That would be mine interpretation of these charts.ĪRK started poorly? It started at 80,000 players and never dropped below 50,000 players until just recently.
LEFT 4 DEAD 2 STEAM CHARTS UPDATE
Hell, look at Minecraft, its hardly a PvP game, kept adding stuff, allowed to make complicated automatic farms and stuff and kept the world interesting with all of that, each update usually adding some cool unique mechanics to play with.ħd just doesn't deliver enough stuff in a reasonable amount of time anymore, therefore people are losing interest. Massive dinos that could be made into mobile fortresses/bases.Ĭontent pacing, quantity of content and dreaded nowadays "early access" tag have bigger impact on population then ability to pull PvP off. That's one of the biggest content things we're getting now at A17. We're getting new vehicles now, faster badass minibike, literal bike, flying minibike and actual car for more then one player.
LEFT 4 DEAD 2 STEAM CHARTS FULL
If anything, this chart clearly points out that games that left early access and ones which kept adding new features and expanding existing ones -in a reasonable time- tend to gather more players over games which update very rarely, do not add a lot of new stuff and just constantly flip over the old stuff.Įarly access was great thing at its first year, however due to how much it was exploited by shady devs, nowadays all games with early access tag are being ignored, people got burned multiple times and finally started avoiding them.Īll the other titles you mentioned are still in early access, or if released(the forest, subnautica) have a clear ending where you can "beat" the game and see credits for that, meaning while they do offer certain freedom, they aren't full endless sandboxes, people play them, beat them and leave them for another game as there simply isn't any reason to keep playing, especially if the actual content isn't expanded in any meaningful way.Īrc started poorly, but expanded rapidly and kept expanding in good pace while adding massive things to the game with new items, buildings, installations, weapons(personal and static) and so on, while 7d also moved fast at start, pacing slowed to a "once a year" patch, which is tiresome to everyone and completely unacceptable if you want to keep high playerbase.ħd simply seem to be doing too little too rarely to keep players.Īnd even if something really new drops, does it really add that much? Interested to hear analysis and see more comparison charts with games that have done better or worse than 7 Days to Die and why you believe that to be the case. This one shows (I believe) that despite having a great idea it is incredibly hard to deliver a game that becomes successful.Īll of these games I chose I think are good comparisons to 7 Days to Die because they released to Early Access and are survival and open world experiences. This last steam chart comparison is between 7 Days to Die (Green), The Long Dark (White), Savage Lands (Blue), and Stranded Deep (Orange). It also kinda shows what "dead" actually looks like. The interesting thing about this chart to me is just how lucrative an emphasis on PvP can be. This second steam chart comparison is between 7 Days to Die (Green), Rust (Blue), DayZ (Orange), and ARK (White). Is finishing what you've got and calling it released really that important? What is interesting to me is that both Subnautica and The Forest came out of Early Access this year as fully released games which is what some in these forums keep stating should be TFP's first and foremost goal for 7 Days to Die. This first steam chart comparison is between 7 Days to Die (Green), The Forest (Blue), Subnautica (Orange), and Empyrion (White).
0 kommentar(er)
