A new take on "dwindling" player base...

[Bait]

Much has been said but not remotely as much has been thought, I'm afraid.

After watching Pilestedt's 46min talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L-31Fg_jfg and then understanding a bit better their original rationale, I've come across this other one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9FD_vLwqe0
which brings a whole new refreshing take on the matter and condenses some of what I had been thinking over the past few days.

As a former Squad player who disgruntedly foresaw 3 years ago what would happen to that game (and still sad to have been proven right as I've just seen) I've come to understand what AH means by "A game for everyone is a game for no one", and even though I (as usual) don't agree with all points made in both videos, they helped me make sense of what's currently going on and what AH is trying (though still failing) to achieve.

On another take, having a reduced player base could be a good thing in terms of reducing server costs and support requests, *if* (that's a big IF) it helps focusing on making the game better.

Hope these help you muster other ideas as well. Cheers!

[Forblaze]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Helldivers™ 2:

Duh, who said otherwise

Ursprungligen skrivet av Helldivers™ 2:

6 months in people still refuse to accept that many players left because of the countless issues. Keep coping.

Okay, sure, a non-zero amount of people left because of whatever pet issue you have in mind. It's not the reason for the vast, vast majority of the player base's decline though.

[Big frank]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Mother Heffer:

They don't know how to work on the game. Literally. That's my guess. I don't think it's that deep.

Supposedly through their own words on twitter posts members of the team that worked on the games code have at some point left the company. and it's one of those situations where only they really knew how it worked.

[Forblaze]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Helldivers™ 2:

Please tell me what you know "THE reason" for the vast vast majority leaving is. Because even claiming to know that makes you lose credibility.

I already said it. Nihil said it too. They left because they weren't the kind of people that play this sort of game to begin with. It was popular because it was popular and a lot of people really only play games that are popular. There was never any chance that they retained all of those players.

[Forblaze]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Helldivers™ 2:

Ah ok,.so a game fell to maybe 5% of its playerbase because, you see, all those guys made a mistake! They never meant to buy it!

Of course not even a noteable percent left because of facing design or technical issues, that would mean the dev did something wrong. You see, it's user error!

If that is not cope i don't know what it, you are literally suffering from the medical definition of coping.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fad

[ImACat]

i have unlocked everything when i'm around level 60ish and have everything at max cap limit like medals, sample and etc. I like this game but it's hard to continue playing a repetitive game like this with nothing else to work for. I think they miss out this part when making this game. Sometimes i joined lower difficulty game to help newer player and to use the weaker weapons or stratagem that i rarely use in higher difficulty due to it's not economical to use. i'm at level 100 now and still play but with no new goals i'm starting to shift to other games too.

[Bait]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Endy:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Bait:

Much has been said but not remotely as much has been thought, I'm afraid.

After watching Pilestedt's 46min talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L-31Fg_jfg and then understanding a bit better their original rationale, I've come across this other one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9FD_vLwqe0
which brings a whole new refreshing take on the matter and condenses some of what I had been thinking over the past few days.

As a former Squad player who disgruntedly foresaw 3 years ago what would happen to that game (and still sad to have been proven right as I've just seen) I've come to understand what AH means by "A game for everyone is a game for no one", and even though I (as usual) don't agree with all points made in both videos, they helped me make sense of what's currently going on and what AH is trying (though still failing) to achieve.

On another take, having a reduced player base could be a good thing in terms of reducing server costs and support requests, *if* (that's a big IF) it helps focusing on making the game better.

Hope these help you muster other ideas as well. Cheers!

idk when they said they were slowing development because they were sad, that was kind of the last nail in the coffin

lol

They never did. It's been a repeated misrepresentation of a Q&A where Pilstedt answer a very common question on how the crew's mental health was with all this situation, then added a well-known argument in psychology that says that low engagement / motivation / morale causes low productivity. He didn't write it as a justification (not remotely), rather something of concern and that I personally feel they're trying to avoid.

All the talk is just misrepresentation by people who can't read, don't care looking at sources, like to think what they're told (aka no critical thinking) and/or are outright ill-intentioned. Don't fall for it.

[Bait]

Ursprungligen skrivet av New To This:

So what you're saying OP./

Is that it's GOOD if the devs take the money and run! (Stop development and ignore players to get server numbers down)
Greed is good(Eve online's most iconic line, over a 50$ cosmetic monocle.

Not remotely, please read the WHOLE post. My point with this post is that the dwindling player base issue is vastly exaggerated. I only added a note that having to deal with less "managing people" and its consequences *could* temporarily allow some space (and budget) for them to fix the game. In the long run, this would hurt more than help, as they also get revenue from warbonds, which will surely not sell if the game isn't doing well in most aspects.

[Bait]

Good points were brought up, but I'd like to address a very important issue that's going unnoticed: most of your arguments are NOT mutually exclusive. As some have said in this very thread, it would be naive to think it's only or two causes, it's rather a very complex issue.

Sony's maintaining some 170 countries locked out of the game is an issue.
Bugs (not in but on the game), freezes, crashes are an issue.
Changes in directions are an issue and a good thing (many will come back to check what new crazy stuff they added or did to the game, many will leave due to that) that needs careful consideration.
Amateurish (or outright stupid) community management is an issue.
The game's concept being good is a sustaining factor.
Most of the game's execution is a sustaining factor.
The engine having been discontinued 3 years into development is a MAJOR issue.
Them deciding to not only maintain the game on the engine, but also maintain the engine by themselves is both a major issue and a small asset.
Them changing the game to balance appeasing the crowd and bringing it back to their original vision is an issue.
The geopolitical scene and its correlation with the game's lore is a sustaining factor.
People joining the trending bandwagon then leaving is an issue (but surely no 98% can be just a fad).
Lack of content is an issue for some, but not all.
Resurrecting discarded content to compensate for lack of content would seem like a positive, but brings more issues than good.
Them not realizing that the game as it was at launch was great, albeit not how they thought it *should* be (i.e. that it's "accidentally" great) is an issue, then trying to "fix" it into becoming what they *thought* it should be actually made the issue worse.

None of those factors excludes the others, they rather compound into what we see today. Same for the reasons that made the game explode, then implode, from sheer unexpected success - it was a compounding of multiple factors, spiced by its very on-point satire of reality.

That's why I thought bringing up the point that a dwindling player base is overrated and that the game might now be finally reaching a state more akin to its intended and fitting size might be a good thing for the future of the game, as well as allowing AH to reflect on what made it great and stop juggling balls that had never been on their basket.

Peace!

[Bait]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Sanglaine:

The thing about cars is the AI equivalent of a strawman. The 'car for everyone' is just a jeep.

I commented on that first video in another thread. But to summarize, he wants to make a game where you are a stormtrooper, but instead made a game where you are a C&C3 GDI Commando and doesn't realize it.

So now he's trying to nerf the game into stormtrooper status.


Effectively they don't want to adapt to the game they made, the game has to adapt to them.


https://youtu.be/we1NWl1_OIs?t=43


THIS is what the player is, not just some grunt troops.

Very good point as well. They don't realize that the game, broken as it was, was exactly what made it great, and trying to "fix" the game to their original vision is the cause of controversy.

Like wanting your kid to be a lawyer, then lamenting them becoming a very successful engineer and keeping to insist that they change professions.

[Bait]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Mepho:

*
very good points and some confusion

I'd like to address your post specifically because in part it refers back to my response above, which concurs with your thoughts.

But I fell you're a bit off on a couple topics:
- first, you're falling into the same pitfall of trying to simplify the game's success down to one or two factors. No one sells 12 million copies in 12 weeks for one or two factors, it HAS to be a compounding effect of multiple factors, just like losing 98% of it. Pilestedt actually throws some more elaborate thoughts on the game's reasons for success at ~36 and I still think it's a MASSIVE over-simplification, but I'd rather leave those thoughts for later ;)

- bringing up ditched contents was in response for demands of "MOAR CONTENT" that popped up pretty wildly in the beginning, which remains to date, and is very common in gaming. It's a very common pitfall, and trying to cater for that demand usually casts disaster for those who try.

- the correct timestamps are 31:50 and 34:00 (not 21:50 and 35), but I don't think he's dissing anyone, it's rather the opposite: he's just saying that they "trained" the community to accomplish goals together towards an ideal and we followed that in full to show Sony our discontentment. The "the community you grow is the community you get" line is actually a compliment for staying true to their nature even IRL.

Apart from those nitpicks, very good points, thanks for dropping them in.

[RunningBot]

Ursprungligen skrivet av JPM:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Bait:

... they went on an undeserved 2 month vacation...

Undeserved? They sold millions of copies. If I sold a million of anything I'd take a WELL DESERVED vacation.

Need to bin that "they serve us" nonsense. Like they aren't humans at a job that just sold a hit product.

[Bait]

Ursprungligen skrivet av RunningBot:

Ursprungligen skrivet av JPM:

Undeserved? They sold millions of copies. If I sold a million of anything I'd take a WELL DESERVED vacation.

Need to bin that "they serve us" nonsense. Like they aren't humans at a job that just sold a hit product.

Just want to highlight that the quotation is a bit off and it wasn't me who said it. ;)

[DaS]

Ursprungligen skrivet av RunningBot:

Ursprungligen skrivet av JPM:

Undeserved? They sold millions of copies. If I sold a million of anything I'd take a WELL DESERVED vacation.

Need to bin that "they serve us" nonsense. Like they aren't humans at a job that just sold a hit product.

well Sonys marketing dept might have had a bit to do with it, call it a shared success

The game at launch and the game sony marketed was actually pretty close(kinda rare in game marketing), and people loved it. It was buggy AF and no one cared(EDIT well mostly no one cared I'm sure some did). It's when the divergence began between those to ideas that things kinda went sideways. way b4 Sony stepped in it with the PSN crap, which admittedly didn't do it any favors. By that time it had already done the lions share of contracting.

[Ashrock]

wait....I just realized something. Them slowing down development for hurt feelings is like needing safe rooms. What was once needed in college is now being carried over into the work place. No pressure though, only making a game. So folks do jobs where when they mess up people die. Really, don't know about you but if I just came back from 2 months off to a CACA show I allowed to happen, I'd be rolling up my sleeves to get that crap sorted with due diligence, not cry over it. Spilled milk, clean it up and pour a new glass

[Mega]

It's funny how the same thing continues decade after decade.

A bunch of basement dwellers that have never done a single thing in the gaming industry and have zero clue how to write code telling us what's wrong with a gaming company.

And if the company would only listen to them the problems would be magically fixed over night.