For anyone wanting to discuss the stats (playercount)

[obliviondoll]

https://steamdb.info/app/844870/graphs/

As of this posting:

13:50 May 2nd (some variety of US time, I guess)

Just under 1500 players.

Same time yesterday, there were over 2500 players already.
Same time day before was before the servers went live, so 0 players.

Day one peaked just over 10,800 players. Day two peaked well above 6,500. It's definitely losing players from release day, BUT it's a weekday release and weekends tend to be prime gaming time, so again, too early to assume a pattern yet.

Tomorrow is Friday, see how the night goes. The next day is Saturday, see how that goes.

THEN we can start to try and guess how hard this game is flopping, or how well it's succeeding. but picking the peak day one playercount and comparing that to a random off-peak hour's current playercount doesn't tell you much.

If this weekend peaks at like 10k or 15k or something, cool, the game's alive - for now. If it's only barely hitting 3k, they're probably in trouble already. But even that's too early to REALLY call it "winning" or "dead" - see how that lasts going into next weekend. And the week after.

[devnull]

I dont like discuss on stats bcs a game can go well with 500/1k of players as well.

[obliviondoll]

Originally posted by devnull:

I dont like discuss on stats bcs a game can go well with 500/1k of players as well.

It depends on the game as to how important the stats are, and what the numbers mean. For this game, with the apparent "main" game mode being 2v2, you really want to be counting players in multiples of 4. With, say, 1600 players, that would be roughly the potential for 400 concurrent 2v2 matches. For a bigger Battle Royale game to have the potential for 400 concurrent matches, you'd need 40,000 players. For a 1v1 fighting game, you'd only need 800 to match this game's 1600 playercount in that regard.

I was just providing a source that shows those numbers over time, to make proper comparison of how well the game is performing in that regard more accessible. How you analyse those numbers is also a valid point though.

[Henky]

yep but only if the players pay a lot money, they have to pay for the server ;) even if servers are pretty cheap today they also have to pay employees and for the office, if they dont get enough money they think about a new way to get money, but because its allrdy f2p with ingame cosmetic and some p2w they wont find a new way. Maybe they say "no cash shop anymore now b2p" a lot people would be happy about it but after its b2p and after the cash flow is gone they are in the same situation again.

BTT: doesnt matter if its a weekday release or not, the first days at release day are the most important and they gonna say much about the future.
Another part is twitch. The game has 78 viewers right now. Its has similar viewers like archeage. The game wont get attention on twitch so no new players. A easy step would be to pay some big streamer to stream the game for lets say 2 hours. This cost a lot of money but you could get a big return back. Right now there is a dark black future for this game. If they invest money in marketing it could help but the steam reviews allrdy ♥♥♥♥♥♥ the game reputition for a good reason. Its just make me start to cry to see such potential games getting crushed by some people.

[devnull]

Originally posted by obliviondoll:

Originally posted by devnull:

I dont like discuss on stats bcs a game can go well with 500/1k of players as well.

It depends on the game as to how important the stats are, and what the numbers mean. For this game, with the apparent "main" game mode being 2v2, you really want to be counting players in multiples of 4. With, say, 1600 players, that would be roughly the potential for 400 concurrent 2v2 matches. For a bigger Battle Royale game to have the potential for 400 concurrent matches, you'd need 40,000 players. For a 1v1 fighting game, you'd only need 800 to match this game's 1600 playercount in that regard.

I was just providing a source that shows those numbers over time, to make proper comparison of how well the game is performing in that regard more accessible. How you analyse those numbers is also a valid point though.

example: This game is for a specific audiance we cant expect the same stats like fortnite or so.
but is a nice idea to track these stats

[ForsakePath]

Keep in mind too that it is also region locked. If it wasn't I'm sure it would have 2 to 3xs the amount of current players.

[Henky]

this would means they have 2 to 3 times more server costs as now

[obliviondoll]

Originally posted by ForsakenPath:

Keep in mind too that it is also region locked. If it wasn't I'm sure it would have 2 to 3xs the amount of current players.

I'd honestly expect more than 3x the players. It seems pretty likely that America's going to be the lowest volume region.

[Fox Tail]

This is what happens with any new release a ♥♥♥♥ load of misinformed ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ download it day one thinking the game a MMORPG and than are extreme disappointed when they realize it not a MMORPG.

[Ains]

dude only having 500 players doesnt mean all 500 will be paying for things in game. games with that count have always died and lose players because it fills empty. THIS game is a match making based game, the only solo activitys dont give rewards. So with its current playercount matchmaking is already 10 minutes plus for me. imagine how bad matchmaking will be with less players, that alone will make its low playerbase keep declining.

[Ains]

Originally posted by ⎝⧹𝔸𝕚𝕟𝕤⧸⎠:

dude only having 500 players doesnt mean all 500 will be paying for things in game. games with that count have always died and lose players because it fills empty. THIS game is a match making based game, the only solo activitys dont give rewards. So with its current playercount matchmaking is already 10 minutes plus for me. imagine how bad matchmaking will be with less players, that alone will make its low playerbase keep declining.

they put them selves in a corner by making an instanced game and on top of that monotizing it as an early access signed their grave stone.

[Fox Tail]

the game requires 2-4 people for a match with 2k people it shouldn't take long to find a match. Also would you people stop ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ if all the classes were unlocked day one but the game cost 60 dollars? The game F2P how do you expect a F2P game to survive without some source of income?

[Ains]

also the only way to get anything cool in the game is with money, so the games loop is pvp and "spend money" which is never going to work, players need rewarded for their time in game we are not all going to throw money at them like some pigs in a pin. We need to feel like the game cares about having us play, so not having any rewards for all the time i played pvp and pve doesnt give me any motivation to play or to spend money on this.

[Fox Tail]

Originally posted by ⎝⧹𝔸𝕚𝕟𝕤⧸⎠:

also the only way to get anything cool in the game is with money

? Need i state the billion reasons why this statement is wrong or are you done? You want to ♥♥♥♥♥ about the actual gameplay be my guest the game it self does have issues but why is 99% of every excuse for this game being bad just the market place.

Seriously I've ask this question a hundred times now and have yet to get a response what is it in the game that you don't like?

[Keeves]

Originally posted by obliviondoll:

https://steamdb.info/app/844870/graphs/

As of this posting:

13:50 May 2nd (some variety of US time, I guess)

Just under 1500 players.

Same time yesterday, there were over 2500 players already.
Same time day before was before the servers went live, so 0 players.

Day one peaked just over 10,800 players. Day two peaked well above 6,500. It's definitely losing players from release day, BUT it's a weekday release and weekends tend to be prime gaming time, so again, too early to assume a pattern yet.

Tomorrow is Friday, see how the night goes. The next day is Saturday, see how that goes.

THEN we can start to try and guess how hard this game is flopping, or how well it's succeeding. but picking the peak day one playercount and comparing that to a random off-peak hour's current playercount doesn't tell you much.

If this weekend peaks at like 10k or 15k or something, cool, the game's alive - for now. If it's only barely hitting 3k, they're probably in trouble already. But even that's too early to REALLY call it "winning" or "dead" - see how that lasts going into next weekend. And the week after.

Look at the player count during peak hours, not during slower times. Are you guys just not looking further into this or are you purposefully giving out false info?

[obliviondoll]

So... now we have (so far):

Tuesday peak: 10,807
Wednesday peak: 6,567
Thursday peak: 3,864
Friday (so far): 2,142

Worth noting that "SO FAR" on Friday's results. Only goes up to 8pm (also, apparently my earlier guess was wrong and the timezone used on those charts is GMT), which is NOT the time at which playercounts have peaked on previous days. At 8pm yesterday, there were already almost 3,000 players, and the day before was over 5,700 players, and release day at 8pm there was a memtastic OVER 9000! concurrent players.

It's (still... and obviously) worth waiting for a few more hours to see where Friday PEAKS in its playercount, rather than just comparing the playercount at an arbitrary and random point in time. Even so, the current stats ARE telling, even if not as meaningful as you might want to claim if you're looking at a time which suits YOUR timezone. Keep in mind the game is region-locked, and currently locked to America-only as an active community, so any out-of-region play WILL be limited on that basis alone.