jonnyp
Member
You're really triggered by this game's success, aren't you?
Are you really surprised?
You're really triggered by this game's success, aren't you?
Were we teased a new faction though?i think alot of it has to do with how weapons were handled and how we were teased a new faction months and months ago and nothing ever came of it. people are tired of killing the same damn things
And there are plenty people playing so enjoy.I just bought it
Pretty sure this is about Helldivers not HellbladeIt’s a 10 hour game about mental illness. I means most people have played it and moved on no reason think this is some kind of GAAS title that has failed.
left thumb up UwUThe bubble has burst, that's all my friend.
lol my badPretty sure this is about Helldivers not Hellblade
And you can still find a match in seconds, don't worry.I just bought it
Yes it’s a live service game but it’s a bit ridiculous to compare these numbers to F2P games.
Does player retention even matter when 12 million people have bought the game for 40 dollars in a few months?
I don’t think Arrowhead/Sony or anybody expected 12 million lifetime sales let alone a few months.
Player retention matters more for F2P games cause they are dependent on microtransactions to keep the game profitable.
The game just released.It's a success but the point of games like this is to retain those players for continuous revenue. The roadmap they planned will cost alot of money if they lose more and more players than service games won't make them more money than sp games in the long run.
The game just released.
Games like Warframe, NMS and FFXIV were far from a success at launch or during the first year(s). FFXIV even got a complete reboot.
These kind of games are a long-term investment and it's better to wait and see how it develops over the next 2-3 years.
That's when you can really tell if it's successful or not.
So in that sense, it's incomparable to sp games.
Concord will be so sad. That game looks the most uninterested appealing mish-mash of Destiny + Overwatch + Marvel that I can't see lasting 3 weeks before it starts to bleed out players. It looks just that bad.As it happens with 90% of live service games over time.
Let's see if Concord comes anywhere close to this games initial launch.
I'm sorry, but that's absolute bollocks. It won't be over. So fuckin dramatic, honestly.they said they wanted to take more time between updates, if the next update doesn't increase the players, it will be officially over. but I bet its already a financial success.
Hey everyone! Look at me! I'm making a statement!lol at the fanboys damage controlling. hell divers is a generic shooter, shouldn't be surprising.
The point of GaaS is to be supported for years.Redemption arcs can take years. Let's see if sony is willing to do that. Sqaure pulled devs from other projects and delayed them to make ff 14 a success. That wasnt just patience. It was full commitment.
The point of GaaS is to be supported for years.
And that's why I said we should wait at least a year or two before calling it a success or not.Alot of gaas close in a year or two.
It's already made a bank, so it's success.And that's why I said we should wait at least a year or two before calling it a success or not.
At the very least, it had a very strong start.
Now comes the real test.
Sure, initially.It's already made a bank, so it's success.
Sure, initially.
But it's part of Sony's GaaS-strategy and only time will tell how that'll turn out.
It will have 5-10k players playing 5 years from today.The strategy can't be sustained by PowerPoint slides but a smart investment strategy and providing full long-term support to projects with good potential. If Helldivers eventually dies, it will be because Sony failed to understand its potential and the studio can't make it grow as it should to remain relevant for years.
Well yeah, that's a given.The strategy can't be sustained by PowerPoint slides but a smart investment strategy and providing full long-term support to projects with good potential. If Helldivers eventually dies, it will be because Sony failed to understand its potential and the studio can't make it grow as it should to remain relevant for years.
It will have 5-10k players playing 5 years from today.
Thats the potential for a game like this. Which is fine.
If you want 100k players returning 1 year after release, you need a bigger game with a new expansion or a major game mode. I don’t think this was planned for this game.
It's a success but the point of games like this is to retain those players for continuous revenue. The roadmap they planned will cost alot of money if they lose more and more players than service games won't make them more money than sp games in the long run.
I wonder who actually believes what you just stated here (bolded).This is why live service isn't the golden goose some people insist it is, the natural tendency is for the majority of players to lose interest in a game over time, even ones that got as popular as this one.
Player retention is always an uphill battle. To achieve that you often need to pour lofty amounts of money onto the game while still losing players and hoping they'll keep generating revenue to make up those investments.
All in all its a difficult business model to keep up, i often see certain users here acting as if you just need to label the game "live service", sit back and watch the money pour in.
Yes, and that support costs a lot, often as much as a new game altogether. Yet you will still see people holding the belief GAAS is worth it because of "continuous revenue". Since that revenue isn't free nor cheap, at some point you have to wonder if just making sequels isn't a better alternative.I wonder who actually believes what you just stated here (bolded).
Everybody knows live services stand or fall with actual support.
That all depends entirely on how much profit is being made off a GaaS title.Yes, and that support costs a lot, often as much as a new game altogether. Yet you will still see people holding the belief GAAS is worth it because of "continuous revenue". Since that revenue isn't free nor cheap, at some point you have to wonder if just making sequels isn't a better alternative.
For SP games you just need to do basic market research and manage your budget accordingly. You can take a lot more risks.That all depends entirely on how much profit is being made off a GaaS title. That also goes for SP games. They need to sell enough to make a game profitable.
Yeah, and look at what happened to Suicide Squad, Avengers, Anthem, Battlefield 2042, Babyllon fall, Halo Infinite, Knockout City, Lawbreakers, CrossfireX, Redfall, etc.Just look at what happened to Tango and Hellblade also didn't sell.
For SP games you just need to do basic market research and manage your budget accordingly. You can take a lot more risks.
GAAS is a much vaguer. You need to take into account other similar popular games in the market, somehow predict what the player retention will be and adjust accordingly - with even too much players possibly incurring in losses, create specific business models for the continuous revenue generation, estabilish all the logistics for continuous support that has to get updates out in timely fashion. And each one of those things can completely break your game if you mess up even a little bit.
Sure, but GaaS titles are still products. They're not any different from Elden Ring getting a bew expansion, except that they continue to support a single release instead of moving onto a new title after 1 or 2 expansions/DLC.And none of this is strange since, historically, services are much harder to sell than products.
You could make a list for sp games that flopped as well. Probably a longer list than Gaas.Yeah, and look at what happened to Suicide Squad, Avengers, Anthem, Battlefield 2042, Babyllon fall, Halo Infinite, Knockout City, Lawbreakers, CrossfireX, etc.
That all depends entirely on how much profit is being made off a GaaS title.
Btw, that also goes for SP games. They need to sell enough to make a game profitable.
Just look at what happened to Tango and Hellblade also didn't sell.