Developers are either out of touch with the industry they're working in or Team17 is just full of idiots making decisions, because this game's downfall only has itself to blame.

I understand that the nature of these games, and games in general, are gonna have cheaters. It's inevitable, but it's also preventable. The genre of Extraction shooters has been around for a long time, and it's not like it's roots aren't traced back to things like DayZ and other survival PvPvE focused games. If the developers wanted to focus on the cheaters, they would've taken measures to make sure things are server-side logged, items aren't at all tied to client-side, and resources aren't just reliant on a anti-cheat software which, time and time again, has shown to have it's own set of vulnerabilities. As much as developers like to boast EAC, I think it's just an excuse for them to cover their asses at the end of the day, as your game is your responsibility, not the anti-cheat software. Some games take precautions using moderators, some games have a survey system that sends reports out to player volunteers who want to help identify cheating, I could continue listing ways developers have already made attempts to combat these issues, but it'd be a waste of time. Where this game REALLY fell off for me was the first update they pushed, the Red Baron update.

Not only were they suffering from their cheater issues, but unlike Tarkov at the time of the update, there was NO incentive to put up with the game's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, as player's had to experience a premature wipe when it suddenly dropped one day. A game with as much lackluster content like this should not be wiping for one update, especially when they're trying to do a pretty mediocre update right in between the Dark and Darker playtest and a Tarkov wipe. So, why would players feel incentivized to keep playing a game that doesn't have much more than 500 players daily, half of them most likely being bots and cheaters, with a very tight-lipped dev team (Who during this game's launch was VERY vocal about it's promises and ambitions, but I can't entirely fault them for that as I understand that things can get in the way of progress) and two other games with way higher player counts and content for their respective prices? Even if the atmosphere and setting are interesting on a surface level, they are not enough for me to recommend a 30 dollar price tag for a game that's not very populated with legitimate players to begin with.

Tarkov is obviously going through it's own set of issues, and as much as I despise that game, atleast in it's inception they had ideas that were appealing and had a take on the FPS genre that was unseen and for the most part fairly innovative. That card has unfortunately been played out, and as competitors such as Dark and Darker begin to take precedent, it makes you question why games like this are worth paying 30 dollars for when it's competition has more to offer.

Developers are either out of touch with the industry they're working in or Team17 is just full of idiots making decisions, because this game's downfall only has itself to blame. I understand that the nature of these games, and games in general, are gonna have cheaters. It's inevitable, but it's also preventable. The genre of Extraction shooters has been around for a long time, and it's not like it's roots aren't traced back to things like DayZ and other survival PvPvE focused games. If the developers wanted to focus on the cheaters, they would've taken measures to make sure things are server-side logged, items aren't at all tied to client-side, and resources aren't just reliant on a anti-cheat software which, time and time again, has shown to have it's own set of vulnerabilities. As much as developers like to boast EAC, I think it's just an excuse for them to cover their asses at the end of the day, as your game is your responsibility, not the anti-cheat software. Some games take precautions using moderators, some games have a survey system that sends reports out to player volunteers who want to help identify cheating, I could continue listing ways developers have already made attempts to combat these issues, but it'd be a waste of time. Where this game REALLY fell off for me was the first update they pushed, the Red Baron update. Not only were they suffering from their cheater issues, but unlike Tarkov at the time of the update, there was NO incentive to put up with the game's horseshit, as player's had to experience a premature wipe when it suddenly dropped one day. A game with as much lackluster content like this should not be wiping for one update, especially when they're trying to do a pretty mediocre update right in between the Dark and Darker playtest and a Tarkov wipe. So, why would players feel incentivized to keep playing a game that doesn't have much more than 500 players daily, half of them most likely being bots and cheaters, with a very tight-lipped dev team (Who during this game's launch was VERY vocal about it's promises and ambitions, but I can't entirely fault them for that as I understand that things can get in the way of progress) and two other games with way higher player counts and content for their respective prices? Even if the atmosphere and setting are interesting on a surface level, they are not enough for me to recommend a 30 dollar price tag for a game that's not very populated with legitimate players to begin with. Tarkov is obviously going through it's own set of issues, and as much as I despise that game, atleast in it's inception they had ideas that were appealing and had a take on the FPS genre that was unseen and for the most part fairly innovative. That card has unfortunately been played out, and as competitors such as Dark and Darker begin to take precedent, it makes you question why games like this are worth paying 30 dollars for when it's competition has more to offer.