Players count dwindling fast o.0

[Vi]

What's goin down I wonder?

[1CMF]

Originally posted by Kyota:

Originally posted by 1CMF:

Games can end...you know......as much as the money grubbing executives in the gaming industry want, not everything has to be a never ending player farm.

It's strange how games like Elden Ring - Monster Hunter World - Helldivers 2, all retain a huge following even years past their initial launch.

It's almost as if good games, foster a community that want to keep playing the game for years to come.

And it's almsot as if DD2 ain't one of those games...because well...it's not a really good game.

The community of DD1 continuing to play after the game was released was VERY tiny. Somehow this game got a lot of hype. I suspect, the community will shrink back down to a core similar to DD1.

Honestly without hard numbers, we can't quantify this, but general community talk about the two, I heard very little of DD1 and I had DD2 thrown in my face prior to launch and then huge negative response post launch due to people not understanding the game.

I bought DD1 in 2015 I think? I didn't play it until 4 or 5 months ago on a whim. My initial reaction was, wtf why did I buy this, but I got to understand it better and soon appreciated it for all it's jank. That is helping me now better appreciate the second game.

Of course some people like the first 3 trilogies of star wars, others love the second trilogy. No one likes the 3rd 😝. But exposure points in life and and "core memories" often help make early adopters appreciate the originals over remakes.


-edit-
Just realized you were comparing live service games with a single player game, not DD1 to DD2. Elden Ring is kind of an exception, as it is similar to DD1/2 in the sense of an open world game with limited online interactions, but the online interaction with players is somehow more direct than in DD1/2.

The soulsborne online experience was originally shrouded in mystique and you didn't even realize it was an online game till way after the fact and that red spirit was an actual player, then the shock and amazement kicks in and you love it (or hate the cheaters).

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by Seasalt:

helldivers

Originally posted by CJGamerX:

Originally posted by Ryan Fenton:

I'm waiting for mods to get updated a bit since the last update.

Though I may play something else for a while instead.

It's really not as good a game as Dragon's Dogma 1 was.

I'm sure it took effort - but they made a LOT of really bad design decisions.

Mods can fix some of them - but the whole game seems a lot more anti-player than even a souls-like game.

The point of a souls-like game is that there's a world where there's rules you have to adapt to, and you have unlimited chances to explore those, and improve at your own pace.

This game has time limits, forced population genocide scenarios, quest ending item limits, and an end-game time limit. The post game does a lot of things wrong - it's just a big design mess as a game.

I can see what they were kind of going for - but what they were going for feels bad as a game - that they WANTED the game to be like that is what feels bad.

Especially compared to DD1.

The game is basically by default on easy mode, and doesn't have a difficulty option like DDDA has, and curatives don't heal wounds anymore, making curatives a lot more pointless than they previously were. They cut so many corners and did a lot of streamlining for god knows why, but it bogs down the game experience immensely.

Not to say I'm not enjoying it, as with the new weapon movesets whatnot your character becomes much stronger much sooner in Dragon's Dogma 2, making the barrier of entry a bit smoother. But my god, is it an inferior game beyond graphics, combat and better NPC AI.

Originally posted by -iD-:

Originally posted by Kyota:

It's strange how games like Elden Ring - Monster Hunter World - Helldivers 2, all retain a huge following even years past their initial launch.

It's almost as if good games, foster a community that want to keep playing the game for years to come.

And it's almsot as if DD2 ain't one of those games...because well...it's not a really good game.

say it with me, those are multiplayer games.

Then why did people play Dark Arisen for thousands of hours and over multiple years?

[[-iD-]]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by Seasalt:

helldivers

Originally posted by CJGamerX:

The game is basically by default on easy mode, and doesn't have a difficulty option like DDDA has, and curatives don't heal wounds anymore, making curatives a lot more pointless than they previously were. They cut so many corners and did a lot of streamlining for god knows why, but it bogs down the game experience immensely.

Not to say I'm not enjoying it, as with the new weapon movesets whatnot your character becomes much stronger much sooner in Dragon's Dogma 2, making the barrier of entry a bit smoother. But my god, is it an inferior game beyond graphics, combat and better NPC AI.

Originally posted by -iD-:

say it with me, those are multiplayer games.

Then why did people play Dark Arisen for thousands of hours and over multiple years?

people, you aren't representative of people, ddda only at a peak of 27,368 people on pc despite having a hefty cult following on the other platforms.

[AvG]

This is just a thought, but a lot of people work jobs on weekdays!

[1CMF]

So I went to steam charts and looked up the player count for DD:DA

Release (January 2016) had 13,191.5
(assuming this is a flat number and not "thousand players")
February 2016 - 3,944.9 players (70.10% loss of players)
March 2016 - 1,372.9 players
---skip forward a year---
March 2017 - 763.5 players.
July 2017 there was a bump - 1,143.8 players
For the continuing years it fluctuated between 500-1000 players.
March 2024 - 6,130.5 players (+210.44% gain)
This was probably people getting ready for DD2

DD2 does not have the longevity behind it for trend analysis, but:

March 2024 - 130,734 players
Last 30 days - 93,874.9 players (28.19% loss of players).

So by statistics, DD:DA lost more players in a month than DD2. The giant following people mention was 100s of people, maybe 1000s.

Very very very small community that kept playing and loving the original game for years.
(this only shows steam, and not console players)

[Ryan Fenton]

DDDA was already in the 'long tail' of the game's lifespan, starting on 360 - there was no pressure to play it at launch on PC, since it really needed mods to get good as a game there.

That said, even it started out far better on PC than DD2.

But if you add up the total gaming hours and number of owners... I very much doubt that DD2 will catch up until it's in a Humble Bundle or free on Epic/Amazon or something.

[CJGamerX]

Originally posted by AvG:

This is just a thought, but a lot of people work jobs on weekdays!

Right?! I got off a few hours ago. I wish I had people to mooch off of like 50% of the internet!

[1CMF]

Originally posted by Ryan Fenton:

DDDA was already in the 'long tail' of the game's lifespan, starting on 360 - there was no pressure to play it at launch on PC, since it really needed mods to get good as a game there.

That said, even it started out far better on PC than DD2.

But if you add up the total gaming hours and number of owners... I very much doubt that DD2 will catch up until it's in a Humble Bundle or free on Epic/Amazon or something.

Totally fair, because DD:DA was the recap "final" version of the game (like releasing skyrim 20 something times over the years) , so I am sure most beat it and moved on by then.

What this does show is the supposed "continued community" fallacy that people swear by as a reason this game is bad versus the first.

Also by the above stats, DD:DA did not launch better than DD2.

Player hours is not a stat I don't think I can tally up, or I would like to compare those too.

[ShadowSkill11]

Its a single player video game. Are you still playing The Witcher 3 at the moment?

[Rhythmless Ninja]

...Why in the world would player count matter in this game? It's single player. Even pawns continue to be active when people aren't playing. Swear people will find anything to just whine about lol

[AvG]

I still have 400ish npcs to test affinity for my guide so I will playing for a bit. Maybe another 100 hours just for that?

[[-iD-]]

Originally posted by Ryan Fenton:

DDDA was already in the 'long tail' of the game's lifespan, starting on 360 - there was no pressure to play it at launch on PC, since it really needed mods to get good as a game there.

That said, even it started out far better on PC than DD2.

But if you add up the total gaming hours and number of owners... I very much doubt that DD2 will catch up until it's in a Humble Bundle or free on Epic/Amazon or something.

no it didn't dd1 had an expediency to sell 1.5m. it sold 1.3m a year after release.
ddda sold 2.1m after a year for ps3/xbox360
dd2 sold 2.5m in two weeks.

if your counting only pc ddda sold only 200k units in its first week.

[kalashnjkov21]

Multiplayer pvp mode is why Elden Ring, a 2 years old game still have more concurrent players than this game. Singleplay only game always dies fast if its modding community isnt as big as Skyrim or stalker games.

[CJGamerX]

Originally posted by kalashnjkov21:

Multiplayer pvp mode is why Elden Ring, a 2 years old game still have more concurrent players than this game. Singleplay only game always dies fast if its modding community isnt as big as Skyrim or stalker games.

Actually DD2 has more gameplay changing mods starting off on the nexus than DDDA/DD1 has.

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by CJGamerX:

Originally posted by kalashnjkov21:

Multiplayer pvp mode is why Elden Ring, a 2 years old game still have more concurrent players than this game. Singleplay only game always dies fast if its modding community isnt as big as Skyrim or stalker games.

Actually DD2 has more gameplay changing mods starting off on the nexus than DDDA/DD1 has.

Because DA is a better game. There is less that needs fixed right out of the box.