Why do people think the game is dead

[M4xi2024]

Is it because it lost so much players or there just trolls?

[Enclosure]

It's not trolls.

Originally posted by rage:

Originally posted by DanielSnook:

BECAUSE IT IS!

Show me any other game that launched strong and kept that same number for weeks.

PUBG.
Baldur's Gate III.
Elden Ring*
If this game was 60/70€ i bet it wouldnt even get HALF of the player base.
This game looks BAD. The monsters dont even fit how the open world looks like.

[Angelina]

Originally posted by rage:

Originally posted by DanielSnook:

Show me any other game that lost 1.5 million players in 2 weeks. You can't because Palworld has the record for losing the most players in 2 weeks

Is that your whole argument? Can you do better.

You and others can tell your lies all day but nothing will bring this game back to life

[Kindred Spirit]

Originally posted by RasaNova:

Nobody really thinks the game is dead or dying, but It's one of the easiest and least creative ways to get attention on the forum. You can find the same thing in any highly active game forum, people (often the same ones repeating it) will point at the stats and announce any time it drops more, hoping people won't notice that this is what happens to nearly every game.

BG3, CP2077, Hogwarts, Starfield, No Mans Sky, Elden Ring, it doesn't matter how popular, people will point out dropping player count either as bait or as a way to demean the game or the players.

Even NMS could recover up to about 1/2 of its launch peak with an update years later, and it tanked in reviews on launch.

Palworld is still ~95% Positive, so the results for a major content update should be more favorable.

It's just been a LOUD and SPAMMY 5% on the forums.

[rage]

Originally posted by Enclosure:

It's not trolls.

Originally posted by rage:

Show me any other game that launched strong and kept that same number for weeks.

PUBG.
Baldur's Gate III.
If this game was 60/70€ i bet it wouldnt even get HALF of the player base.
This game looks BAD. The monsters dont even fit how the open world looks like.

That is a good thing being well priced.

[rage]

Originally posted by DanielSnook:

Originally posted by rage:

Is that your whole argument? Can you do better.

You and others can tell your lies all day but nothing will bring this game back to life

"my lies" quote me where I lied?

[Enclosure]

Originally posted by rage:

Originally posted by Enclosure:

It's not trolls.



PUBG.
Baldur's Gate III.
If this game was 60/70€ i bet it wouldnt even get HALF of the player base.
This game looks BAD. The monsters dont even fit how the open world looks like.

That is a good thing being well priced.

It's the only good thing about it.

[Nikusui 😗]

Originally posted by Enclosure:

It's not trolls.

Originally posted by rage:

Show me any other game that launched strong and kept that same number for weeks.

PUBG.
Baldur's Gate III.
If this game was 60/70€ i bet it wouldnt even get HALF of the player base.
This game looks BAD. The monsters dont even fit how the open world looks like.

https://steamdb.info/app/1086940/charts/#all
Do you see a uniform distribution or a peak followed by a drop-off? Maybe you see a monkey-dancing-with-a-cane distribution?

[Angelina]

Originally posted by Enclosure:

It's not trolls.

Originally posted by rage:

Show me any other game that launched strong and kept that same number for weeks.

PUBG.
Baldur's Gate III.
Elden Ring*
If this game was 60/70€ i bet it wouldnt even get HALF of the player base.
This game looks BAD. The monsters dont even fit how the open world looks like.

None of those games lost as many players in 2 weeks as palworld

[Enclosure]

Originally posted by DanielSnook:

Originally posted by Enclosure:

It's not trolls.



PUBG.
Baldur's Gate III.
Elden Ring*
If this game was 60/70€ i bet it wouldnt even get HALF of the player base.
This game looks BAD. The monsters dont even fit how the open world looks like.

None of those games lost as many players in 2 weeks as palworld

he asked games that didnt lost players after the release week.

[The Executioner]

The loss of players is due to it being in EA so the content is thin and dry. Losing players is normal and the more you have at the launch the bigger the loss number will be. Simple math really most games that arent fps shooters usually lose more than half their playerbase after a month. There's not really but a handful of games that kept a big playerbase after it's launch and this is no different. It happens even if it's because it "sucks" there is still over 400k+ concurrent players and still reaching 500k daily. Game is far from dying or dead and has more players than most games that have released in the last 10 years. The lack of content due to it being EA is a major reason and the 2 reason is the game finding it's fanbase who like palworld. ofc most people won't stick around due to the game just not being their cup of tea.

[rage]

Originally posted by Enclosure:

Originally posted by DanielSnook:

None of those games lost as many players in 2 weeks as palworld

he asked games that didnt lost players after the release week.

It lost alot of players but it will remain in the top 5 games for a very long time.

[=EBS= WarGanisM]

I'll take the bait, because this thread could also meet the criteria, as the title should be Why do SOME people. Because saying why do people simply it's a fact for the majority..

The answer is Trolls and stupidity. Simple.

This sort of behavior has existed for years. it seems to mostly perpetuate in multiplayer/mmos games. They act as if a game is supposed to infinitely increase, or stay the same.

Because people don't buy games in impulse, or play because of other friends, and not really dig the game and stop.

Because some people like the game, but have other interests that they prefer. Or a new game release that gets their attention.

Or because people consume the content then move on, or come back later.

For me despite the play with friends aspects, I play Palworld single player, I really don't think of this as a massive multiplayer game, I have no desire to go on public/official servers.

But no one would ever make this sort of argument with a single player game. Omg Sonic the Hedgehog 1 is a terrible game, because no one is playing it now!

Most here are trolls, or award farmers. Posts with serious content don't really get attention, something simply provocative or gas lighting, and watch the drama unfold. That's pretty much how success is driven on the Internet, media click bait etc. mix that in with a community (gaming community) that suffers largely from stop liking what I don't like syndrome, and it explains all the omg game is dying.
Nintendo is going to sue. Blah blah blah threads.

And even if they're were correct, it is "dying" what the hell does it matter to anyone, if you can personally still enjoy the game to it's full potential. You don't need strangers to know you're enjoying a game.

[GrandTickler]

Originally posted by Lvl3Maxi:

Is it because it lost so much players or there just trolls?

just dopamine starved kids with herd mentality who want to farm steam reward points after seeing how the community reacts to them

[Nodster]

Originally posted by DanielSnook:

Originally posted by Enclosure:

It's not trolls.



PUBG.
Baldur's Gate III.
Elden Ring*
If this game was 60/70€ i bet it wouldnt even get HALF of the player base.
This game looks BAD. The monsters dont even fit how the open world looks like.

None of those games lost as many players in 2 weeks as palworld

And yet somehow you are arguing a metric that is so marginal that is is laughable because of how few games that have actually achieved that massive player count of concurrent players.
This metric proves nothing in the grand scheme as it matters not if the game started with millions of player or a few thousand.
Granted the drop of is going to look bigger because of the numbers, bigger number of players will always look like a bigger number of drop of.
The reality is that after the first couple of week the drop of will always be somewhere around 90 - 95% player drop of and that is regardless of the size of the player base as those people will move on to other games or new released games and thus the cycle begins again for those games too.
Just for comparison, Baldur's Gate dropped roughly half the player count in it's first month.
The only real argument you can make here is that Palworld lacks content which would attribute to the drop of but it is an Early Access game so of course it will lack content because that is the nature of Early Access and even then when a content update drops those numbers will rise again for a period of time.
Now that your point has been disproved what was the point you was trying to prove and failed at?

[GrandTickler]

Originally posted by DanielSnook:

Originally posted by Enclosure:

It's not trolls.



PUBG.
Baldur's Gate III.
Elden Ring*
If this game was 60/70€ i bet it wouldnt even get HALF of the player base.
This game looks BAD. The monsters dont even fit how the open world looks like.

None of those games lost as many players in 2 weeks as palworld

as for elden ring and bg3, these were finished products with hundreds of hours of content. pubg is a pvp game which are usually interesting enough to retain playerbase for far longer.
palworld is a unfinished early access title missing like 60% of its content