Harvest had 50% more players at same point, Ritual had 90% more

"

auspexa wrote:

no man's sky had a huge hype, huge launch numbers, what happened? same with cyberpunk, same with new world. league start numbers are completely meaningless.

Yeah, you probably should have used 'Wolcen' there because both of those games are in a pretty good place right now, the former due to insanely hard work by the devs and a ridiculous amount of free expansions, the latter due to a mixture of it simply needing time and a fucking huge resurgence due to, of all things, a Netflix anime. Wolcen, on the other hand, DID have a lot of eleventh hour hype, massive launch numbers and then promptly keeled over never to get up again.

__

That quibble aside, it'd be good to clarify what people mean by 'retention', if people are even vaguely interested in coming to some sort of accord and not just don armour of various shades of grey and have at each other. I'd suggest there are two types of retention of significance here: league retention and game retention. They aren't entirely unrelated but they can be independent.

League retention is about as immediate as it gets: the number of players who stick around after a launch and for how long. Easily measured: obtain a player concurrency chart, smooth the daily dips and spikes, judge the overall lack of decline in the resulting line. The steeper the line, the worse the league retention.

But game retention is the longer view. You look not at 3 month intervals but a year, maybe even two. You focus solely on those spikes when a new league drops. Given my understanding of the popularity of supporter pack system vs people buying GGGold solely to obtain mtxes, I believe that GGG bank on this sort of retention, which sees stalwarts and reliable Exiles 'come back' for more even. This is less about player satisfaction in the micro sense and more about loyalty, comfort and reliability.

As I said, they're not unrelated, and I personally think that league retention is more important than some may think: a sharp dive in the first sort of retention can be a good indicator that fewer people will contribute to the latter, because like or not, league retention can indicate overall satisfaction with the game and the devs.

The chance of GGG never having discussed all this is zero. The chance of them not being aware of it is only slightly above that. Someone in here said that Chris hates stats; that's patently untrue (even if he's actually said those words; not everything he says is a fact, even about himself and his game) -- stats drive business, and he's an extraordinarily canny businessman.

But then there's a third factor that can affect both types of retention and is less in GGG's hands: overall gaming trends and tastes. I don't think that Diablo clones are 'dead' or that there is no demand for them, but I do think that beyond the core Exile base (i.e. those players who play PoE exclusively or something very close to it), there is a fairly large external threat to PoE in the form of games much more consciously engineered to be fun and engaging and immersive, rather than appealing to the player's ability to read complex systems and keep up with a fluid metagame. Again, Cyberpunk is a terribly poor example but it was one of the few times GGG openly acknowledged that threat in any way.

It would be interesting to look at whatever else was going on in the PC gaming world around the time of each league launch. Well, it'd be interesting for me to look at someone else's looking at it...

And while GGG can't really do much about that third factor, they can weather its unpredictability by ensuring they manage the other two. Again, this is really stating the obvious but PoE is not exactly a house made of straw or wood. It only makes sense that the main way to fend off the threat of losing players/supporters to other games is to retain them. So to me there's no way GGG don't care about either type of retention.

To me the real question is in the balance between the two. And there has to be some sort, because otherwise the game would either look like a cash grab every 3 months (focus on game retention) or the devs would burn out trying to make each league as good as possible (focus on league retention).

The OP's argument (yeah, I'm finally getting there -- had to lay some foundation first) is that "player power at the start of any given league leads to a sharper drop off in league retention" is debunked by a lack of correlation between 'player agency' and league retention. They go so far as to call it a 'lie' (which never does anyone's argument any good, really). This is a problematic stance because it's intrinsically reductive: 'player agency' is much more complicated than 'character power' or even 'player power'. I can't even tell which the OP means here: player agency as in control over how they play the game, or player/character power as in overall potency of the character vs the content delivered?

If the former, then I think they are right: more player agency is generally good and should lead to stronger retention.

But if the latter, then they are less right: more player/character power leads to bored players and reduced retention.

Then there's what I'd consider the most likely reason retention drops off more often than not: risk and reward out of accord. Because in the end, it's all about that. The satisfying balance between those two is the grail the good knights of GGG should pursue; attain that and retention is all but guaranteed.

Easier said than done, of course, but 'player agency' is only one of several sub-goals in that quest.

I don't believe the OP has made a convincing argument at all (how can they? they don't have access to convincingly thorough data, just one regurgitated chart from reddit) and their absolutist stance that whatever they're arguing against is 'a lie' doesn't lend it much in the way of rationality, but I do think it's interesting to ruminate on what 'retention' really means in terms of GGG and PoE.

Otoh I didn't read that reddit link, because if I need to then the argument presented here is by default inadequate -- update, just checked it, and unsurprisingly it doesn't really make much of an argument either. A lot of implication and inference giving people room to go on about their personal experiences. Par for the reddit course...although this one comment with a slew of updoots left me pretty amused:

"

quin stopping playing probably cost them a few thousand, i know its weird for normal people but for me i enjoy a game like PoE alot more if i have a streamer on my 2nd monitor and im not the only one

https://www.reddit.com/r/pathofexile/comments/xx6pt3/comment/irae8sw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

I think you know a computer game has stopped being much of a 'game' and become simply 'content' when that's the case. Content supported by content creators. It's like a building made of nothing but scaffolding. Yeesh.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

I can't even tell which the OP means here: player agency as in control over how they play the game, or player/character power as in overall potency of the character vs the content delivered?

If the former, then I think they are right: more player agency is generally good and should lead to stronger retention.

But if the latter, then they are less right: more player/character power leads to bored players and reduced retention.

...

I don't believe the OP has made a convincing argument at all (how can they? they don't have access to convincingly thorough data, just one regurgitated chart from reddit) and their absolutist stance that whatever they're arguing against is 'a lie' doesn't lend it much in the way of rationality

I think both have happened.

They could be independent variables. For instance, you could lose control, but be more powerful, by way of fewer crafting options but simply make all skills do 5 times more damage. Or you could gain a true item editor, but lose power, by making mobs take 95% less damage and do 1000% more.

But in this case, it seems clear we have less control than any time in the past two years on crafting outcomes due to options being removed. I can describe specific losses without replacements if it is useful, if this statement is in any way not obvious.

Player power vs content is also complex but again, with the rise of AN mobs, the broad nerf of support gems, the reduction of crit multi on the tree, I see a strong argument that player power is also at a mutli-year low.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

more player/character power leads to bored players and reduced retention.
_
I don't believe the OP has made a convincing argument at all (how can they? they don't have access to convincingly thorough data, just one regurgitated chart from reddit) and their absolutist stance that whatever they're arguing against is 'a lie' doesn't lend it much in the way of rationality

You are tripping over word choice, but then you assert something that stands in opposition to any supported data with no justification or supporting data.

Its not that you make a weak argument, you make no argument at all. You just make a statement that runs against available data.

Yes - lie is probably not great, "unsupported guess or assertion that should be walked back now that trends have shown the opposite" is more rational
Yes - the game is complex and the game industry more so, there is a wide and difficult to represent background picture going on.


However, given available data, that
(1) Ritual probably represents the height of player power and gearing/crafting agency vs content given Harvest crafting options and being pre-support nerf, and
(2) Kalandra represents the lowest point at least since Harvest, due to a mix of AN and continued harvest nerfs,

and

(3) retention is vastly lower,

then the logical conclusion is there is not a positive correlation between retention and player agency and power.

You've just continued the trend of saying things not only without data based on your personal gaming preferences, but doing so against the weight of data. (regurgitating data does not negate that fact it is data, unless you change it, just FYI. Otherwise no scientist could stand on previous work and further it. Regurgitating data is kinda the point of sharing data.)

"

trixxar wrote:

"

Bleu42 wrote:

"

trixxar wrote:

If you dont care about retention, thats fine by me.

But lets just stop the lie that player power reduces retention or people get done with the league earlier. If thats not your concern, then cool.


(To answer your question, neither you or I know the impact retention has on profit vs league start. I agree starting period is probably when people buy. But if everyone quit by day 2, you would agree they dont plan on returning next league start, so at some point it starts to matter. We could argue details but neither of us have the data to express exactly how important it is.)

Can we please stop asserting assumptions as fact? You have quite literally zero idea if players who quit early don't return.

Simple math, we are down from Sentinel (and I think Ritual and Archnemesis?) so we can confirm mathematically that not everyone did return.

That is a simple fact, no?

That's not what you said, at all. Not even a little bit. Please stop lying / changing what you said to make a point, it makes you less trustworthy.

This is your quote;
"But if everyone quit by day 2, you would agree they dont plan on returning next league start"

You have no way of proving that people who quit by day 2 don't return for the next league. That was what I was calling you out for.

"

Bleu42 wrote:

That's not what you said, at all. Not even a little bit. Please stop lying / changing what you said to make a point, it makes you less trustworthy.

This is your quote;
"But if everyone quit by day 2, you would agree they dont plan on returning next league start"

You have no way of proving that people who quit by day 2 don't return for the next league. That was what I was calling you out for.

Ok, just so we are clear, you assert that people playing the longest time in the league are the ones who most likely quit and dont try the next league? Not the people trying it and quitting right away?

Really?

Do you see how far you have to bend and stretch to make that make any sense at all?

Who is untrustworthy now...

Look, you shouldn't trust me either way. If my points my sense, that is the value. if they dont, they dont. There is no trust on an internet forum, there are only reasonable takes and unreasonable ones.


At the end of the day, what do you think is reasonable?

1 - Its more likely that people who quit almost immediately dont return.

2 - People who quit immediately really want to return to the next league at a higher than average rate.

3 - There is no correlation.


I can accept it if you pick 3, but the null assumption would be 1. It is not being a bad actor or dishonest to state that (1) we know not everyone returns. (this if a fact, not debatable). and (2) people who quit much earlier probably dont like the game as much as people who play longer, and are likely not returning.

You can disagree with me, but kinda silly to say dishonest.

I haven't studied any numbers or statistics regarding retention. I can only speak for myself and the guild I'm in, as well as my friends list. And following the few leagues I actually played ~3 months, I didn't play much the league after. I've seen the same tendencies in my guild and friends list, but - they are just tendencies... Circumstantial.

There's so much psychological effects here, it's hard to find a "truth". Leagues come and leagues go, and you will always use your favorite leagues where you play the most as a baseline for critiquing other leagues.

One thing is certain, though; Chris is right when he talks about player breaks, and that it's OK/healthy for players (and the game) to not play the entire league. I can't really think of many games I played for three months straight, especially over and over again. Hell, didn't even binge D2:LoD that much. Sure, player retention will always be an indicator as how much fun players have. But I think there will always be some "natural fluctuations", and the game will have a natural dip following a very popular league - both because of player fatigue and differences in leagues/measuring the beginning of one league, based on the sum of the last.

I guess the "VISION" is going as planned.

Funny how one turns into a white knight when proving other people wrong. If I didn't know better it would seem just an excuse not to admit to be very, very wrong.

"

TheFazzos wrote:

proving

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


If you said, "offers contrary opinion in the face of available data in a predictable pro-GGG fashion while offering no supporting data or reasoning", then I am 100% on board with you.

Not sure its funny though?

"

trixxar wrote:

Not sure its funny though?

Losing an argument does feel bad, doesn't it?

Reading some of the posts, i have to ask... Am i the only one who think its OBVIOUS when Chris mentioned he dont take retention as the only metric, he meant just that: He cares about it but dont think it should be the only and true absolute gospel behind wich he should dictate the direction of the game? And when he said that he rather have 10k players than diablo-esque numbers, he meant he rather have a game thats actually loved, even if its niche and indie, than a game thats super mainstream, but its more a money-making shovelware than a game that people actually enjoy?

Really, reading the comments you would think people took those words and seriously interpreted that chris plain dont give a damn about player retention or how the playerbase would be affected on each decision



As for the player-power vs monster-power, i think you guys are missreading things, i dont think its a matter of how much power the players have vs monsters, even AN mods werent problematic at all on their original league back when those mods were even more opressive

I would say the problem is more about control: The AN introduction really takes away control from the players on the dificulty on normal mapping, you have no way to prevent or predict the diff spike that happens when a yellow with mods that counters you shows up. The loot goblin is similar: Its not a matter of the spike itself, its rather how umpredictable and unreliable it is while still being the most efficient way to get currency. Harvest? Same deal: It takes away what little control we were granted to craft stuff and forces us to either settle for "can have 3 crafted mods" and go for 2 weaker crafted mods or take a very high risk to try to get the other half of the item with T2-1 affixes

I think "power" itself is kinda irrelevant, the problem is how they are culling the way we can control how to play the game or get certain outcomes, wich i find kinda baffling: Almost every new mechanic since blight was all about letting the players decide how much challenge vs reward we want. Surely they know its good design to let the players decide how to play the game? Freedom was supposed to be one of the game main selling point