Like every PvE game which does not have hundreds of people working to churn out content, its playerbase will dwindle until only those who do not get bored by its gameplay stick around. Whether it's Left 4 Dead, Payday, Deep Rock Galactic or Vermintide, those types of games follow this pattern...
And I for one, see no fucking issue with that. It's a great game, people play it until they have had their fill and then move on. Helldivers 2 is only an outlier because of how hard it hit at launch. It absolutely does not have the content pipeline to keep a large playerbase engaged, so yeah it will not keep printing a lot of money, just a little bit every now and then.
Now excuse me as I go and spread some managed democracy.
This message was approved by your local democracy officer.
Basically this. Anyone who is surprised by this has been paying literally zero attention to how these things usually go. The majority of the time when a game explodes that much, this happens. Sometimes to a lesser extent, sometimes to a greater one. A good chunk of the people who buy the game in the first place buy it to play with their friends, and when their friends move on to another game, they will too.
While you will have games that are the exception, such as PUBG which has had massive a player count for forever. they are indeed the exception.
Yeah, most players will play a game for a bit and then move on. It's rare to get attached to a game and play it forever, and if you do, you likely only have one game like that. There'll be people who play Helldivers 2 for years, but it doesn't seem set up like an MMO so is unlikely to get the same long term traction.
That's a good point. An online game can be successful while having a limited shelf life. Make your money and shut it down (or just ramp it down for the smaller audience if it's worth the effort)
Yeah but that's the problem isn't it? Why are more toxic games like the PvP centric ones some much more successful with sometimes even less content?
Because PvP is basically infinite free content for people who like the game loop. I've had friends who love that sort of thing and they can play forever because they're putting their skills against real people who aren't just basic AIs.
Chess has been played for ages with no dlc. Competition against another person is engaging on its own. And chess is a good deep game on its own.
Combine competition with a good game and you get a successful infinite live service game in theory.
Only one or the other and you get a flash in the pan.
They're not. This same curve happens with PvP games. The ones that don't follow this trend are the exception, not the rule.
Like every PvE game which does not have hundreds of people working to churn out content, its playerbase will dwindle until only those who do not get bored by its gameplay stick around. Whether it's Left 4 Dead, Payday, Deep Rock Galactic or Vermintide, those types of games follow this pattern...
And I for one, see no fucking issue with that. It's a great game, people play it until they have had their fill and then move on. Helldivers 2 is only an outlier because of how hard it hit at launch. It absolutely does not have the content pipeline to keep a large playerbase engaged, so yeah it will not keep printing a lot of money, just a little bit every now and then.
Now excuse me as I go and spread some managed democracy.
This message was approved by your local democracy officer.
Basically this. Anyone who is surprised by this has been paying literally zero attention to how these things usually go. The majority of the time when a game explodes that much, this happens. Sometimes to a lesser extent, sometimes to a greater one. A good chunk of the people who buy the game in the first place buy it to play with their friends, and when their friends move on to another game, they will too.
While you will have games that are the exception, such as PUBG which has had massive a player count for forever. they are indeed the exception.
Yeah, most players will play a game for a bit and then move on. It's rare to get attached to a game and play it forever, and if you do, you likely only have one game like that. There'll be people who play Helldivers 2 for years, but it doesn't seem set up like an MMO so is unlikely to get the same long term traction.
That's a good point. An online game can be successful while having a limited shelf life. Make your money and shut it down (or just ramp it down for the smaller audience if it's worth the effort)
Yeah but that's the problem isn't it? Why are more toxic games like the PvP centric ones some much more successful with sometimes even less content?
Because PvP is basically infinite free content for people who like the game loop. I've had friends who love that sort of thing and they can play forever because they're putting their skills against real people who aren't just basic AIs.
Chess has been played for ages with no dlc. Competition against another person is engaging on its own. And chess is a good deep game on its own.
Combine competition with a good game and you get a successful infinite live service game in theory.
Only one or the other and you get a flash in the pan.
They're not. This same curve happens with PvP games. The ones that don't follow this trend are the exception, not the rule.