Why are people obsessed with player count ?

[Usagi-chan]

I understand that it is important for an online based game, but what good does it do to a single player game ?

[Cryemore]

They think they are somehow getting one over on those of us who actually enjoyed the game. The drop-off is normal and completely expected for the average single player title.

[CH13F]

because gen-z type millenials always going to be part of popularity-wagons nowadays. its like a rule for them. basically youtuber mentality. they change games faster than they change underwear.

[Narafian]

They like to feel like they're playing something "good" and they need others to validate if what they're playing is good or not by seeing how many people are playing it.

[B҉O҉I҉L҉E҉D]

Originally posted by Narafian:

They like to feel like they're playing something "good" and they need others to validate if what their playing is good.

That's... pathetic

[Narafian]

Originally posted by B҉O҉I҉L҉E҉D:

Originally posted by Narafian:

They like to feel like they're playing something "good" and they need others to validate if what their playing is good.

That's... pathetic

i agree but there's people who are followers, i've met many people like that sadly.

[D. Flame]

It is a good metric for showing how shallow and unfun a game is. If a game is good, it will maintain players for a long time. Like after I beat DMC4 the 1st time, I went back and replayed it, tried to get max ranks, tried to make it into the top 100 on the leader boards, etc.

When I finished DD2 the first time, I walked away.

[Cryemore]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

It is a good metric for showing how shallow and unfun a game is. If a game is good, it will maintain players for a long time. Like after I beat DMC4 the 1st time, I went back and replayed it, tried to get max ranks, tried to make it into the top 100 on the leader boards, etc.

When I finished DD2 the first time, I walked away.

This is a good metric for games that have systems in place to support activities like you described. My first playthrough of DD2 took 97 hours. It was great fun and well worth my money. I'm content to wait for an expansion to play more. I've jumped back in for an hour or two here and there since, but I got what I wanted out of it. I will revisit again for any future content in the future and will inevitably play through the entire game again in 2-3 years.

Now if I bought a monster hunter style game and got anything less than 250 hours out of it I would be wholly disappointed. These are radically different types of games.

[B҉O҉I҉L҉E҉D]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

It is a good metric for showing how shallow and unfun a game is.

Not every game work that way...
Blindy applying metrics that doesn't fit into things means Statistical fallacies, and basing your opinion from it means that your opinion is full of fallacies

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by Cryemore:

Originally posted by D. Flame:

It is a good metric for showing how shallow and unfun a game is. If a game is good, it will maintain players for a long time. Like after I beat DMC4 the 1st time, I went back and replayed it, tried to get max ranks, tried to make it into the top 100 on the leader boards, etc.

When I finished DD2 the first time, I walked away.

This is a good metric for games that have systems in place to support activities like you described. My first playthrough of DD2 took 97 hours. It was great fun and well worth my money. I'm content to wait for an expansion to play more. I've jumped back in for an hour or two here and there since, but I got what I wanted out of it. I will revisit again for any future content in the future and will inevitably play through the entire game again in 2-3 years.

Now if I bought a monster hunter style game and got anything less than 250 hours out of it I would be wholly disappointed. These are radically different types of games.

I beat Shredder's Revenge. First thing I did after? Play it again. I beat Dark Arisen. First thing I did after? Another play through. Etc.

[Varagonax]

Originally posted by Laan:

I understand that it is important for an online based game, but what good does it do to a single player game ?

Its a metric that one can use to suppose the health of a game but that REALLY only applies to live service online multiplayer games. In those instances, a low player count means that it takes longer to matchmake, there's less people to help you ect ect.

None of this applies to a game in EA (like palworld) or a single player title. In these situations, its perfectly normal for people to beat the game and move on until something interesting happens (like new dlc, content drops, big patches ect ect). For these games, you can't JUST look at player counts; You have to account for what other games released or got new content within that time frame, you have to compare the drop to other drops within similar titles, and you have to check to see if the game is just going through a cycle of player retention, whether or not the game released or changed something that did poorly ect...

Once they announce and release a dlc, the numbers will rise, settle, then fall again. But people think that the single metric is all that matters.

[Cryemore]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by Cryemore:

This is a good metric for games that have systems in place to support activities like you described. My first playthrough of DD2 took 97 hours. It was great fun and well worth my money. I'm content to wait for an expansion to play more. I've jumped back in for an hour or two here and there since, but I got what I wanted out of it. I will revisit again for any future content in the future and will inevitably play through the entire game again in 2-3 years.

Now if I bought a monster hunter style game and got anything less than 250 hours out of it I would be wholly disappointed. These are radically different types of games.

I beat Shredder's Revenge. First thing I did after? Play it again. I beat Dark Arisen. First thing I did after? Another play through. Etc.

It usually takes me at least a year or three to revisit a game I've finished. Everybody's different.

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by Cryemore:

Originally posted by D. Flame:

I beat Shredder's Revenge. First thing I did after? Play it again. I beat Dark Arisen. First thing I did after? Another play through. Etc.

It usually takes me at least a year or three to revisit a game I've finished. Everybody's different.

Most people will immediately replay a good game. The fact that not even people claiming to be fans want to replay it immediately is incredibly telling.

[Arthur Morrigan]

They're farming clown awards.

[Narafian]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by Cryemore:

It usually takes me at least a year or three to revisit a game I've finished. Everybody's different.

Most people will immediately replay a good game. The fact that not even people claiming to be fans want to replay it immediately is incredibly telling.

i've never been able to replay a game no matter how amazing it is, I'm the same way with movies and shows. As the other guy said, everyone's different.

[Lavian]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by Cryemore:

It usually takes me at least a year or three to revisit a game I've finished. Everybody's different.

Most people will immediately replay a good game. The fact that not even people claiming to be fans want to replay it immediately is incredibly telling.

Nah. Most people don't even finish games. How many games, that aren't visual novels or extremely short, can you name that have over 50% end achievement rates on Steam?