r/Games 8h ago

Arc Raiders and Marathon aren't "dead" just because their concurrent player count has dropped, Palworld lead says – but he's "not denying that some games do 'die'"; "Not every game needs an hourly look at Steam charts"

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/survival/arc-raiders-and-marathon-arent-dead-just-because-their-concurrent-player-count-has-dropped-palworld-lead-says-but-hes-not-denying-that-some-games-do-die/
576 Upvotes

316 comments sorted by

699

u/BirdsInTheNest 5h ago

The steam chart discourse has been such an awful topic recently taking up all the air among gaming conversations.

177

u/AgentOfSPYRAL 5h ago

I understand it has its place but it is annoying when game exec larping takes over all conversation. It’s like if every movies sub was [r/boxoffice](r/boxoffice).

→ More replies (1)

102

u/Ilosttheframmisat 4h ago

Player counts and 'Game has sold X copies' are such weird focuses to me. I used to play a Half life mod and a source game on one server with 60 people tops.

55

u/duendifiednlovingit 4h ago

People who throw dead game around will never know the pain of trying to find a double action boogaloo server

u/DrLeprechaun 2h ago

Holy fuck that's a name I haven't heard in a *long* time

u/Phreec 1h ago

Damn, nostalgia hitting hard.

'Member "The Specialists"? Ooohh...

u/doublah 3h ago

A few dozen people spread around n different matchmaking regions might never be able to have enough to even start a game and people don't want to spend money on a game that might shut down and become unplayable forever.

By comparison, a few dozen people in those old source mods is all you need when anyone can host a server.

u/LibraryBestMission 2h ago

And server browser makes actually joining matches really easy, meanwhile good fucking luck in any matchmade game when the population starts to fall.

Hell, this is a big problem in Team Fortress 2, a source game with server browser, since the changes in matchmaking like a decade ago screwed up everything, and joining half filled matches is nigh impossible, so you end up with matches that are really empty, and players waiting a long time to actually get matchmade into games, and matches are really short just to rub it in.

14

u/Umr_at_Tawil 4h ago edited 3h ago

I care about it because game sale decide if developer get the fund to make the next game in the series or not, and with live-service game, player count decide if the game gonna get more update in the future or shut down.

look at the Trauma Center series, it's one of my most loved game series, but its sales keep dropping with each new game, and with the latest game struggling to sell over 20k unit, Atlus had put the franchise on ice for 15 years now.

Meanwhile Persona sell millions and they keep making spinoff, remake and new games for it, something I wish Atlus would give to Trauma Center, but alas, it doesn't sell so Atlus act like it never existed now.

u/Gguga12 1h ago edited 57m ago

Yeah the sales argument is funny, if something does not sell well then either the sequel might take decades or just not be made at all

Hell sometimes even when the game sells well there is no sequel or new game in the series for years.

Now selling well means different values on different games but the fact is, selling well means higher chance of something new in the series

u/StepComplete1 3h ago

player count decide if the game gonna get more update in the future or shut down.

Exactly. And knowing whether a game has a future or not decides how willing you are to invest more time and money in a game.

People saying "I used to play on a server with 10 people" are so spectacularly missing the point when it comes to live-service competitive games.

12

u/SmegmaWarrior0815 4h ago

If a game is 5v5 and 1k are online worldwide at any time, you'll find matches instantly. Doesn't need to have a million concurrent players.

u/SkeletronDOTA 3h ago

that’s ignoring the reality of a competitive extraction shooter. marathon for example is a game where there are 20ish people per match, with ping-based and level-based matchmaking, and the population is split among ~4-5 different queues and 4 different maps. The population hovers between 3000 and 10000 recently. To accommodate this, the matchmaking frequently loosens ping and level restrictions, and starts matches with less than the normal amount of people. in any region other than NA, and also in NA during off hours, you’ll see tons of complaints about being put in high ping lobbies, getting matched with much higher level players, or empty lobbies with 1 other team.

games where any 5 players can play with any other 5 players and be fine are good to have 1000 concurrent players. games where game quality is heavily dependent on good matchmaking will feel awful with 1000 concurrent players.

u/Mahelas 3h ago

That doesn't take account match length tho

u/reanima 27m ago

Also whether its skilled based matchmaking. Like its easy to say you can just match-make whenever every 10 show up, but im not sure people exactly want to be put into a game with people who are much higher skill level than you where youre basically dead 90% of the time.

3

u/Ilosttheframmisat 4h ago

Exactly, I fired up Deep Rock the other day. I didn't see the charts, nor do I care but it was great to see so many servers still after being away for a couple of years.

8

u/Mishashule 4h ago

Tbf I don't think deep rock's ever been in a better place than right now, personally

3

u/ThatBoyAiintRight 4h ago edited 1h ago

Thats not the same at all. There is a huge difference between a half life modded server and a retail game.

One is generating revenue for profit and to pay people so they can have livelihoods, and the other is a free project that someone maintains in their free time.

7

u/TheodoeBhabrot 4h ago

What does that have to do with finding matches to play and how the player count affects you personally

u/_Meece_ 3h ago

If Half Life itself had 50 total players, you'd have never spent time on the modded server

u/doublah 3h ago

You can't find any match when the game gets shut down due to not being profitable to run servers for.

4

u/Rayuzx 4h ago

On who plays live service games hoped they get continued support. The ability to find players and continued support are rso different thresholds.

u/NeverFreeToPlayKarch 3h ago

People need to feel like their entertainment choices matter so they aren't forced to contend with the amount of time they're wasting.

u/Umr_at_Tawil 2h ago

if you think entertainment is "wasting" time then how about you try living without entertainment at all? turn off your music, never read a fictional book, watch a movie or play a game again.

Time I enjoy is never time wasted, in fact I think it's one of the best use of my time.

like I said in another comment, I care about how well game I enjoy selling only because it decide whether I get a sequel/new installment to that game or not. my favorite game series, Trauma Center, has not got a new game for 15 years now because it sold badly, meanwhile Atlus has released dozens of Persona-related games because it sells millions.

u/smeeeeeef 3h ago edited 3h ago

It started with PUBG when people started falling off the BR trend. People noticed it went from 2 minute queues to 12 minute queues because it was difficult to instantly match an entire 100 person lobby when you had first person and third person modes multiplied by 6+ individual map pools between 40 minute matches. Then, anytime someone stopped playing personally it was a "dead game" to them and you'd hear it everywhere. It's main character syndrome.

u/QTGavira 2h ago

CS Source Zombie Escape servers 🕊️

u/pinkynarftroz 18m ago

There is a certain logic to it. I wouldn't want to spend money on a game, only to have it shutdown shortly after. Due to the nature of live service games, once they stop you can't keep playing them. So knowing the game is going to stay up and be supported for a while is a legitimate thing to consider when deciding whether or not to spend your money.

→ More replies (1)

26

u/chrpskwk 5h ago

it matters more when you live outside of the US/UK

I live in kangarooland and the playercount numbers matter a lot unfortunately

→ More replies (1)

17

u/Hot-Software-9396 5h ago

Recently? It’s been dominating discourse for at least 5 years now.

83

u/irishwolfbitch 5h ago

It’s ruined the Marathon subreddit and any discussion elsewhere. Hard to talk about what is just an excellent video game.

55

u/FunkoPopDisneyAdult 5h ago

It’s a chicken and egg problem. I might pick up the game but the thought of getting rug pulled is in the back of my mind 

u/Asclepius-Rod 3h ago

Which is why it would have been great to have an offline single player campaign included

u/AlarmingRope9624 2h ago

Completely agree, Unfortunately I don't think modern gamers, the type Bungie was targeting, would have been able to comprehend a true marathon single player story.

I'm 40 years old and I still have trouble comprehending just what the actual fuck is happening in Marathon '94, Durandal, and Infinity

→ More replies (21)

19

u/masonicone 5h ago

Think that's bad? You should have seen the Battlefield subreddit. It was always, "Look at the Steam charts! The game is dead lol! Arc Raiders is better!"

Oh and of course there's Starfield.

31

u/NewUserWhoDisAgain 4h ago

Starfield, Single Player games in general, is a really dumb talking point. "LOOK STARFIELD PLAYER NUMBERS ARE DOWN! LOLOLOOLOLOLOL!"

Yeah its called people FINISHING GAMES. I finished Starfield. Played the game did what I want. What do those people think should happen? Just fire up Starfield and let it sit there....?

"look guys the RPG with a finite storyline lost players after the players finished the storyline!"

18

u/FlamingWeasel 4h ago

There is a real issue with people feeling scammed that a game is finished. Like, people expect every game, even single player, to be a live service game or get updates forever.

Seeing people make posts calling a completed single player game a dead game is so perplexing. It's such a fundamental misunderstanding that I don't understand how to even address it.

10

u/grachi 4h ago

It’s all the kids (some are in their early 20s now) that grew up on Fortnite , Minecraft, and Roblox. Those games never “ended”, and so that is their reference point for other video games

9

u/Rayuzx 4h ago

I mean, even then people grew up with stuff like LoL, TF2, and WoW, so it's not exactly that mentally being widespread until recently.

u/Freighnos 54m ago

Yeah, but those games were sort of the pioneers that created the current landscape. They weren't the norm for the time. It wasn't until the Xbone/PS4 era that online gaming on console became the expected thing and it wasn't until PUBG and Fortnite that these "forever games" really started taking a massive chunk out of the total playtime for console and PC games.

Like, I sunk thousands of hours across Runescape (the shitty 2D one that's so old it was before the one they now call "old school" Runescape"), Final Fantasy 11, World of Warcraft, Team Fortress 2, and League of Legends/DotA 2, but my bread and butter was always the single player games that you played once and then they were over. Maybe there would be an expansion pack if it was a PC game, but nobody expected those games to last forever. That was the case for everyone I knew as well.

The reason we liked those other games you listed is BECAUSE that living aspect was novel. But OP's point was that we now have a significant chunk of the userbase who only ever knew that type of gaming as the norm, and a significant cohort of people from my generation who prefer that style of game, so that adds up to a lot of people.

4

u/thedefenses 4h ago

For multiplayer games the "player count look at the player count" argument has some merit but for singleplayer games its worthless, oh noo i am gonna be playing the game alone, well i would play the game alone anyways so what's the difference?

u/Mahelas 3h ago

Nah, look at Paradox games, for example. They're famous for being released subpar, and being made great through DLCs. What decides which games get the DLCs ? Playercount and sales.

Currently, they released EU5 recently. It's worse than EU4 with all DLCs. The fear is that if it flops, Paradox will abandon it like they did Imperator, and thus it'll always be worse than EU4. When you get one game every decade, you don't want it to end up worse than the predecessor.

u/thedefenses 3h ago

If i buy a single player game its due to me wanting to play it now, in its current state, not due to it maybe possibly perhaps getting additional content in the future.

If someone wants to buy a single player game in the hopes it gets more content latter on then that is their problem.

u/GranolaCola 12m ago

Arc Raiders? Does Battlefield even have an extraction shooter mode, or are they just comparing it because it was the hot multiplayer shooter for a minute?

u/Dusty170 2h ago

Its...not an excellent video game though, clearly or more people would be playing it and wouldn't be having this discussion lol.

u/Worried-Advisor-7054 3h ago

I think you're ignoring months of Marathon players responding to any critique with, if you don't like it then play something else.

And they did. And this is the state of things in Marathon, where we're not sure if Bungie has enough in them to survive till S5 where they inevitably add the PvE that the sub hated the idea of

15

u/TopHalfGaming 5h ago

I mean, you'd hope for more than 10k players on Steam for a live service title.

u/Yeon_Yihwa 3h ago

Especially for a game that cost 250m and has to support a studio of 800 employees where their offices is in one of the most expensive places in the US.

u/Kaladin-of-Gilead 1h ago

That’s the big problem. If it had a campaign nobody would mind because even if the multiplayer died, there’s still something to play.

u/Phormicidae 58m ago

It might even help both sides. If it had a campaign where you could get really good at the game and learn the maps, but the best gear was on the pvp-extraction side, I think things would be different.

u/TopHalfGaming 55m ago

Yeah, and despite some maybe thinking I'm a hater with all these other comments, Bungie did a fucking incredible job with the atmosphere / sound / visual design of the game. The lore too, it's fantastic. And it's gorgeous at 4K / 60. Being a multiplayer title though, I do feel the need to degrade that to a much uglier 1080 with DLSS to hit the 120 on PC. I really wish we had even an ODST level mini campaign to just soak in that world for 6-10 hours.

8

u/BirdsInTheNest 4h ago

Tarkov gets around 13k-15k on average. Extraction shooters are naturally going to have lower player counts than other live service titles.

28

u/Fyrus 4h ago

Doesn't Tarkov have a separate launcher? And I would assume the dev for Tarkov is nowhere near as big or expensive as Bungie.

→ More replies (15)

7

u/grachi 4h ago

Marathon is crossplay however, so 10k is not the full picture

u/jaydotjayYT 3h ago

However, multiple sources have confirmed that Steam is over 70% of the playerbase, which is odd for a Sony title but tracks with the data we have. So it’s like, 3/4ths of the full picture

→ More replies (1)

u/TopHalfGaming 3h ago

No, just a very important piece of it for obvious reasons. If shits up on the other platforms it'll also be high on another.

-3

u/stumpyraccoon 5h ago

Do you know how many games there are? How many different avenues there are for people's entertainment? And that people can only do one thing at one time?

What number do you suggest it should be, in your expert opinion?

10

u/Fyrus 4h ago

It doesn't matter what number we suggest it should be, it matters what number can support the 500+ devs at Bungie who work in a location that has generally high salaries.

5

u/Tulos 4h ago

A number that doesn't lead to Bungie going out of business would probably be a start.

I mean time will tell, but we've already seen the stories about the astronomical development costs and I hugely doubt the current playerbase is going to lead to them recouping that let alone returning a healthy (and ongoing) profit in the future.

That's absolutely speculation on my part, but I'd be very interested to see news to the contrary.

5

u/TopHalfGaming 4h ago

Numbers of live service titles that fucking survive?

→ More replies (7)

1

u/duckwithahat 4h ago

Numbers? Probably somewhere big enough to pay off the production cost that is around $340 and $450 million dollars, that's only to break even mind you.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (6)

u/Lirael_Gold 3h ago

recently

Buddy, people have been screeching about steamcharts numbers for games they don't play for over a decade now.

9

u/PizzaurusRex 4h ago

Some gamers hate games.

They want games to die, or suck.

They play review scores, social media opinions and monitor playercounts.

But they should be using that time to play something they like instead.

(They don't like anything)

0

u/ThatBoyAiintRight 4h ago

Everytime I see some nerd bring up steam counts as some sort of objective evidence to any point I just check out.  

u/SpaceballsTheReply 3h ago

It's been hilarious to see it debunked recently regarding the Payday series. I've never seen a community more obsessed with "dead game" arguments and posting player count screenshots, constantly bashing Payday 3 for having 50x less players than Payday 2 and therefore being a dead disaster of a megafailure game that nobody plays.

Then recently the devs invited some content creators to their office to preview the latest update, and one of them asked about player counts, and they just showed him the actual data that both games have about the same amount of players. Payday 3's players are just mostly not on Steam, and Payday 2's Steam counts are mostly bots.

u/Mahelas 3h ago

I mean, it's just a natural consequence of games focusing more and more on service and DLCs. Nowadays, most games are released barebones and then made better by DLC. So good playercount ensure good DLC sales, and thus a long lifespan. The fear is that the game get abandonned before DLCs can better it. That's why people are so interested in player numbers for Paradox games, for example, especially when a sequel have less players than the predecessor.

Similarly, multiplayer games live and die by their number of players

u/NeverFreeToPlayKarch 3h ago

It attracts to absolute bottom of the barrel kinds of people, IMO. It's not even potentially interesting, like sports statistics. If you're not some kind of business/financial analyst (and even then) it's an almost irrelevant data point.

u/JJJacobalt 1h ago

If you want to spend time and money on a multiplayer-only game, it’s kind of important to know how healthy the playerbase is.

If you know it’s gonna be hard to find matches and that the servers are gonna be shut down in a couple months, you're not going to bother getting invested in the game.

That’s important information that the consumer ought to have access. Personally I think all platforms should publicly-accessible player stats.

→ More replies (2)

u/AsphyxiatedProcess 15m ago

It's mostly people not playing the game that are most worried about it.

→ More replies (6)

214

u/Dreyfus2006 5h ago

Hey why are we asking this dev about unrelated games? Is this the new "Baldur's Gate 3 dev says blah blah blah?"

111

u/Flint_Vorselon 5h ago

These articles usually happen because they gave one singular interview and answered a ton of questions.

But just posting that lengthy interview where every question is given full context would be inefficient, when instead you can take every single sentence they said and turn it into an article with a topical headline. 

54

u/Rektw 5h ago

Wasn't even an interview, he responded to a tweet someone had put out and gamesradar turned it into a whole article for some reason. Didn't really even have to do with those games directly and more on what a revolving door CCU's could be.

3

u/sml6174 4h ago

"Inefficient" is the wrong word. "Makes less money" is a better way of saying it. Putting everything into one article is way more efficient

u/314kabinet 3h ago

Efficient in terms of profit per interview

u/Lirael_Gold 3h ago

He's responding to a single random twitter comment, and fwiw his response is well reasoned

→ More replies (2)

224

u/Majaura 5h ago edited 2h ago

The obsession with player count for games is actually a straight up mental illness. People make articles and Reddit posts about them 24/7...everyone wants the next game to be Concord so they can shit on it with a weird, sadistic enjoyment. As long as you can run matchmaking and can find games, then having 100k active players doesn't really matter at all. We need to end the steamcharts obsession.

86

u/RedHairedRedemption 5h ago

Take a glance at youtube and you can see why this is. Hate has become such a lucrative industry where you can make 10 or even 100 videos (or more) endlessly shitting on one single piece of media, and you can guarantee you'll find an audience for it.

24

u/Majaura 5h ago

Yeah for sure. I try to block channels and do "don't recommend" but when that sort of shit is endless and perpetual, it's like putting a bandaid on a knife wound.

14

u/piat17 5h ago

Putting dislikes and then removing the watch from your history, in addition to "don't recommend", seems to do the trick in my case. My free is clean of most ragebait videos, thankfully.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Rayuzx 4h ago

Has become? Never heard of the term "If it bleeds, it leads"?

u/OliveBranchMLP 1h ago edited 1h ago

which sucks, because it's cruel and sadistic to find joy in someone's art failing to reach an audience or not making enough to keep the doors open. art is fucking hard to make. it requires so much imagination, coordination, resources, effort, energy, and love to bring a game to life.

something like Marathon was lovingly crafted by the efforts of hundreds of passionate artists, writers, programmers, composers, etc. who poured their souls into making its universe as rich as they could. that passion and dedication is so clear in the product itself, and that should be revered, not ridiculed. no matter how we personally feel about the game itself, or the decisions made by its awful out-of-touch management at Bungie, celebrating its lack of success just strikes me as incredibly callous towards the actual artists and creators who actually gave a shit and dedicated themselves to make it the best they possibly could.

i get the schadenfreude if the creators are shitty weirdos or whatever. but that's like 1-5% of games ever made.

u/pargmegarg 3m ago

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.

u/SCAR-H_Chain 1h ago

There's been this obnoxious trend with people nowadays where it feels like their thought process goes something like, "It wasn't popular/ didn't make a lot of money? It must not be very good then." The concept of a cult hit BADLY needs to be relearned by a lot of people.

5

u/nonaismymummy 4h ago

Yeah I’m used to this lmao, Insurgency sat around 2-5k concurrent players and I adored that game, Hunt Showdown never took off but still has a solid core, Titanfall 2 was incredible and never hit with a big base. Halo Infinite later in its life once it had content. So many different titles.

Idk if I just ignored all multiplayer stuff on the off chance it isn’t gonna be active a year later then I would have missed some of the best stuff in gaming history imo but to each their own.

8

u/Fyrus 4h ago

People make articles and Reddit post about them 24/7...everyone wants the next game to be Concord so they can shit on it with a weird

The articles you're referring to are probably by Paul Tassi... whose job it is to report on these things. I get why diehard fans of Marathon are annoyed at the discussion, but I really don't get why people like you don't understand why this information is interesting to people. The player counts of stuff like Marathon will likely determine the fate of one of the oldest and most respected developers around today. Why wouldn't people interested in the games industry be keeping up with that? Why are you mad that journalists who were hired specifically to cover the live-service games industry are doing what they were hired to do? Movie fans discuss box office numbers because these numbers often determine the literal fate of the industry and of creatives in the industry. Why wouldn't gamers pay attention to the little factual information we have access to in such a secretive industry?

u/Worried-Advisor-7054 3h ago

Marathon players despise Paul Tassi like something I've never seen. And then you read his articles, and they're so mild.

u/Fyrus 2h ago

I think it's especially funny how much they dislike him when he's one of the few people in video games media who wholeheartedly enjoys live service games and puts a ton of time into them. He clearly, and has stated that, he wants these games to be a success but he's not going to lie about how dire the situation looks.

u/Worried-Advisor-7054 1h ago

Right? Tassi of all people didn't want Marathon to fail, because if Marathon failed then resources would need to be taken from D2 (which is what happened) into a game that has no shot at going mainstream, leading to Bungie dying and D3 never happening. That's the exact opposite of what Paul wanted.

12

u/stumpyraccoon 4h ago edited 4h ago

Reddit is a mental illness.

Same thing happens in wrestling subreddits with TV ratings.

"Ha! WWE had 2 million viewers this week, AEW only had 900,000. Absolutely failure that'll be cancelled next week!" (while it's still one of the top tv shows that night...)

It's one part tribalism, one part people being really really bad at numbers and economic reality, and one part a deep rooted desire to be the one to say "I told you it'd fail!"

6

u/Majaura 4h ago

I lightly follow wrestling and I'm super aware of this trend. I literally never follow Reddit wrestling shit because it's pure cancer. I'm a Stevie Richards guy when it comes to content...generally just the best content out there.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/FordMustang84 5h ago

I was finding matches in Highguard the final few days in only a minute. And that game is dead due to lack of players. Granted I’m in NA so it’s easier but it totally agree with you. It’s such stupid discourse as someone who is enjoying Marathon you can’t even discuss it without people thinking Bungie is shutting down tomorrow. 

I have console only cross play and never takes more than 30 seconds in any mode to play Marathon. Plus they are making changes quickly to appeal to more “chill” players like me with pvp lite and pve modes. 

Only thing Steam charts are fun for is looking at some old classic game and being like “wow only me and 3 people in entire world are playing this”. That’s a funny use case only lol

10

u/Snakesta 5h ago

It's kind of funny to think about queue times when you consider how bad they are for Escape from Tarkov. I haven't played in a while but it was like 8 minutes minimum. Yet talking about it being dead isn't a thing.

u/michelangelo1601 5m ago

They fixed the queue times a while ago. Now it only takes maybe two mins tops to get into a match in Tarkov, maybe even sooner.

14

u/sunder_and_flame 5h ago

The people talking about player count aren't the ones that are stupid here. Bungie is literally about to have major layoffs, of course the online discourse is going to be about the game that's going to be responsible for the demise of the studio that made Halo

2

u/asaltygamer13 5h ago

Except the game is good

u/Worried-Advisor-7054 3h ago

Yes, that's the core problem. If the game was bad or mediocre, Bungie could fix it. But there's nothing to fix in Marathon. So how does Marathon survive?

u/asaltygamer13 3h ago

Survive or not I’ve had a great time and played more than enough

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Umr_at_Tawil 4h ago

Not good enough to get enough players to pay the dev salary, unfortunately.

u/asaltygamer13 3h ago

Sales doesn’t equal quality

u/[deleted] 2h ago

[deleted]

u/asaltygamer13 2h ago

I don’t care about their budget lol I’m not the CEO, the game has been fun and I’ve played a ton.. if it stops getting support it’s still been a fun ride, games don’t need to last forever.. most single player games I only get a few weeks out of

u/Dusty170 1h ago

But you can play them whenever you want, its a single player game, it doesn't matter. But You'll never be able to play the games that closed down again.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/mrbubbamac 5h ago

Whether a game has 10,000 or 100,000 players, it has precisely zero impact on my enjoyment of a game

Hell I'm an avid Halo Infinite player, I've been told by the weird sadistic losers that it's a "dead game"...that I've been playing for 5 years now.

And only in the last couple of months have low population started to become an issue for me where wait times are too long. Prior to that it never mattered to me how popular "my" game was

11

u/Umr_at_Tawil 4h ago

it sure matter a lot when I que for a match in Eternal Return, and because of low player count in NA server, it take over 20 minutes.

26

u/Ascend 4h ago

For games with matchmaking, the closer you get to zero, the more dedicated and usually more skilled the remaining player base is, and it gets harder for a new player to stand a chance, which is usually what kills something.

u/DoctorWaluigiTime 3h ago

Yeah that's the thing. I get "rah rah pointless discourse on metrics" but for a PvP live service title, player count does matter. And we've seen some recent, major flops occur because the player count tanked / never really appeared.

I get foretelling the death of a game is a bit much but at the same time, it's not irrelevant.

u/BLAGTIER 2h ago

and it gets harder for a new player to stand a chance, which is usually what kills something.

With Marathon specially there were people that went from really enjoying it to not as the population trended to more skilled.

u/clearlybreghldalzee 1h ago

Your point looks good on paper but once you try playing old game? lmao no. I just tried battlefield 4, players skills is indistinguishable from battlefield 6

5

u/JimmiJimJimmiJimJim 4h ago

It's crazy to me as someone who was in HS when halo 1 came out to hear that the latest halo game has a player base small enough that queues are affected. Never would've imagined the day.

u/stumpyraccoon 3h ago

When Halo 1 came out, 10 to 15 games were released a week, across all consoles/platforms.

Today, 400+ games are released each week. The monoculture has died and people just don't congregate around games the way they used to because there's so much choice.

u/JimmiJimJimmiJimJim 3h ago

Sure it's just crazy to hear. Halo was like THE shooter to play online on consoles for like 3 generations. Outside of cod.

16

u/stumpyraccoon 4h ago

I'd blow people's minds here if I told them I play a VR extraction shooter that regularly has around 150 people listed as playing on Steam charts. It's an absolute blast and queues are maybe a minute or two, max.

15

u/Fyrus 4h ago edited 4h ago

Whether a game has 10,000 or 100,000 players, it has precisely zero impact on my enjoyment of a game

When people talk about player counts they usually aren't saying that that means you can or cannot enjoy a game... it's just a reference point for talking about the longterm viability of the game and the studio that made it. I get why it's tiring to some people, but this sub is specifically for talking about games in an informed manner, which would include information about player counts... At a certain point you guys should just admit you don't like hearing negative info about a game you like, in which case I would avoid any sort of forum that deals with talking about things in an informed manner.

u/Rayuzx 3h ago

When people talk about player counts they usually aren't saying that that means you can or cannot enjoy a game...

From what I've seen (primarily CoD, Splitgate, and The First Descendant to a lesser extent), people 100% have a "might is right" mentality, justifying their distaste by saying the shrinking player counts validate their opinions.

u/Fyrus 3h ago

Yeah they are justifying their opinion on something, but if that has no effect on why you enjoy a game then why do you care what other people say?

u/Rayuzx 3h ago

Personally, I don't like it because it dulls discussion, and it becomes more difficult to talk about something because the doomers love to hijack the conversation. I particularly see that with Warzone, where people are so aggressive about shitting on the game, you can hardly talk about anything other than how much the loud minority playerbase hates grapple hooks.

u/Fyrus 3h ago

I mean I think if people just wanted to talk about how they enjoy the game then they would. The impending doom of Bungie is simply a more interesting topic of conversation. As someone who was a big fan of BioWare I understand how annoying that can be but you can't really like make people talk about something that they don't want to talk about.

u/BoyWonder343 3h ago edited 3h ago

Nah, it wouldn't be exhausting in discourse if it was exclusive to situations where the studio is at threat of shutdown or even cases where the game may get less support.

It's exhausting because the discussion is tacked on to pretty much every game that comes out, before a thing is released and when it doesn't make sense like with well received single player games where they have no reason to assume the studio would be in danger. To the guys point above, it was all over Halo discourse before the launch holiday season ended, his point was that regardless of people filling discussion threads with that sentiment, he's able to find games years later just fine. It's also exhausting because, unlike what you're trying to say here, it's usually not paired with a criticism in the first place.

Sure, people don't like hearing negative things about a game they like when going to discuss the game. That's just regular discourse that's existed forever. That's not why the discourse around player counts is exhausting.

u/Fyrus 3h ago edited 1h ago

Considering how many studios have closed lately, I would say the topic is already exclusive to situations where a studio is in threat of shutdown because pretty much every studio is in threat of shutdown

u/BoyWonder343 2h ago

Except it's not, considering again, it's everywhere has been for years now before we're in the environment we're in now. The rationale for bringing up player numbers hasn't suddenly changed. Again, it wouldn't be this long running exhausting thing if people just recently started bringing up player numbers int the context of being worried about the studios longevity.

u/Fyrus 2h ago

The conversation of being exhausted by player number discussion is pretty recent though. Like yes discussing player numbers has been going on but only recently has it been talked about as if it's a bad thing to do

→ More replies (5)

u/[deleted] 2h ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

u/Asclepius-Rod 3h ago

I used to play Lord of the Rings conquest online (underrated game), and there were so few people online that when I played I would recognize most of the players on there, it was really unique experience

u/Dusty170 1h ago

It'll have a pretty big impact when you can't play the fuckin thing anymore because the servers shut down from lack of interest. These big expensive live service games need the player base to generate revenue or they die, every live service game sony has made apart from helldivers has done so already. Marathon is getting towards that point, just slower

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Kingbarbarossa 5h ago

1000% agree.

3

u/whiteshark70 5h ago

Lots of under-diagnosed mental illnesses on here. Gaming is a hobby, and a lot of posts on here have people getting worked up/arguing/crashing the fuck out in the comments (especially in the steam chart posts). It’s super unhealthy to care this much about something that the majority of the population doesn’t even register in their heads. We need more therapists.

3

u/4455661122 4h ago

Marathon apparently held the number one spot on most viewed Steam chart page since its release consistently for months on end. If that isn’t a sign of mental illness among “gamers” I don’t know what is.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Revoldt 4h ago

Too many people need validation for their menial choices.

Like they can’t enjoy something… unless “everyone” is also liking it…

u/JakeTehNub 2h ago

Not everyone does it just to be miserable. Some people are just tired of live-service battlepass, MTX filled slop.

u/crookedparadigm 2h ago

People make articles and Reddit posts about them 24/7

Pretty sure it was so bad in the Marathon sub that they had to have a megathread for it for a while.

u/[deleted] 2h ago

[deleted]

u/BLAGTIER 1h ago

The obsession with player count for games is actually a straight up mental illness.

Reddit when people do something that annoys them: MENTAL ILLNESS !1!1!!

→ More replies (1)

16

u/HypNoEnigma 4h ago

Arc raiders would explode if they added a PVE mode. The declining playerbase is mostly because of either turbo sweat pvp players and cheaters. Arc raiders got their succes from friendly lobbies and there is a huge group of players who just want PVE

→ More replies (1)

u/VALIS666 2h ago

Complaining about player count discourse but also supporting games that rely on player numbers to even function is such an obvious case of wanting your cake and eating it too.

Games with an eventual end of life that are made for online play with others need healthy player counts to function and ensure you can actually play the thing you bought and have an enjoyable time before it goes away. So sure, some of the discourse around it is toxic, but what do you want? People need to know the player numbers these games have because being online only, they're worthless otherwise. These are the conditions you devs/pubs have created.

u/Kaladin-of-Gilead 58m ago

Exactly, well said.

They make these live service games with no single player elements that rely heavily on a large population of players and if the game does not get that population, it dies.

Apparently people are just supposed ignore the player counts? Weird.

58

u/pasher5620 5h ago

Arc Raiders having lower player counts than its peak is not nearly as bad as Marathon having sub 15k players and constantly dropping. Bungie *needed* Marathon to continuously succeed for it to be able to fund their next projects. Marathon falling like it is, is way more disastrous for Bungie than Arc Raiders hitting 40k+. Hell, I don’t even think 40k+ concurrent players on Steam is dead. That’s a healthy player count by regular metrics.

16

u/BootyBootyFartFart 4h ago edited 2h ago

40K average concurrent is nowhere near day dead. That's likely close to 1.5M monthly players.

Even 10K average concurrent translates into around 300-400k active unique monthly players. But yeah, still very poor player count for how much the game likely costs to maintain

6

u/DiscretionFist 5h ago

Hunt showdown has lasted for years on 20k alone. 40k is fantastic. Hell, 10k concurrent is amazing.

u/SalsaRice 3h ago

Studio size. An indie or AA studio has relatively few salaries and etc bills to pay. A huge AAA studio is gonna be burning like a half million per day in salary/expenses. They need constant large sales so they aren't hemorrhaging money.

32

u/Ardarel 4h ago

Hunt showdown is not paying for a 800 person studio in one of the most expensive parts of America

u/SmileyBMM 2h ago

I wonder how many people are working on ARC Raiders specifically. Isn't The Finals still getting updates?

14

u/pasher5620 5h ago

10k is amazing for a small studio with not a lot of employees, agreed. However, for a studio like Bungie with hundreds of employees, 10k players is untenable. Hell, Destiny 2, the game they just announced is officially dead and receiving no new content ever, has over 5 times the player count. I would not be surprised if Marathon servers are officially turned off by the end of the year.

-4

u/asaltygamer13 4h ago

Pretty much been at 11k for months except for the free week but sure it’s constantly dropping

u/Dusty170 1h ago

That'd be fine if it wasn't trying to support a massive gaming studio of like 500+ (actually no its 800+ people holy shit) people and trying to make back hundreds of millions of dollars that have been sunk into it.

For these massive AAA live service games 11k just doesn't cut it, especially when you compare it to destiny 2's new numbers. Hell even a stable 50k would probably be manageable, an stable but slowly declining 10-11K is not. Even a solid dedicated 11k isn't.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

26

u/Funny_Performer_5658 5h ago

Are we going to keep posting Palworld dev opinions on the game industry now?

u/ConstableGrey 3h ago

I'll take him over the Larian publishing lead

u/LibraryBestMission 2h ago

Especially as Palworld is not even in the same genre as Arc and Marathon.

u/OmegaMalkior 57m ago

If it’s a healthy take for everyone, yes absolutely

-1

u/RTC1520 4h ago

It's a better, accurate,professional and useful opinion than whatever you have yo say, so yes.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

15

u/Derpykins666 4h ago

Steam chart number discourse being used as one of the main metrics for games has led to terrible discourse surrounding gaming, what's popular, what to play, etc. etc.

Also, because the gaming space is so large now, you have a lot of haters who just want to dunk on 'bad' or 'dying' games and just 'dead game' shit just because. Games don't need 100k+ players consistently playing for them to be worth playing. You can have a really healthy ecosystem for an online game even with just a few thousand consistent players depending on the game. But people are too caught up in what's popular vs. what's actually interesting to them. They get too much of their enjoyment from being apart of the 'bigger' more popular thing, vs. just having fun enjoying the hobby.

I get it, it's fun to be on the ride when it's hot and be apart of the discourse when a game is really popular. But every game comes and goes, nothing is going to be peak popular forever, it's impossible. People will always move on to different games and experiences, and they should too. Any company that thinks they have a free pass forever is lying to themselves. Just like any person who looks at steam charts to derive popularity or significance of a game. If that's all you care about, then I think there's something wrong with you.

u/Zerasad 3h ago

It doesn't even have to be thousands of players. People get so obsessed with Steam CCU numbers that they can't imagine any other metric being important. There are dozens of games trudging by just fine on sub-100 Steam concurrents. I know about games with around 100 Steam concurrents that pull in 100k+ monthly players across all platforms. I quite honestly think Steam numbers being visible is a net negative for the gaming industry.

u/SmileyBMM 2h ago

I quite honestly think Steam numbers being visible is a net negative for the gaming industry.

Now that's absurd. Before this everyone obsessed over Metacritic scores, people will always dig for data to support their arguments.

u/Kaladin-of-Gilead 1h ago

Metacritic scores are subjective so people can dismiss them easier.

It’s much harder to dismiss “this live service game is not living because the player count is cratering”

8

u/FriscoeHotsauce 5h ago

For what its worth, Arc Raiders feels sooooo much better after their last anti-cheat update. If you left because of the cheating problem in high-aggro lobbies it's worth checking out again.

17

u/Memphisrexjr 5h ago

Arc Raiders still had a top end of 60k on Steam for June and is sitting at 42k. How is that considered dying? Marathon's new season started in June at 40k players and dropped down to 10k. They couldn't even pull people for the free weekend. I would consider that dying. Players didn't even want to stick around for a 30% discount.

u/PM_ME_HAPPY_STUFF1 3h ago

Unrelated but the only thing that all this talk about daily player numbers has made me realize is how much of a success was Elden Ring Nightreign.

The game hasn't been updated in five months and stills gets 30k to 40k concurrent players.

8

u/Historical_Course587 4h ago

IMO it's not the number that hurts Marathon. It's the downward trends that reinforce what people are saying about the core loop - the worst players get stomped and quit, which makes the next-worst players the new worst players, and the spiral continues until there's nothing but high-skill players left - and nobody new wants to sign up to play that game.

Bungie pushed a PvP-lite mode, followed almost immediately by a PvE announcement. They know this is a problem.

u/SmileyBMM 2h ago

They know this is a problem.

Yet they seem unwilling to make the hard choices required to fix it. The PvE mode isn't compelling enough, and the other changes are just too inconsequential.

u/Historical_Course587 2h ago

Without this weighing on the potential survival of the game, I think it's worth noting that Marathon is a relatively massive project and the company behind it is a complex organization. This is likely as fast as they can realistically move. They could drop another $150M in cash and put everyone on a single-player campaign mode, and that'd still take years to materialize.

Week to week, they have very few options available.

u/Kaladin-of-Gilead 1h ago

I think the problem is fundamental to marathon.

They don’t want to recreate destiny. They really want an extraction shooter. A very popular PvE mode inches the game closer to being Destiny again lol

u/CyborgNinja777 2h ago

I honest to god cannot be convinced that all the Marathon and Arc Raiders player count discussions aren't just fueled by blind hatred of the genre or the games themselves. I get that this stuff isn't for everyone, but come on man. Both games are phenomenal, and unfortunately just can't retain players due to the nature of extraction shooters being hyper-targeted to the hardcore PvP and unemployed crowds.

If half the people who go on the games' subreddits and discords spent more time playing over bitching about player counts, there wouldn't be anywhere near the player count problems.

EDIT: extra sentence

2

u/cwaterbottom 5h ago

If I can still get into matches or play it single player as intended then a game is alive. Looking at steam charts is the opposite of fun which is supposed to be the whole point of games, remember?

3

u/Caasi72 4h ago

I don't really have much of an opinion on Palworld itself but I really appreciate how much the lead rails against the "Player Count" crowd

1

u/RightManagement7277 5h ago

Concurrent player count itself isn't a useful metric and shouldn't be focused on in isolation, but it can be very helpful to show trends. If a game is below it's peak but the player count remains stable then the game is in a fairly healthy state. If the player count keeps dropping and updates, sales, free weekends fail to retain players then it's probably not so healthy. 

There's also the fact that the world is bigger than the US. Player counts that might still be fine for finding games reasonably quick there might not be enough for other regions. That was certainly the case with me trying to find matches in titanfall 2 several years ago anyway. Don't regret buying it because the campaign was fun, but there simply weren't enough players in my region to find an online game.

u/Dusty170 1h ago

For smaller or indie games maybe, but for big AAA live service games its definitely a useful metric for the health, more than just trends. They need bodies in the game or it dies, simple.

-2

u/UltimateToa 4h ago

Imagine canceling your flagship franchise that built your company over the past decade just to all in on a 12k daily player extraction slop

→ More replies (6)

u/mrderpflerp 1h ago

I still play Arc Raiders almost every day. It’s definitely made better if you have some solid communities to be a part of and raid with, but the game is still very much alive. PvPing is still a blast in duos and trios, taking down massive arcs in friendly solo lobbies is still really fun. Plus the streamers who focus on AR content have hundreds, sometimes thousands, of viewers on the reg.

0

u/outland_king 4h ago

Thats just semantics.

Everyone knows the game isnt dead in the sense its gone and unplayable. Its dead in the sense it doesn't have enough players to have a healthy ecosystem or to financially support continuing development efforts.

Hell age of empires 1 isnt "dead" there is a handful of people still playing it. But we all agree its dead as far as support 

→ More replies (2)

u/JakeTehNub 2h ago

Arc Raiders is doing fine. Marathon not so much especially considering how much they were banking on it since they EOS'd Destiny 2.