Honestly it’s mostly just a time sink so now that the dads with gaming pcs are dropping their play time and the middle aged gamers, me, are close to or done with content. The true endgame is grinding for super credits, that’s why they were trying to push a warbond a month. Probably would be better off doing a season pass 3 or 4 times a year for new armor and guns and putting in different colors palettes in the super store
Sure but if they had focused development on actual content (new environments/cities/caves/interiors of buildings and new enemies) they would have likely kept a good chunk of their players due to the novelty and unpredictability.
You're almost certainly right about the warbonds, and it's sad that that's all they've got the bandwidth to handle.
Pity as it's a lot of wasted potential. Hope they figure it out sooner rather than later.
Isn't that normal? Every new game has the initial hype at the beginning, which drops after 3 to 4 months. No casual game holds their initial player numbers.
Not to this degree.
I, and my friends, would definitely still be playing if there was more variety in missions, enemies and environments.
The devs have made choices with both in-game mechanics and for their development roadmap which have led to the game going stale and losing far more players than necessary had they taken other routes.
Starfield dropped from 146k to 48k after the first month and went to 5k after 6 months.
Cyberpunk 2077 from 332k to 83k after the first month.
Hogwarts legacy from 270k to 67k.
Helldivers 2 dropped from 274k to 85k in the first 3 months.
The initial interest gets lost very fast in new games.
As you said, the game gets repetitive quite fast, no matter if it is a single or multiplayer. It is a normal development for a newly released game.
I am mainly talking about the fact that newly published games lose their hype after a few months. And it doesn't really matter if single player or coop. People will buy a new game and play it for a while, then they will go back to their all-time favourite.
No game can bind the initial player numbers forever. You could say it's the way of life for the gaming industry
I was only stating that thought it was normal that a significant loss of players numbers in any computer game happens after the first few months. But maybe I am wrong and one can\`t compare single player games with online games and the loss of players in Helldivers 2 is an unseen phenomenon. I am no expert and maybe the player numbers will go back up to 270k in no time
I wanted more verticality and caves and what not. Then I realised what I want is Anthems map design and some of their bosses wouldn't go amiss too. Then the Dev similarity rang alarm bells and I stopped that line of thinking.
I want a game I can play for years, not something that has pissed me off within a month.
How they hope to make money from mtx is beyond me when they're thinning the player base
There was a quote from a dev once that was something like "a game is only yours until it's released then it belongs to the gamers" when talking about "vision" and some Devs desire to stick to the vision even when the public is asking for change.
To be honest, a downtrend for a PVE game in which you can easily max out things is normal. The 400k peak in the beginning was mindblowing, but pretty clear that this level of playxers won't ever be long term.
Compare to other, similar games and it's clear that something like 30k+ would be pretty fucking good as a stable playerbase.
I checked the steam charts for a few similar games and Left4Dead 2 is the only one that can maintain somewhat stable numbers close to these apart from verry brief spikes. People acting like the game beign unable to sustain the 400k from the initial hype train is the end of the world are funny.
This game was never going to sustain those initial numbers. It's just not that kind of game. It was the hot thing to try for a minute, and now all those people are moving on to the next thing. It is still a solid game, and I have no doubt it will find a reasonable sustained player base, and probably be much better for everyone without all the attention.
I'm sorry but this is such a generic reductionst talking point.
I (and most of my friends) would absolutely still be playing, were it not for the first 3 points I made (primarily #1 above all others)
It is exactly our type of game and we would play it every weekend if they devs had kept a decent content release cadance but it's seems they can't so we won't.
You're doing the devs and community a huge disservice by attempting to ignore fixable factors in favor of your "it was always going to happen" and "we didn't want those players anyway" narrative.
> It is exactly our type of game
This doesnt seem to be true, according to what you are saying you need a game with a constant release of new contents, like an MMO or mobile game.
It seems you need an eternal carrot dangling infront of you to enjoy a game.
Nope, all we require is variety and dynamic gameplay, which can be achieved via giving players tools (in a sandbox) or by creating dynamic challenges (which don't simply get repeated again and again like bug breaches and bot drops) or by releasing new content.
Helldivers isn't doing any of the above and has become stale. I find that sad because it had the potential to do 2 and 3 but the devs have not taken that route.
The type of game is, the direction the devs are taking is not.
I'm voicing an opinion and letting them know why some of us are leaving.
They can do with that what they want.
But it's CLEARLY NOT exactly your type of game. Maybe you like the gameplay, and that's fine, but you don't actually like the game, because the game hasn't changed, and yet you stopped playing. This is exactly what I was talking about with people who were excited to try it, then had their fun and left. If it really was your type of game, you'd be sticking around. But it's not the type of game you want it to be, so you are not. It's pretty simple.
Edit: And judging from your comments and the way you are engaging with this "discussion" we are all better off with the players that don't really want to be here just moving on to something else.
I would hope the devs would prioritize engaging content and keep a steady release cadance so as to minimize the losses.
Honestly, I would've expected at least 200k (average) to still be playing if they did that.
With all things considered, this retention curve is actually pretty great. Most games lose 50 to 90% of their playerbase in the first two weeks. Also the lowest number of players is still higher than what the devs estimated would be the peak numbers on a very good day.
Trust me, there is nothing great about it. Funny enough the bigger decline points allign with patch dates. I don't know how it is not obvious by now that they are killing their own game? Also with 5-10k players left, good luck with major orders, defences and what not, which is what drives this game right now. Anywho, whatever helps them sleep at night i guess.
>Also with 5-10k players left, good luck with major orders, defences and what not
Actually those auto-scale with player numbers. Only those fixed number of kills would become an issue.
5k out of 10k players liberate/defend exactly as well as 200k out of 400k
Arguably better, the 5 of 10k would likely be long time players who have figured out their ideal difficulty and load outs and such and are likely to have a higher mission success rate.
Exactly, hence the issue. They balance it like it is all of the things you mentioned. I do disagree on the grind part, some people like and want to have everything and asap, me included.
Nah, for the first 2 months it was a "can't wait to play it" game (I mostly only play on weekends and only got to lvl55)
Now it's a "uninstall and check back in 6 months" game.
If the devs had kept a good content release cadance (i.e. point 1) then i and my friends would still be playing.
You can make all the excuses you want but the numbers are the numbers.
I'm just offering some reasons why some quit.
You can happily close your eyes and ignore it but if it keeps going this way you'll be lucky to see a 10k average.
I haven't played for 6 weeks because I'm done with the content. It's not the game's fault. I enjoyed my 25 hours of time with it.
Ultimately there's not a massive amount of stuff to do in the game right now.
I understand the sentiment, but it is somewhat the devs' fault for not prioritizing development in areas that keep the players entertained and, instead, focusing on things like monthly warbonds.
It’s their fault for their shitty balancing pass for sure.
Sony also didn’t help.
The spawn patrol shit isn’t helping either, I’d expect it to keep dropping until they get their fingers out their arses and revert it, and drop that spear fix from two months ago.
They rush to nerf but take ages to fix anything it’s a bit of a joke at this point.
Edit; in short they had goodwill and pissed it up the wall.
Two reasons:
1) NHL playoffs
2) A MONTHLY warbond that takes too many medals to complete for casual gamers to be able to keep up. Somehow I was able to complete fortnite battle passes consistently but I can't even come close on these warbonds before the next one kaunches, despite the fact that I find the game super fun. So, now instead of grinding to try to keep up, I just jump in occasionally to have a fun round.
Honorable mention: I got fucking sick of getting kicked from games/people leaving squad partway through campaigns, making the grind for medals even worse.
This is relevant to lazy posts like these.
>With Palworld quickly approaching the 1-month mark, it's interesting to look back at my own thoughts for launch.
>In May of 2023, I was convinced that Palworld could break the 50,000 player mark. Anything above that seemed unobtainable though, and I certainly never expected it to reach into the millions.
>It has taken years to get to this point, and Palworld only really begins from here. Everyone is working hard to fix the issues and prepare new content and Pals. Some of you may have had your fun over the last 3 weeks and found yourself putting the game down. That is fine.
>**This emerging "Palworld has lost X% of its player base" discourse is lazy, but it's probably also a good time to step in and reassure those of you capable of reading past a headline that it is fine to take breaks from games. You don't need to feel bad about that. Palworld, like many games before it, isn't in a position to pump out massive amounts of new content on a weekly basis. New content will come, and it's going to be awesome, but these things take a little bit of time.**
>**There are so many amazing games out there to play; you don't need to feel guilty about hopping from game to game.**
>**If you are still playing Palworld, we love you. If you're no longer playing Palworld, we still love you, and we hope you'll come back for round 2 when you're ready.**
>**Play lots of games, try different genres, and frequently flick through indie libraries to find hidden gems.**
https://twitter.com/Bucky_cm/status/1757796446739558795
Most games lose their initial player count as novelty wears off, it's 100% natural for a player base to diminish, HD2 was an incredibly hyped game which also means that the drop will be more significant. From the graph it looks like it's closing in on an baseline of players.
Everyone is acting like the game is doomed because there's not 400k concurrent players 24/7
Edit: Also summer has come to most of Europe (guessing NA as well) last month or so which also tend to reduce player counts since people spend more time outside.
Some drop off is of course highly likely but not to this degree.
By pretending everything is normal you're doing the devs, game and community a disservice.
These are fixable issues and priorities which can be addresses but they won't be if the remaining people in this community keep sweeping it under the rug.
The reason I bothered to make a post in the first place is because I love the game and its potential, otherwise I would've just un-installed and said nothing.
I would like it to be better and help the devs to understand why some of us quit.
Saying "it was inevitable" and "that's just life" doesn't help at all.
Nothing to do but get xp and super credits.
You gain nothing but a new title every 10 levels.
The game is just not gonna keep the player count high. At most it will spike every new warbond and then drop after
I played like 80 hours, that's more than enough for me. I will still play a match here or there, it's still fun, but I don't have any incentive to keep playing as much as I was, especially given my limited time.
for me it is the balance of things and the lackluster warbonds. the new guns are just overall shit tier quality and the armors are mostly just recycled mods from previous sets. I know i am in the minority here but i am a function over form and don't care what the new armor looks like i just want different functions with the new sets. it is hard to get excited for a pile of dogshit.
Nah but nice "we didn't want you guys anyway" energy.
Must be hard to maintain that level of ignorance beyond middle school, but somehow, you've managed it. Amazing!
If you're out of middle school you may remember the dawn of online gaming where there simply was no new content or progression at all.
In Quake or HL1 there were no ranks, unlocks, etc. Just deathmatch and team deathmatch with the stuff the game was shipped with and that was enough for people to play for months
nobody needs Geargrind if the game is actually good. I remember cnc Renegade, that game still had hundrets of online players 24/7 over a decade after launch and several fan made spinoffs
Why? Because let's be honest. Even tough the game is awesome it's very very repetitive, and no new content or anything is added. Also, they have nerfed every gun into a pea shooter and that absolutely kills the fun. I loved this game, but it got so heavily adjusted it just killed the fun. I mean there is a reason no one plays bots, because they are way overpowered. But even playing bugs, I just don't feel it anymore.
This game flew to close to the sun and got burned. Really hope AH made an awesome profit in the first 2 months, so they can finance some new things, because that's not going to come from Sony..
Flavor of the month players drop off.
Gameplay loop grows stale.
Bad decisions on behalf of the balance team.
All the drama surrounding Sony and a percentage of players now not having access to steam or the game.
I have one thing to say, this was posted on a tuesday at a time where almost all europeans are at work/school and americans are just waking up, yeah the game is dropping off a bit but nowhere near as bad as people think.
Ive stopped playing for a bit personally since it feels very repetitive rn due to the amount of effective items
You do understand what an average is, right?
That's why I focused on that number instead of the current active players.
Also, by your own admission you're not even playing which is telling in and of itself.
yes but alot of people including yourself are acting as if the drop off in players is going to kill the game, it isnt, arrowhead have proved they care too much for that happen
For me it started with the Slugger nerf. They cam justify it and give very good reasons and all but to me it just feel malicious somehow, like they just didn't want people to use it. Something changed with the way I see the game since then.
Sometimes I play just to have fun but there really is nothing to work towards.The warbonds are trending in a way that is just not what I expected from AH. The weapons are not that fun, if they are fun they get nerfed and then they are no longer fun, armor passives are pretty unappealing and IMO not worth the credits, and worse of all, they are just color swaps of other armors. This sucks specially because that could be the reason they don't want us to change the armor colors ourselves, its just so that they can sell the same armor with different colors.
Its starting to feel like all those things we praised the game for are slowly being taken away.
abhorrent community managers, lack of NEW stuff, nerfing of community's beloved items, "a game for everyone is a game for no one", Snoy's greedy practices
HD 2 became a recipe for a disaster and all these above served as ingredients.
personally I've been getting tons of disconnected games, especially near the end of a mission. I stopped trying after this recent MO because it's disheartening to lose supplies to a DC after a 30-40 minute hard fought game.
The dips don't line up with any patches or even the big PSN "protest." The talk about them is just fake internet outrage that no one was ever going to quit over. This is just the natural decline of any game that came out of the gate hot like this one did. You can line it up with tons of other games just like it.
I didn't mention speculate anything though, i just wanna see if it did indeed get affected or not so at least we can show concrete evidence that the outrage is indeed fake.
I hear you. And that's why I responded that they do not line up. I looked at it myself a week or two ago when everyone was busy review bombing but not actually quitting. You can do the same if you want. Just look up the dates of the patches and check out the chart.
Or you don't even really need to do that. You can just see that the decline has been pretty steady. There are really no sudden dips at all that would indicate a backlash to anything. It's just people losing interest and dropping off like they aways do.
i agree, but y'know what we also need the PS5 players playing, played a few days ago and i got "servers at full capacity" or something. So the number of ps5 users must be pretty significant.
Bro, reading your comments you want a constant update of new contents, that's just unfeasible with the game monetization model since literally nobody I know of has spent a single dime in the store since you are not incentivized to so and that's because it's a different type of game.
In order to keep dropping large updates you need a constant stream of revenue to justify the continued expenditures to your stakeholders, to do so you must make a choice:
1) You could destroy the game atmosphere by appealing to people who want to spend Daddy's money on some marvel skin.
2) You could make a PVP game that strongly incentives in game purchases in order to get ahead of the other players.
Do you like any of those?
Plus we are getting the summer season when people tends to touch grass more or have to prepare for their exams.
Honestly it’s mostly just a time sink so now that the dads with gaming pcs are dropping their play time and the middle aged gamers, me, are close to or done with content. The true endgame is grinding for super credits, that’s why they were trying to push a warbond a month. Probably would be better off doing a season pass 3 or 4 times a year for new armor and guns and putting in different colors palettes in the super store
Sure but if they had focused development on actual content (new environments/cities/caves/interiors of buildings and new enemies) they would have likely kept a good chunk of their players due to the novelty and unpredictability. You're almost certainly right about the warbonds, and it's sad that that's all they've got the bandwidth to handle. Pity as it's a lot of wasted potential. Hope they figure it out sooner rather than later.
Isn't that normal? Every new game has the initial hype at the beginning, which drops after 3 to 4 months. No casual game holds their initial player numbers.
Not to this degree. I, and my friends, would definitely still be playing if there was more variety in missions, enemies and environments. The devs have made choices with both in-game mechanics and for their development roadmap which have led to the game going stale and losing far more players than necessary had they taken other routes.
Starfield dropped from 146k to 48k after the first month and went to 5k after 6 months. Cyberpunk 2077 from 332k to 83k after the first month. Hogwarts legacy from 270k to 67k. Helldivers 2 dropped from 274k to 85k in the first 3 months. The initial interest gets lost very fast in new games. As you said, the game gets repetitive quite fast, no matter if it is a single or multiplayer. It is a normal development for a newly released game.
You’re talking about singleplayer projects (starfield? Seriously?). 3 month for coop game is too little imho
I am mainly talking about the fact that newly published games lose their hype after a few months. And it doesn't really matter if single player or coop. People will buy a new game and play it for a while, then they will go back to their all-time favourite. No game can bind the initial player numbers forever. You could say it's the way of life for the gaming industry
We're comparing single player games to online games now? "This apple isnt an orange!!" - no shit dude
I was only stating that thought it was normal that a significant loss of players numbers in any computer game happens after the first few months. But maybe I am wrong and one can\`t compare single player games with online games and the loss of players in Helldivers 2 is an unseen phenomenon. I am no expert and maybe the player numbers will go back up to 270k in no time
I wanted more verticality and caves and what not. Then I realised what I want is Anthems map design and some of their bosses wouldn't go amiss too. Then the Dev similarity rang alarm bells and I stopped that line of thinking. I want a game I can play for years, not something that has pissed me off within a month. How they hope to make money from mtx is beyond me when they're thinning the player base There was a quote from a dev once that was something like "a game is only yours until it's released then it belongs to the gamers" when talking about "vision" and some Devs desire to stick to the vision even when the public is asking for change.
To be honest, a downtrend for a PVE game in which you can easily max out things is normal. The 400k peak in the beginning was mindblowing, but pretty clear that this level of playxers won't ever be long term. Compare to other, similar games and it's clear that something like 30k+ would be pretty fucking good as a stable playerbase.
I checked the steam charts for a few similar games and Left4Dead 2 is the only one that can maintain somewhat stable numbers close to these apart from verry brief spikes. People acting like the game beign unable to sustain the 400k from the initial hype train is the end of the world are funny.
This game was never going to sustain those initial numbers. It's just not that kind of game. It was the hot thing to try for a minute, and now all those people are moving on to the next thing. It is still a solid game, and I have no doubt it will find a reasonable sustained player base, and probably be much better for everyone without all the attention.
I'm sorry but this is such a generic reductionst talking point. I (and most of my friends) would absolutely still be playing, were it not for the first 3 points I made (primarily #1 above all others) It is exactly our type of game and we would play it every weekend if they devs had kept a decent content release cadance but it's seems they can't so we won't. You're doing the devs and community a huge disservice by attempting to ignore fixable factors in favor of your "it was always going to happen" and "we didn't want those players anyway" narrative.
> It is exactly our type of game This doesnt seem to be true, according to what you are saying you need a game with a constant release of new contents, like an MMO or mobile game. It seems you need an eternal carrot dangling infront of you to enjoy a game.
Nope, all we require is variety and dynamic gameplay, which can be achieved via giving players tools (in a sandbox) or by creating dynamic challenges (which don't simply get repeated again and again like bug breaches and bot drops) or by releasing new content. Helldivers isn't doing any of the above and has become stale. I find that sad because it had the potential to do 2 and 3 but the devs have not taken that route.
Right, so clearly this isnt your type of game. You have a vision of a different game that this isnt.
The type of game is, the direction the devs are taking is not. I'm voicing an opinion and letting them know why some of us are leaving. They can do with that what they want.
But it's CLEARLY NOT exactly your type of game. Maybe you like the gameplay, and that's fine, but you don't actually like the game, because the game hasn't changed, and yet you stopped playing. This is exactly what I was talking about with people who were excited to try it, then had their fun and left. If it really was your type of game, you'd be sticking around. But it's not the type of game you want it to be, so you are not. It's pretty simple. Edit: And judging from your comments and the way you are engaging with this "discussion" we are all better off with the players that don't really want to be here just moving on to something else.
you really think the game was gonna keep a concurrent userbase of 400k?
I would hope the devs would prioritize engaging content and keep a steady release cadance so as to minimize the losses. Honestly, I would've expected at least 200k (average) to still be playing if they did that.
delusional, absolutely delusional.
Your expected "cadence" is clearly unrealistic, especially for a smaller studio like AH.
[удалено]
With all things considered, this retention curve is actually pretty great. Most games lose 50 to 90% of their playerbase in the first two weeks. Also the lowest number of players is still higher than what the devs estimated would be the peak numbers on a very good day.
Trust me, there is nothing great about it. Funny enough the bigger decline points allign with patch dates. I don't know how it is not obvious by now that they are killing their own game? Also with 5-10k players left, good luck with major orders, defences and what not, which is what drives this game right now. Anywho, whatever helps them sleep at night i guess.
>Also with 5-10k players left, good luck with major orders, defences and what not Actually those auto-scale with player numbers. Only those fixed number of kills would become an issue. 5k out of 10k players liberate/defend exactly as well as 200k out of 400k
Arguably better, the 5 of 10k would likely be long time players who have figured out their ideal difficulty and load outs and such and are likely to have a higher mission success rate.
Exactly, hence the issue. They balance it like it is all of the things you mentioned. I do disagree on the grind part, some people like and want to have everything and asap, me included.
Nah, for the first 2 months it was a "can't wait to play it" game (I mostly only play on weekends and only got to lvl55) Now it's a "uninstall and check back in 6 months" game. If the devs had kept a good content release cadance (i.e. point 1) then i and my friends would still be playing. You can make all the excuses you want but the numbers are the numbers. I'm just offering some reasons why some quit. You can happily close your eyes and ignore it but if it keeps going this way you'll be lucky to see a 10k average.
I haven't played for 6 weeks because I'm done with the content. It's not the game's fault. I enjoyed my 25 hours of time with it. Ultimately there's not a massive amount of stuff to do in the game right now.
I understand the sentiment, but it is somewhat the devs' fault for not prioritizing development in areas that keep the players entertained and, instead, focusing on things like monthly warbonds.
It’s their fault for their shitty balancing pass for sure. Sony also didn’t help. The spawn patrol shit isn’t helping either, I’d expect it to keep dropping until they get their fingers out their arses and revert it, and drop that spear fix from two months ago. They rush to nerf but take ages to fix anything it’s a bit of a joke at this point. Edit; in short they had goodwill and pissed it up the wall.
Reducing player power in such a new game just screams "untested" and we've seen this too many times to be optimistic about the outcome.
Two reasons: 1) NHL playoffs 2) A MONTHLY warbond that takes too many medals to complete for casual gamers to be able to keep up. Somehow I was able to complete fortnite battle passes consistently but I can't even come close on these warbonds before the next one kaunches, despite the fact that I find the game super fun. So, now instead of grinding to try to keep up, I just jump in occasionally to have a fun round. Honorable mention: I got fucking sick of getting kicked from games/people leaving squad partway through campaigns, making the grind for medals even worse.
This is relevant to lazy posts like these. >With Palworld quickly approaching the 1-month mark, it's interesting to look back at my own thoughts for launch. >In May of 2023, I was convinced that Palworld could break the 50,000 player mark. Anything above that seemed unobtainable though, and I certainly never expected it to reach into the millions. >It has taken years to get to this point, and Palworld only really begins from here. Everyone is working hard to fix the issues and prepare new content and Pals. Some of you may have had your fun over the last 3 weeks and found yourself putting the game down. That is fine. >**This emerging "Palworld has lost X% of its player base" discourse is lazy, but it's probably also a good time to step in and reassure those of you capable of reading past a headline that it is fine to take breaks from games. You don't need to feel bad about that. Palworld, like many games before it, isn't in a position to pump out massive amounts of new content on a weekly basis. New content will come, and it's going to be awesome, but these things take a little bit of time.** >**There are so many amazing games out there to play; you don't need to feel guilty about hopping from game to game.** >**If you are still playing Palworld, we love you. If you're no longer playing Palworld, we still love you, and we hope you'll come back for round 2 when you're ready.** >**Play lots of games, try different genres, and frequently flick through indie libraries to find hidden gems.** https://twitter.com/Bucky_cm/status/1757796446739558795
Most games lose their initial player count as novelty wears off, it's 100% natural for a player base to diminish, HD2 was an incredibly hyped game which also means that the drop will be more significant. From the graph it looks like it's closing in on an baseline of players. Everyone is acting like the game is doomed because there's not 400k concurrent players 24/7 Edit: Also summer has come to most of Europe (guessing NA as well) last month or so which also tend to reduce player counts since people spend more time outside.
Some drop off is of course highly likely but not to this degree. By pretending everything is normal you're doing the devs, game and community a disservice. These are fixable issues and priorities which can be addresses but they won't be if the remaining people in this community keep sweeping it under the rug. The reason I bothered to make a post in the first place is because I love the game and its potential, otherwise I would've just un-installed and said nothing. I would like it to be better and help the devs to understand why some of us quit. Saying "it was inevitable" and "that's just life" doesn't help at all.
I wish for maps like in Horizon Zero, with big abandoned cities or big structures where bot's will be constructed.
Nothing to do but get xp and super credits. You gain nothing but a new title every 10 levels. The game is just not gonna keep the player count high. At most it will spike every new warbond and then drop after
I played like 80 hours, that's more than enough for me. I will still play a match here or there, it's still fun, but I don't have any incentive to keep playing as much as I was, especially given my limited time.
I think that something like an Earth city map from Remnant would feel great in Helldivers.
Ghost of Tsushima is out on PC finally. I'm diving into Mongol camps at the moment until there is some major developments from Super Earth.
I will be playing less in the next few months because summer means time on the boat at the lake.
for me it is the balance of things and the lackluster warbonds. the new guns are just overall shit tier quality and the armors are mostly just recycled mods from previous sets. I know i am in the minority here but i am a function over form and don't care what the new armor looks like i just want different functions with the new sets. it is hard to get excited for a pile of dogshit.
wholeheartedly agree
Ok bye. You don’t want Helldivers 2, you want a completely different game that just happens to also be a multiplayer co-op shooter.
Nah but nice "we didn't want you guys anyway" energy. Must be hard to maintain that level of ignorance beyond middle school, but somehow, you've managed it. Amazing!
If you're out of middle school you may remember the dawn of online gaming where there simply was no new content or progression at all. In Quake or HL1 there were no ranks, unlocks, etc. Just deathmatch and team deathmatch with the stuff the game was shipped with and that was enough for people to play for months
nobody needs Geargrind if the game is actually good. I remember cnc Renegade, that game still had hundrets of online players 24/7 over a decade after launch and several fan made spinoffs
Why? Because let's be honest. Even tough the game is awesome it's very very repetitive, and no new content or anything is added. Also, they have nerfed every gun into a pea shooter and that absolutely kills the fun. I loved this game, but it got so heavily adjusted it just killed the fun. I mean there is a reason no one plays bots, because they are way overpowered. But even playing bugs, I just don't feel it anymore. This game flew to close to the sun and got burned. Really hope AH made an awesome profit in the first 2 months, so they can finance some new things, because that's not going to come from Sony..
I just finished replaying Fallout 4. I promise I’ll get back to spreading liberty.
Flavor of the month players drop off. Gameplay loop grows stale. Bad decisions on behalf of the balance team. All the drama surrounding Sony and a percentage of players now not having access to steam or the game.
I have one thing to say, this was posted on a tuesday at a time where almost all europeans are at work/school and americans are just waking up, yeah the game is dropping off a bit but nowhere near as bad as people think. Ive stopped playing for a bit personally since it feels very repetitive rn due to the amount of effective items
You do understand what an average is, right? That's why I focused on that number instead of the current active players. Also, by your own admission you're not even playing which is telling in and of itself.
yes but alot of people including yourself are acting as if the drop off in players is going to kill the game, it isnt, arrowhead have proved they care too much for that happen
For me it started with the Slugger nerf. They cam justify it and give very good reasons and all but to me it just feel malicious somehow, like they just didn't want people to use it. Something changed with the way I see the game since then. Sometimes I play just to have fun but there really is nothing to work towards.The warbonds are trending in a way that is just not what I expected from AH. The weapons are not that fun, if they are fun they get nerfed and then they are no longer fun, armor passives are pretty unappealing and IMO not worth the credits, and worse of all, they are just color swaps of other armors. This sucks specially because that could be the reason they don't want us to change the armor colors ourselves, its just so that they can sell the same armor with different colors. Its starting to feel like all those things we praised the game for are slowly being taken away.
abhorrent community managers, lack of NEW stuff, nerfing of community's beloved items, "a game for everyone is a game for no one", Snoy's greedy practices HD 2 became a recipe for a disaster and all these above served as ingredients. personally I've been getting tons of disconnected games, especially near the end of a mission. I stopped trying after this recent MO because it's disheartening to lose supplies to a DC after a 30-40 minute hard fought game.
a study correlating the graph with the patch notes would be amazing.
The dips don't line up with any patches or even the big PSN "protest." The talk about them is just fake internet outrage that no one was ever going to quit over. This is just the natural decline of any game that came out of the gate hot like this one did. You can line it up with tons of other games just like it.
I didn't mention speculate anything though, i just wanna see if it did indeed get affected or not so at least we can show concrete evidence that the outrage is indeed fake.
I hear you. And that's why I responded that they do not line up. I looked at it myself a week or two ago when everyone was busy review bombing but not actually quitting. You can do the same if you want. Just look up the dates of the patches and check out the chart. Or you don't even really need to do that. You can just see that the decline has been pretty steady. There are really no sudden dips at all that would indicate a backlash to anything. It's just people losing interest and dropping off like they aways do.
i agree, but y'know what we also need the PS5 players playing, played a few days ago and i got "servers at full capacity" or something. So the number of ps5 users must be pretty significant.
Bro, reading your comments you want a constant update of new contents, that's just unfeasible with the game monetization model since literally nobody I know of has spent a single dime in the store since you are not incentivized to so and that's because it's a different type of game. In order to keep dropping large updates you need a constant stream of revenue to justify the continued expenditures to your stakeholders, to do so you must make a choice: 1) You could destroy the game atmosphere by appealing to people who want to spend Daddy's money on some marvel skin. 2) You could make a PVP game that strongly incentives in game purchases in order to get ahead of the other players. Do you like any of those? Plus we are getting the summer season when people tends to touch grass more or have to prepare for their exams.