has this game already died?

[Star98]

ive not been on the internet for a month and its down to 1k active players...thats about half the average of the first game

[NoobLearninGame]

https://www.reddit.com/r/deadfrontier2/comments/9je9ze/2k_24hr_peak/e6slp8n

[biddieb123]

no the ♥♥♥♥ it hasnt. this game has 100 times more active players then Evovle by turtle rock

[ian26uk]

Suprised it has that many players I have only ever seen about 100 different names while I played . Doesnt help that the team is so small they can not do anything with speed . One coder trying to sort out all the bugs while also needing to add things ......Yeah this game is not going to get anything done in a hurry .
One person doing support , it took 2 weeks for a responce to my ticket and then I had to re-open it because he thought the ONE line he wrote back was a good enough answer .
Nobody wants to play a game where support sucks ass and knowning that nothing in the game is going to get changed very fast when only one person is doing all the work .

[zackzack gUM Coblin]

Originally posted by biddieb123:

no the ♥♥♥♥ it hasnt. this game has 100 times more active players then Evovle by turtle rock

Don't drag Evolve into this messy drama. :P Let the game rest in its shallow grave.

[Kielek]

Originally posted by ian26uk:

Nobody wants to play a game where support sucks ass and knowning that nothing in the game is going to get changed very fast when only one person is doing all the work .

Over 2000 players (during weekends) would like to disagree.

In every, literally, every online games forum there are hundreds, if not thousands of threads about game dying/ being dead. ♥♥♥♥, I've seen threads like this on day 1, right after the realese. WTF?

BTW Have you ever seen a really dead game? Like a pvp game when you can't assemble players for one match, this is a dead game. PVE where market/ auctions are empty, that is a sign of a dead game.

Games die when they are abandoned by both devs and players.

[PSYCHOPATH]

Rather than comparing the player base to DF1, it's better to look at the change in player base since DF2 launch. There was a lot of hype about this game at launch and 10k+ players created accounts. Within 1 month, 90% of them are gone including my son. Will Admin get those players back? At the moment, the gameplay is repetitive. There needs to be some major content updates soon. I want this game to be a huge success.

[Star98]

Originally posted by PSYCHOPATH:

Rather than comparing the player base to DF1, it's better to look at the change in player base since DF2 launch. There was a lot of hype about this game at launch and 10k+ players created accounts. Within 1 month, 90% of them are gone including my son. Will Admin get those players back? At the moment, the gameplay is repetitive. There needs to be some major content updates soon. I want this game to be a huge success.

one of the biggest things this game needs is things from the old game, same bosses, and removal of the door loading simulator, that will make the game 100x better just removing all the loading screens.

[NoobLearninGame]

He'd either have to make the game have less loading screens at the cost of players with low-end PC's, or find ways to heavily optimize the game to the point where he doesn't need to make all the doors a loading screen.

[Karam]

Originally posted by NoobLearninGame:

He'd either have to make the game have less loading screens at the cost of players with low-end PC's, or find ways to heavily optimize the game to the point where he doesn't need to make all the doors a loading screen.

Are the loading screen really an issue when you load them in less than a second? By the time you open the door and walk in, you've already spent the same time as just loading in there.

[NoobLearninGame]

I was just making the case for what would have to happen if people wanted there to be no loading screens. Arguably if the levels were open instead of closed sections you could have some more interesting events, like zombies destroying doors to get in, and you using doors to remain hidden, instead of creating a line of sight for a zombie wandering by, by leaving the door open, which could make you easier to hear too when moving around, and even things like making barricades with objects and boards to keep them out while you take shots at them.

[Karam]

Originally posted by NoobLearninGame:

I was just making the case for what would have to happen if people wanted there to be no loading screens. Arguably if the levels were open instead of closed sections you could have some more interesting events, like zombies destroying doors to get in, and you using doors to remain hidden, instead of creating a line of sight for a zombie wandering by, by leaving the door open, which could make you easier to hear too when moving around, and even things like making barricades with objects and boards to keep them out while you take shots at them.

Once the game pushes into later stages when it can handle more zombies, this is open to the realm of possibilites. But for now we have to deal with the loading screen until there's enough backing and reason to change it.

[Weeb Lord]

Originally posted by Morningstar:

Originally posted by PSYCHOPATH:

Rather than comparing the player base to DF1, it's better to look at the change in player base since DF2 launch. There was a lot of hype about this game at launch and 10k+ players created accounts. Within 1 month, 90% of them are gone including my son. Will Admin get those players back? At the moment, the gameplay is repetitive. There needs to be some major content updates soon. I want this game to be a huge success.

one of the biggest things this game needs is things from the old game, same bosses, and removal of the door loading simulator, that will make the game 100x better just removing all the loading screens.

Lol

Stop being ignorant
read the blog

Since u are
I will tell u

This game is build with loading screen
Means its never change

And Neils already update and optimize the loading screen so hard
It take less than a second
heck its like 0.10-0.20 sec
Its feel weird cause its way too fast

[Weeb Lord]

Originally posted by NoobLearninGame:

He'd either have to make the game have less loading screens at the cost of players with low-end PC's, or find ways to heavily optimize the game to the point where he doesn't need to make all the doors a loading screen.

Lol Neils already update the loading
It took less than a second
Its load ways too fast

stop being ignorant

[NoobLearninGame]

To start with, I was explaining what would be required if people wanted there to be connected rooms rather than the loading screens between each of them, making them rather disconnected. I wasn't either advocating nor protesting against the idea. I did however follow it up with some examples as to how it could improve the game were it to be implemented.

Did you read my post after that about how not having as many loading screens, and instead having working doors would open up the possibilities for better gameplay? I know the game was designed this way up to now, but it could potentially change over time. You not being a creator of the game aren't the one that decides how things turn out. The fact that loading times got so much better gives me hope for the potential of future optimizations.

They're already planning to make the cars able to be driven, rather than just fast travel. I reckon that means we're going to be getting larger areas eventually, which may or may not necessitate people with low-end computers either running at a significantly lower frame rate, or we might see sufficient optimizations so that even they can run the game well at that point.

If the guy had a AAA budget he could do some incredible things with this game's concept. I hope this game becomes a big success so we can see future iterations that far surpass whatever this game will turn out to be.

[Vysebane]

Originally posted by Kielek:

Originally posted by ian26uk:

Nobody wants to play a game where support sucks ass and knowning that nothing in the game is going to get changed very fast when only one person is doing all the work .

Over 2000 players (during weekends) would like to disagree.

In every, literally, every online games forum there are hundreds, if not thousands of threads about game dying/ being dead. ♥♥♥♥, I've seen threads like this on day 1, right after the realese. WTF?

BTW Have you ever seen a really dead game? Like a pvp game when you can't assemble players for one match, this is a dead game. PVE where market/ auctions are empty, that is a sign of a dead game.

Games die when they are abandoned by both devs and players.

Games die when they do not meet required population limits for the size of the game in different aspects. For instance, a player driven economy in an MMO requires many many player to keep that running. A great example of a good one running right now is EVE Online. If you drop below 5000 players, the economy will start to have an economy problem and if it gets to about 2000 or even 1000 players, its gonna actually be very empty for the size of it's expansive universe.

Now lets look at a Matchmaker game that isn't doing as well population-wise: Guns of Icarus. It's been awhile since I've played that one but last year, it had a peak of around 200 to 250 players and low peak about a dozen if lucky. It's a matchmaker so it can get by with 200 players since only 16 players for 2v2 ships or 24 for 3v3 ships. Now even further, you only need captains for the ships and the crew can be AI so you can actually do 4 players for 2v2 and 6 for 3v3, it's just not quite the same with it that way, however. 200 concurrent players could support that game being the way it is.

Now is Guns of Icarus a dying or dead game? Well, it certainly is for the studio. 200 players isn't going to help the sales and the studio is already pushing a new title that probably will be more promising (has something to do with fighting fires). But they are a good studio trying to support the titles they have as best they can despite the lack of funds coming in.

When it comes to a dead or dying game, population charts going downward is a bad sign. And games that launch with very low numbers where studios expected higher are already in the dead or dying category as well. The only people that can change this truly is the devs and marketing team themselves. They have to change mechanics or implimentations and then market these changes to entice players to stay as well as new players to come in. And there is also timing that is critical as well. There are so many games in the gaming industry that if something out there is more interesting right now, especially a bunch of glowingly successful titles, their chances of grabbing a slice of the pie is much lower. Developing a game is always a gamble and this is why a lot of them go towards a kickstarter or alpha starter method to gauge how many players are actually interested as well as have backing in advance to produce it, forcing their playerbase to make the gamble with them (not the best system but it gives a chance of something new and interesting to pop up in the gaming industry that otherwise would not).

So get used to the idea of threads that talk or ask about whether a game is already dead or dying. Gaming Industry of today is so large that there is actually too many games for the number of users out there. This is just how it is.