Game doesn't deserve to be 50$

[Trexler ♤]

I loved this game, and played it for hundreds of hours, not counting the time i spent playing on console when i first tried the game. I saw when they released the soviets on pc and saw the british being added, and I have to say that no matter how much they have so far added, this game is nowhere near deserving of a practically AAA price for an otherwise indie title

[Ratz | Zak]

Originally posted by Roovka:

Originally posted by Roovka:

I think a fairer comparison is a DLC that came out during T17's tenure.

I will skip the latest Mortain DLC out of fairness due to the backlash it had and the increased price compared to other DLCs, how many of your friends list have the Red Devils DLC?

Why do you keep avoiding this, Zak?

3, but what value does that offer considering its only usable on 1 map that is rarely on any rotation.

[Roovka]

Originally posted by Ratz | Zak:

Originally posted by Roovka:

Why do you keep avoiding this, Zak?

3, but what value does that offer considering its only usable on 1 map that is rarely on any rotation.

Point was that you chose a DLC that was well before the T17 era of development, to show that people, and your friends, were still buying the DLCs. I picked one that was more recent, and not subject to any controversy.

3/25 is a pretty low number, and if you'd like to pick another T17 era DLC to compare to, you're more than welcome. I know the Pea Dot is very popular.

[Roovka]

Originally posted by Ratz | Zak:

Originally posted by Roovka:

"Are you not able to read, or process the information, which is it? It was claimed that only 5000 people play the game"

Seeing as they did not say this, I think the first part of this is quite ironic.

"Well done for finding the link I had already sent you previously."

Not a single comment from you in this thread has a link posted.

I have previously given you the link, you were just slow in remembering it.

There is no link from you in this thread.

I went back through your post history.

1. The person you replied to with "Battlemetrics" wasn't even me.
2. You still never posted a link even at that time.
3. This happened July 3rd.

Meaning you expected me to remember a conversation we never had that happened over 3 weeks ago. And you have the audacity to continue to insult my intelligence. Wow.

[datCookie]

Originally posted by Ratz | Zak:

Originally posted by datCookie:

they used an average player count and then tripled it, with a rounding to 20k. This number is obviously incorrect and a unique player count is much higher.

Thankyou, at last you have figured it out.

One last go on proving why averages are misleading and a poor statistic to use.

Your game time since release.

2024 0
2023 0
2022 0
2021 134
2020 138
2019 0

By your reckoning, you've spent 45.3 hours playing this year..

You've spent more time trolling this forum, wasting time on a game you have no interest in whatsoever.

Congratulations on doing a YEARLY average with completely incorrect information. I have over 600 hours in HLL, so I don't know where you're getting 272 hours from total. Irrespective of play time, average player counts are far more important and less misleading than averaging out a person's play time over years.

If you cannot understand WHY Steam chooses to focus on the statistic I have outlined, you are beyond all hope. And please do continue believing I'm just a troll, because it's even funnier that you think that.

[datCookie]

Originally posted by Roovka:

Originally posted by Ratz | Zak:

CBA going round in circles with you. Hopefully you, at some point, will overcome this obsession with a game you have publicly declared you are done with and not end up as a persistent troll to this forum. Is embarrassing for all concerned.

Link me to where I said I was done with the game.

He is confusing you with me. He has previously given me the link to Battlemetrics (not in this thread) and knows I have not played the game in a long time.

[Ratz | Zak]

Originally posted by datCookie:

Originally posted by Ratz | Zak:

Thankyou, at last you have figured it out.

One last go on proving why averages are misleading and a poor statistic to use.

Your game time since release.

2024 0
2023 0
2022 0
2021 134
2020 138
2019 0

By your reckoning, you've spent 45.3 hours playing this year..

You've spent more time trolling this forum, wasting time on a game you have no interest in whatsoever.

Congratulations on doing a YEARLY average with completely incorrect information. I have over 600 hours in HLL, so I don't know where you're getting 272 hours from total. Irrespective of play time, average player counts are far more important and less misleading than averaging out a person's play time over years.

If you cannot understand WHY Steam chooses to focus on the statistic I have outlined, you are beyond all hope. And please do continue believing I'm just a troll, because it's even funnier that you think that.

Are you talking about steamdb here?

[Trexler ♤]

to bring the discussion back to topic, the game should go back to 35$ and the dlc's should be HALVED in price for what they offer

[Ratz | Zak]

Originally posted by Trexler ♤:

to bring the discussion back to topic, the game should go back to 35$ and the dlc's should be HALVED in price for what they offer

Nah 39.99 is a bargain.

[Roovka]

Originally posted by Trexler ♤:

to bring the discussion back to topic, the game should go back to 35$ and the dlc's should be HALVED in price for what they offer

$35-$40 is definitely fine.

I'm whatever on the DLC pricing, they've always been optional "support the dev" type packages to me. The limit should always be $5 and include at least 1 uniform and 1 helmet at a minimum.

[Trexler ♤]

Originally posted by Ratz | Zak:

Originally posted by Trexler ♤:

to bring the discussion back to topic, the game should go back to 35$ and the dlc's should be HALVED in price for what they offer

Nah 39.99 is a bargain.

it isnt, the game has many things missing, and while the gameplay loop can be good, 40$ is steep

[Ratz | Zak]

Originally posted by Trexler ♤:

Originally posted by Ratz | Zak:

Nah 39.99 is a bargain.

it isnt, the game has many things missing, and while the gameplay loop can be good, 40$ is steep

I'm on 3000+ hours, bargain, most value for money game in library.

[Trexler ♤]

Originally posted by Ratz | Zak:

Originally posted by Trexler ♤:

it isnt, the game has many things missing, and while the gameplay loop can be good, 40$ is steep

I'm on 3000+ hours, bargain, most value for money game in library.

well sure, it might be for YOU but not for the average player

[Ratz | Zak]

Originally posted by datCookie:

Originally posted by Roovka:

Link me to where I said I was done with the game.

He is confusing you with me. He has previously given me the link to Battlemetrics (not in this thread) and knows I have not played the game in a long time.

Because you know steamdb has nothing to do with steam, all they can do Is crawl current players on an hourly basis, that's where your getting your rubbish stat from. Really out your depth here sonny.

[Roovka]

Originally posted by Ratz | Zak:

Originally posted by datCookie:

He is confusing you with me. He has previously given me the link to Battlemetrics (not in this thread) and knows I have not played the game in a long time.

Because you know steamdb has nothing to do with steam, all they can do Is crawl current players on an hourly basis, that's where your getting your rubbish stat from. Really out your depth here sonny.

Just to be clear, your "correction" on the unique amount of players daily doesn't change the argument you tried to use it against, nor is unique players a good stat to use to show the health of a game. It's really not a surprise a majority of game devs use this number in particular in their announcements after they launch a game.

Besides this, if you want to use Battlemetrics as the primary information holder for stats, the game loses ~around 1k players across the board from its average players, peak players, and current players compared to Steamcharts/Steamdb. This is because battlemetrics only counts people actually playing on a server and not on a main menu.

What's also worth noting is because we know battlemetrics counts *all* players, and that their number is actually less than steamcharts/db, this also tells us that either the player retention for Gamepass players has been beyond poor or that a lot of PC players have abandoned the game entirely. This is not good.

TLDR Battlemetrics is a better place for stats, yes, but if you actually paid attention to the numbers on a longer time scale, they paint a very negative picture for the state of the game.

[Squash]

don't buy it. simple. you have a choice so does everyone else. That will be the ultimate reflection.
Me personally - well i bought ages ago at a great price, many hours of fun so every penny well worth. A new player on new price? Subjective to their experience vs time.