how populated are the servers

[Azade12]

wondering

[RTX 5080 FE(Mr Happy)]

https://steamcharts.com/app/1058650

174 current
331 in past 24 hours
1228 all time high.

Personally. not worth until the player base is considerably higher.

It has no single player so there is no future without a player base. Just look at World War 3. Went belly up.

[World's Strongest Man 1984]

Originally posted by Toothless Raider:

https://steamcharts.com/app/1058650

174 current
331 in past 24 hours
1228 all time high.

Personally. not worth until the player base is considerably higher.

It has no single player so there is no future without a player base. Just look at World War 3. Went belly up.

Yeah this game seems to have flopped...hard. Less than 200 concurrent players 3 weeks after release is not a good start.

[RTX 5080 FE(Mr Happy)]

Originally posted by Uncle Ron:

Originally posted by Toothless Raider:

https://steamcharts.com/app/1058650

174 current
331 in past 24 hours
1228 all time high.

Personally. not worth until the player base is considerably higher.

It has no single player so there is no future without a player base. Just look at World War 3. Went belly up.

Yeah this game seems to have flopped...hard. Less than 200 concurrent players 3 weeks after release is not a good start.

Normally I would give the over used reply of "early access" but when a game doesnt have any single player content AND is early access I avoid it like the plague, because with no population you have no game.


The devs would do well to add AI bots or something, for when the population is low.

[World's Strongest Man 1984]

Originally posted by Toothless Raider:

Originally posted by Uncle Ron:

Yeah this game seems to have flopped...hard. Less than 200 concurrent players 3 weeks after release is not a good start.

Normally I would give the over used reply of "early access" but when a game doesnt have any single player content AND is early access I avoid it like the plague, because with no population you have no game.


The devs would do well to add AI bots or something, for when the population is low.

Really good point actually. Even more so at the current price-tag... $30+ for a multiplayer-only, early-access game with almost no players is a complete rip-off. I'd consider buying it if at least had bots like you say, but right now I'm staying well away. I personally don't see the player base growing. If it's like this now, I can't see it getting any better, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

[Catman]

Yeah man, the game is good for what there is. But as far as content goes there is not much at all. Then we have the the player base which is almost zero. The maps are extremely buggy and yes, I understand its in EA, but considering there is only three maps and they are all buggy, that's kinda trash. To be fair, I like the game. But honestly, I doubt this one is gonna make it. 35 is WAY TO MUCH for what they have.

[As5AppL3]

Game RIP.................................................................back my money! (next WW3)

[SovietPowerlifting]

I'll say it again: mininum specs are too high for most people.

[miKi]

I hope you guys maintain an open mind about the game. It may not be for you right now because of technical difficulties and the price being too steep. However, you came onto the forums so the game caught your interest. You don't need to buy to just keep in touch with game news. Please be respectful to the people that have worked very hard on bringing this game to EA and are continuing to work hard to bring in more content for people to enjoy. Who knows, eventually you may come back and see that it has grown and you may join in on the fun. Until then, I hope your year ends well and your holidays are everything you hoped they would be!

[Eisprinzessin]

Checked yesterday the lobby and was just dissapointed of what i saw...just sad...

[crazycooch17]

Damn yall super negative... this game is a lot of fun if you enjoy realistic multiplayer shooters, there has consistently been at least one or two full servers for me and I can definitely see that growing. People complaining about only a couple servers? Why is that a turnoff? Do you only play battlefield? I dont see what the issue is if there is always a game to join... I come from playing HLL and there are similarities between them in launch. A lot of the things that people say are "super buggy" can be easily fixed. $30 is maybe slightly steep but I support what they have so far and I'm curious to see where they go from here.

[Sir Clavius]

This game should have no problem with population...Because this game has marketing idea to attract players from USA. Because its a bigger market than EU. Thats why this game ignored whole war and jumped stright into late war with USA.

[World's Strongest Man 1984]

Originally posted by Dante:

Originally posted by Ulrich:

This game should have no problem with population...Because this game has marketing idea to attract players from USA. Because its a bigger market than EU. Thats why this game ignored whole war and jumped stright into late war with USA.

I think the pricing is also an issue. I've never seen so many people on a game's discussion page actively posting who don't even own the game. Price is just too high at the moment for what the game is and the player base is suffering as a result.

Absolutely.

[Desiire]

The more these modders make standalone games on the Squad core the less people are inclined to buy them. I'm not paying 35 dollars for a mod. Sorry. There's so many games being built on Squad core as it is, and there's tons of free mods for Squad too. I'm not paying for every single X-War Squad mod that comes out. The more people make Squad games, the more the playerbase gets divided and the more people get tired of playing Squad games in general.

This is the first of many, but it's also going to be the first to crap the bed hard until they drop the price tag. Games rarely get their playerbase back up after their initial release, no matter how many great changes they make. The novelty wears off fast. Nobody wants to pay 35 bucks for this game because they all know it'll be dead by January.

Come January, Verdun will still have players. Save yourself some money and buy that instead. We could do with more people in their trenches

[World's Strongest Man 1984]

Originally posted by Desiire:

The more these modders make standalone games on the Squad core the less people are inclined to buy them. I'm not paying 35 dollars for a mod. Sorry. There's so many games being built on Squad core as it is, and there's tons of free mods for Squad too. I'm not paying for every single X-War Squad mod that comes out. The more people make Squad games, the more the playerbase gets divided and the more people get tired of playing Squad games in general.

This is the first of many, but it's also going to be the first to crap the bed hard until they drop the price tag. Games rarely get their playerbase back up after their initial release, no matter how many great changes they make. The novelty wears off fast. Nobody wants to pay 35 bucks for this game because they all know it'll be dead by January.

Come January, Verdun will still have players. Save yourself some money and buy that instead. We could do with more people in their trenches

I agree with you - it's also what I was saying in my original comment too. It's unlikely that the player-base will ever recover. If it's not good at launch, it's likely never going to be good.

When there's so many other games like this that are so much better, cheaper, and with tons more players, it doesn't make financial sense to buy a game that's worse than all of it's competitors. They need to drop the price and increase the content to at least recover what they've lost already. I really want to see this game succeed, I really do, but I feel that the players care more about this game than the developers do.

Final words for the developers - lower the price and increase the content or this game will never see the light of day.