安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Again you quoted me wrong.
I cited a couple of thing they COULD potentially do such as a 'pull back on some of the egregiously overpriced lootboxes' along with fixing the sever lag, to help stop the flow of players away from the game. I said nothing about them not making money, I said nothing about them not using the loot boxes. I said nothing about them not making enough to go on.
Everything I said was 100% in support of a LOSS OF PLAYERS. I have said NOTHING financially related.
That doesn't seem correct. Because, as an example, this past week shows the low-end numbers as:
56,372
49,233
47,032
43,061
43,195
43,035
For the most part that's a decline. And, just to be clear, you actually don't want to have the scenario you're describing (where the peaks are declining throughout the week by the valleys remain constant), because that's usually a sign of botting (since a bot tends to occupy the server all day long, even after the real players log off).
The trend has been a downward slope since launch and has yet to level off. It's a free-to-play game that is losing players faster than it brings them in. I am not at all surprised that the monetization methods have gotten more controversial over time as there is a smaller and smaller pool of player wallets to tap into.
The "bounce" you're referring to are the weekend bumps. Every weekend the concurrent player count briefly rises before resuming its ongoing decline. But each weekend's count is lower than the previous weekend. The bump occurs on the weekend because that's typically when more players have free gaming time, and can be usually seen in the chart for any video game.
And, of course, we have the typical peaks and valleys that occur daily as part of being in and out of prime time.
The overall trend since launch has been downward.
https://steamdb.info/app/2139460/charts/#max
The Steam chart I'm referring to is based on revenue not concurrent player count.
That would be an odd metric to use as it's more likely to indicate when new items are added to the cash shop. The addition of an overpriced car skin, for example, is likely to generate more interest, sales, and profits even if the population itself isn't rising.
If you're looking to see how the game is doing financially then, sure, sales figures are the way to go. If you're looking to get an idea of whether the game is attracting or losing players then the concurrent player count is where the focus should be. I mean, theoretically we can have a population of one, with that individual spending millions of dollars a month.. that's fine financially but will be a crap for anyone looking for an MMO gameplay experience.
Read the topic of this thread again. What Steam charts do you think they're referring to?
EDIT: Plus please don't edit my quote if you are going to respond to it as it can be taken out of context.
EvilHare mentioned the concurrent player count on the Steam charts and then you agreed with him and also commented on the charts. That's what I was responding to. If you were talking about a different chart it probably would have helped to clarify that in your initial statement.
It's a moot point, however. Again, if you're looking to see how the game is doing financially then, sure, sales figures are the way to go. If you're looking to get an idea of whether the game is attracting or losing players then the concurrent player count is where the focus should be. I mean, theoretically we can have a population of one, with that individual spending millions of dollars a month.. that's fine financially but will be a crap for anyone looking for an MMO gameplay experience.
Which is why I prefaced my statement with PLUS. In the context of the thread it made sense. I didn't think it required me to clarify which Steam chart I was referring to as it's pretty obvious if you actually read the thread instead of jumping in with both feet.
You're stating the obvious here. What is your point?
to show off to others or to annoy others "i know a few of them in my friends group", BUt i'v seen this happen over and over, when the "normies" drop out of the games, whales follow because if they can't show off or annoy others they lose interest in set game too.
once human will go the same route, eventually they will lose most whales, and die into the background like any other game.
the sad part of this all is, devs won't care because before that happens, they earned more then they need to go to the next project where they ripoff whales.
There are many other things they have been doing that have upset the player base and it goes on, and on. But none of it has anything to do with loot boxes. As for wanting to "Show Off" cosmetics that is the strangest thing I've ever heard. I bought my cosmetics because I wanted them, I don't care what my friends and family think about them.
Focus more on what's wrong instead of trying to attack a feature that is nothing more than a distraction. I get it you want the loot boxes but are too cheap, or poor to buy them but that's not Once Humans problem that's yours. I'd bet you're too cheap to even give them 5 bucks to say thanks for the free game without ads.
Did you buy them so you could brag about it in the forums and belittle people who are less financially well off than you claim to be? Sounds like "showing off" to me.
That you agreed with EvilHare's statement, a statement which was incorrect. Apparently I was not being obvious enough.
It's too bad people have to resort to insults to try to make a point. As soon as someone says 'I bet' or 'You probably' they lose all credibility (if they had any to begin with). At that point they are just pulling their own ideas out of the air (or their hindquarters) and assigning them to others with no basis of fact.
And actually, yes there are a fair few players, some who have bought lootboxes, some who did not, who are unhappy with them.
43k for 3 weeks straight isn't leveled off? Why because it fluctuated by ~100? Bots? Really?
EDIT: If that is your point then it's no wonder I missed it.
I'm not sure how you're calculating your numbers because in the last week alone the low-end of the CC numbers has dropped by 13,000 players, and the high-end by 19,000. When we're talking about concurrent populations only measured in the tens of thousands I don't know how anyone can define that as "leveled off".
My bad. I read your post wrong. Apologies. But I seriously doubt they're having to resort to bots. I need to take a break from the forums as the constant doom mongering is really getting irritating.