uncommon.
That's just how games work. Your first couple weeks after launch will be the highest, for obvious reasons, and then the weeks after that will steadily drop until you eventually taper off with a regular community that you work to keep engaged. Things like sales, promotions, and what not will serve as temporary spikes in numbers as you try to bring new players in and reactivate lapsed players.
No, no, no. I see this repeated a lot, I own both games, own the season passes for both games and R6 Siege is easily worse on microtransactions. For starters it takes ages to buy a single DLC operator. Additionally every single item in FH is under one currency, R6 siege has three (real dollars, renown and R6 credits).
Also balance changes happen often and have pretty much all been great, the biggest issue holding it back is the shitty servers and defensive meta. They're fixing the latter by making parrying less of a punish and giving existing and DLC characters a lot of mixups.
Just like any other 99.99% of the games 4 months after release? Shocking!
P.S.: It was the 2nd best selling game of Q1 2017. In the whole industry, not only Steam
I love the way people like to post some obscure stat to make something sound much more positive lol...wow the 2nd best selling game of Q1 lol??...that's like saying it's the best selling Wednesday game at 9:45 PM...means nothing...you can always inflate stats to make something appear to be something else
Q1 means a 3 month period...so to say it was the 2nd best selling game for a limited 3 month window is silly...especially if it didn't face a lot of competition during those 3 months
I love the way people like to post some obscure stat to make something sound much more positive lol...wow the 2nd best selling game of Q1 lol??...that's like saying it's the best selling Wednesday game at 9:45 PM...means nothing...you can always inflate stats to make something appear to be something else
Q1 means a 3 month period...so to say it was the 2nd best selling game for a limited 3 month window is silly...especially if it didn't face a lot of competition during those 3 months
I love the way people like to post some obscure stat to make something sound much more positive lol...wow the 2nd best selling game of Q1 lol??...that's like saying it's the best selling Wednesday game at 9:45 PM...means nothing...you can always inflate stats to make something appear to be something else
Q1 means a 3 month period...so to say it was the 2nd best selling game for a limited 3 month window is silly...especially if it didn't face a lot of competition during those 3 months