Jump to content
Drizzy

Game's Dead guys..

Recommended Posts

Oh sorry, i thought you meant the player count and yes i agree the amount have players have steadily declined (see my other reply on the other page) and i for one have no interest in playing the game in its current state but i do manage 1 maybe 2 rounds every 4 nights.

Everyone keeps using the EA excuse but if that was the case updates would be plentiful, remember ARK? but in general people are worried so many will shy away from this game it's future looks very dismal indeed.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, adze said:

MUCH WOW.

The point of that pic was the graph and not the current playercount. However It doesn't really matter cause 1,7k is still WEAK. And probably never going to grow up to stable 10k, which is still shit nowadays, but atleast you could find scrims in a few minutes. Atleast that's what I think after having a taste of bulkheads progression, so unprofessional.

During early CS:GO it had 20k after launching with around 60k. Queuing for a match there were, during peak times, less than a thousand. That is with the massive backing of steam and a massive committee behind it. All that within 3 months of launch.  

  

This still in early access and less than a month old. If you base a success on a game by that, then you're quite frankly an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MagicalBubba said:

During early CS:GO it had 20k after launching with around 60k. Queuing for a match there were, during peak times, less than a thousand. That is with the massive backing of steam and a massive committee behind it. All that within 3 months of launch.  

  

This still in early access and less than a month old. If you base a success on a game by that, then you're quite frankly an idiot.

 

Flawless logic mate.
Would mark a few mistakes tho:
Valve vs. Bulkead number of employees: 400vs5 ?
Valve had a base game , called CS and built GO on it, bulkead has no background.
Valve has shittons of money to sponsor events and advertise it's own game on it's own "platform" called Steam.
CS:GO is by far the worst version of CS and still succesfull because GOOD decisions of devs.
CS:GO was one of the first multiplayer shooters* with skins and created the market which made it super popular.
There is no reason to compare it to CSGO and I didn't do it before, dunno why you came up with this lol.
Let's compare it with other "early acces" or "beta" FPS titles:
Dirty Bomb, in beta for 2-3 years, 1,5k steady playerbase, shit start, still shit, couldnt climb out, dead.
Quake Champions, early acces, shit start, shit decisions from devs, nothing is going to save the game, dead.
B44: shit start, player count already decreasing, and anyways who the fuck pushes a game to early acces without proper ranked system, fucked up weapon balance, shitty card system, you have to quit and launch the game again to see your rank, multiple crashes, dafuq.
Why I'm even arguing with you, the playercount proves me right and proves you wrong.

Edited by adze
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, adze said:

 

Flawless logic mate.
Would mark a few mistakes tho:
Valve vs. Bulkead number of employees: 400vs5 ?
Valve had a base game , called CS and built GO on it, bulkead has no background.
Valve has shittons of money to sponsor events and advertise it's own game on it's own "platform" called Steam.
CS:GO is by far the worst version of CS and still succesfull because GOOD decisions of devs.
CS:GO was one of the first FPS shooters with skins and created the market which made it super popular.
There is no reason to compare it to CSGO and I didn't do it before, dunno why you came up with this lol.
Let's compare it with other "early acces" or "beta" FPS titles:
Dirty Bomb, in beta for 2-3 years, 1,5k steady playerbase, shit start, still shit, couldnt climb out, dead.
Quake Champions, early acces, shit start, shit decisions from devs, nothing is going to save the game, dead.
B44: shit start, player count already decreasing, and anyways who the fuck pushes a game to early acces without proper ranked system, fucked up weapon balance, shitty card system, you have to quit and launch the game again to see your rank, multiple crashes, dafuq.
Why I'm even arguing with you, the playercount proves me right and proves you wrong.

Counterstrike had 20-30 people but the backing of steam behind it but if that is how you decide what will make a good game competitive, then you're an idiot. As you know the original CS was a mod, with virtually no players. Same goes with Team Fortress if you want other examples.  

As I say, you are basing your entire base of reasoning on "big company" good competitive game...Small company, no chance.  

  

While I would prefer to see how growth is over time, especially once it is release and marketed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MagicalBubba said:

Counterstrike had 20-30 people but the backing of steam behind it but if that is how you decide what will make a good game competitive, then you're an idiot. As you know the original CS was a mod, with virtually no players. Same goes with Team Fortress if you want other examples.  

As I say, you are basing your entire base of reasoning on "big company" good competitive game...Small company, no chance.  

  

While I would prefer to see how growth is over time, especially once it is release and marketed. 

Name me a multiplayer FPS title on PC in modern era (2010-) that can be considered "succesful" and was developed by a really small company. I can't think of any.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adze said:

Name me a multiplayer FPS title on PC in modern era (2010-) that can be considered "succesful" and was developed by a really small company. I can't think of any.

First, you need to decide what is successful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MagicalBubba said:

First, you need to decide what is successful. 

Well, 3-5k players playing at the same time can't be considered sucessful. I'd be happy with stable 30k playerbase.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, adze said:

Well, 3-5k players playing at the same time can't be considered sucessful. I'd be happy with stable 30k playerbase.

A playerbase or concurrent users? Both very different. then over what timeframe. 30k for a month or daily?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MagicalBubba said:

A playerbase or concurrent users? Both very different. then over what timeframe. 30k for a month or daily?

I meant 30k playing at the same time in the evenings, guess that is something like 60-70k active players.
Otherwise we will see self funded cups, lans with prizemoney less than a planeticket, just like in every struggling mutliplayer title without sponsors.
 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adze said:

I meant 30k playing at the same time in the evenings, guess that is something like 60-70k active players.
Otherwise we will see self funded cups, lans with prizemoney less than a planeticket, just like in every struggling mutliplayer title without sponsors.
 

A peak of 30k would have the game around 250k monthly unique players. That seems a hell of a lot to get under your bar of successful. Here's one for you then, Crossfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wooo ! I think we all would be happy to get 30k players at the same time, even Devs ! :P

But the road is long before to reach it. IMHO.


 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soldat Ryan said:

Wooo ! I think we all would be happy to get 30k players at the same time, even Devs ! :P

But the road is long before to reach it. IMHO.


 

Otherwise we cannot talk about Battalion as of an "esport ready" game.

There are no prizes and serious leagues for games with lesser playerbase.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, adze said:

Otherwise we cannot talk about Battalion as of an "esport ready" game.

There are no prizes and serious leagues for games with lesser playerbase.

So it's whether it's an e-sport game or not. So it's prize funds or are we talking large events. Why are you specific for fps having such large numbers? Can't we take all genres as whether they are esports with prize funds and/or big tourneys as examples.

 

I just feel your not allowing for games you don't know about, like Crossfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MagicalBubba said:

So it's whether it's an e-sport game or not. So it's prize funds or are we talking large events. Why are you specific for fps having such large numbers? Can't we take all genres as whether they are esports with prize funds and/or big tourneys as examples.

 

I just feel your not allowing for games you don't know about, like Crossfire.

I don't know much about Crossfire, heard it a few years ago, but the game looks like crap and it's f2p afaik* (maybe even p2w). So I cannot comment on that. Never really hard anything significant about the game and I tend to follow bigger titles whether its fps or not, so I guess it's kinda irrelevant. (I can be wrong tho).
This game was marketed like "next esport title" "esports ready" and stuff. How do you call a game that is not even half done and basicly dead since day 1 an esport title? 2018 and u have to pay more to attend on a LAN event than the prizemoney you'd get in return if you get #1 spot, laughable, that's pretty far from what I have in mind when I think of new era esport titles.

Edited by adze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, adze said:

I don't know much about Crossfire, heard it a few years ago, but the game looks like crap and it's f2p afaik* (maybe even p2w). So I cannot comment on that. Never really hard anything significant about the game and I tend to follow bigger titles whether its fps or not, so I guess it's kinda irrelevant. (I can be wrong tho).
This game was marketed like "next esport title" "esports ready" and stuff. How do you call a game that is not even half done and basicly dead since day 1 an esport title? 2018 and u have to pay more to attend on a LAN event than the prizemoney you'd get in return if you get #1 spot, laughable, that's pretty far from what I have in mind when I think of new era esport titles.

The thread has gone over that. What I'm asking is what makes something and esport game in your eyes. Is it the numbers? the tournaments? You can't say it will be dead and never an esport if you don't firstly quantify what that means.  

You say 30k peak players (or was that average). That is an incredible amount of players to ask for. Me, I would say you need an average of 4k-8k online. That would cover games such as world of tanks & smite. 

And since the game is less than a month old, in early access, then It's impossible to say how things are without the full list of things that are promised before it is marketed by square enix. 

So more maps, all bugs fixed and the clan system. once we have them we can tell for sure but until then staying around the 2k peak or better still, slowly growing, would be a good confirmation the game could do well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MagicalBubba said:

The thread has gone over that. What I'm asking is what makes something and esport game in your eyes. Is it the numbers? the tournaments? You can't say it will be dead and never an esport if you don't firstly quantify what that means.  

You say 30k peak players (or was that average). That is an incredible amount of players to ask for. Me, I would say you need an average of 4k-8k online. That would cover games such as world of tanks & smite. 

And since the game is less than a month old, in early access, then It's impossible to say how things are without the full list of things that are promised before it is marketed by square enix. 

So more maps, all bugs fixed and the clan system. once we have them we can tell for sure but until then staying around the 2k peak or better still, slowly growing, would be a good confirmation the game could do well.

My experiences tell that it's not going to grow, based on other "EA", "beta" FPS titles.
30k avarage is huge to ask? I think Q3, ET, RTCW, COD1/2 reached these numbers before computer games were popular 10+ years ago. Ofc it was all different back then, but compared to todays standards it's nothing. Maybe huge to ask from a small developer like bulkhead, but it's really not a big thing.
You can't have serious tournaments without big playerbase, so both. Following the same 10 teams fighting for a couple of hundreds bucks over and over again can hardly be called esport (basicly what's left of cod2 and cod4).
 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, adze said:

My experiences tell that it's not going to grow, based on other "EA", "beta" FPS titles.
30k avarage is huge to ask? I think Q3, ET, RTCW, COD1/2 reached these numbers before computer games were popular 10+ years ago. Ofc it was all different back then, but compared to todays standards it's nothing. Maybe huge to ask from a small developer like bulkhead, but it's really not a big thing.
You can't have serious tournaments without big playerbase, so both. Following the same 10 teams fighting for a couple of hundreds bucks over and over again can hardly be called esport (basicly what's left of cod2 and cod4).
 

so it's the money and player base (ave).  

So lets go down the route of that. We have smite, player base of 8k (ave). Tournament size of $150K F2P game.

 

So what is needed then for an esport because 8k average players seems to be translate into an esport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MagicalBubba said:

so it's the money and player base (ave).  

So lets go down the route of that. We have smite, player base of 8k (ave). Tournament size of $150K F2P game.

 

So what is needed then for an esport because 8k average players seems to be translate into an esport.

Is Smite an FPS? I don't think so.

I don't compare battleroyals to FPS because battleroyal is super popular nowdays and there are no FPS that could hold the line with Fortnite or other battleroyal games. Different genres tend to have different prizemoney in tournaments/events. Look at PUBG - played by millions but there are not really huge money in tournaments lan events, atleast compared to the playerbase. Dota2 has fairly the same amount of players like CS still much bigger prizepools, but it's not an FPS.

Let's only count FPS titles please :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, adze said:

Is Smite an FPS? I don't think so.

I don't compare battleroyals to FPS because battleroyal is super popular nowdays and there are no FPS that could hold the line with Fortnite or other battleroyal games. Different genres tend to have different prizemoney in tournaments/events. Look at PUBG - played by millions but there are not really huge money in tournaments lan events, atleast compared to the playerbase. Dota2 has fairly the same amount of players like CS still much bigger prizepools, but it's not an FPS.

Let's only count FPS titles please :)

 

Why only FPS games. We're talking esports.

Why is the genre so important when it comes to decideing an e-sport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MagicalBubba said:

Why only FPS games. We're talking esports.

Why is the genre so important when it comes to decideing an e-sport?

Because B44 is an FPS and PC only game and this game won't change the balance between FPS/MOBA/BR games and the prizepools/playerbase. So we should compare it to other competitive FPS titles on PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adze said:

Because B44 is an FPS and PC only game and this game won't change the balance between FPS/MOBA/BR games and the prizepools/playerbase. So we should compare it to other competitive FPS titles on PC.

But we're talking about what makes an esport. the genre doesn't matter.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MagicalBubba said:

But we're talking about what makes an esport. the genre doesn't matter.

Yes, we are talking about what makes and eSport and it differs from genre to genre. Show me an FPS game with under 10k playerbase and $150k prizepool on an event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First the game has to be fun (to keep players want more of the game itself. The game must be addictive), it has to play fair (so you can have tourneys on that uniform ruleset) and well (bugfixed). Then the game is ready to get advertised well to grow playercounts. With higher playercounts and some advertisement we get bigger events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why such arbitrary figures. Are you now going with a 10k player base and $150k as a mark of it being an esport? Could you also decide what playerbase means. Is it ave / day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MagicalBubba said:

Why such arbitrary figures. Are you now going with a 10k player base and $150k as a mark of it being an esport? Could you also decide what playerbase means. Is it ave / day?

You are missing the point, on purpose :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×