Congratulations.

Nulled.

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

You're missing the point. Completely. No one said XIV is a failure - it did extremely well after relaunch and had continuous growth. However, they managed to completely destroy the goodwill of their core playerbase with the last two expansions, due to bad decisions (some that are very similar to what people want from PoE) and is NOW in heavy decline. Falling back to pre 2019 player numbers over the last two years is a failure. Even WoW is running laps around that game again, imagine that.

But I take it. Hard data, interpreting trends and retention data isn't this communities strongest suit.

My partner is an actual day one FFXIV player and he has no idea what you're talking about with the game rapidly losing core players. All of his long time FC members stay engaged with the game daily.

Do you even have any real "hard data" to support your claim that the core playerbase is dissatisfied with recent design choices? Even if it's returning to pre-COVID numbers (like many industries), that doesn't suggest the ACTUAL core player base is leaving. It suggests the opposite - that the ACTUAL core player base is still engaged with the game.

Anyway speaking of engaged, we're getting waaay off topic & I don't really want to stay engaged with your totally condescending energy. I'm done talking to you. All the best to you.

Nulled.

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

"

Akedomo#3573 wrote:

Square Enix - Final Fantasy XIV

Released a broken MMO, dismissed beta woes - subscriptions died; rebooted as A Realm Reborn, now a top MMO.

Funny for you to mention a game that has become a prime example of what happens when you listen to feedback of vocal minorities. The game was thriving for a very long time after the reboot, I give you that. It took them only two expansions worth of bad decisions to not only push away their core player base, they have also dropped to pre 2019 levels of player numbers.

Taking away complexity, nuance, constantly lowering skill ceilings, appealing to the masses rather than your target audience, homogenizing roles classes and combat, dumbing down story writing and drip feeding content sure is working it's magic. But hey, at least the game is now accessible for anyone am I right?

Designing a game for everyone is designing a game for no one. Know your target audience and build on that - game development 101. If you're not part of a games target audience and have reasonable, sensible feedback - great. That however doesn't mean the developers have to give in to any and all demands - GGG has a proven track record of being good with that. Otherwise do yourself a favor and play something else without trying to ruin it for everyone else in the process.

Thankfully GGG knows better which is why after ~13 years we still have systems like the death penalty in place.

Clearly it wasn't a minority. Since it gained millions of subscribers, from next to none after the re-release.

I was specifically talking about games that had a bad launch, and redeemed themselves. Not what happened years after that.


The assumption that GGG knows best. You're right. They do know what their small dedicated fanbase wants.

But you also have to look at the other 90-95% of the players that don't even touch late-game. As per steam achievements.

Less than 12% of players reach level 80.

Less than 3% have beaten most of the end-game bosses.

Less than 6% participate in race events.

Less than 8% have ever picked up a Level 20 gem.



The vast majority of players, About 90%. Do not participate in the mechanics that are regularly defended here on the forums as essential for game integrity.

If 90% of players are quitting before level 80.

The drop off starts happening around level 40. According to achievements.

That's when mechanics like reduced resistances, XP loss on death, and more reliance on crafting/trading come into play. They might not be the sole cause for the drop off. The correlation is incredibly strong however.

A good solution that people have asked for. Is to simply make a version of the game that doesn't have these mechanics in it, and isn't tied to the rest of the playerbase/economy.

It's clear that SSF was able to be made without impacting the game. Why not just a solo version. For people that just want to chill and play?

"

Akedomo#3573 wrote:

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

"

Akedomo#3573 wrote:

Square Enix - Final Fantasy XIV

Released a broken MMO, dismissed beta woes - subscriptions died; rebooted as A Realm Reborn, now a top MMO.

Funny for you to mention a game that has become a prime example of what happens when you listen to feedback of vocal minorities. The game was thriving for a very long time after the reboot, I give you that. It took them only two expansions worth of bad decisions to not only push away their core player base, they have also dropped to pre 2019 levels of player numbers.

Taking away complexity, nuance, constantly lowering skill ceilings, appealing to the masses rather than your target audience, homogenizing roles classes and combat, dumbing down story writing and drip feeding content sure is working it's magic. But hey, at least the game is now accessible for anyone am I right?

Designing a game for everyone is designing a game for no one. Know your target audience and build on that - game development 101. If you're not part of a games target audience and have reasonable, sensible feedback - great. That however doesn't mean the developers have to give in to any and all demands - GGG has a proven track record of being good with that. Otherwise do yourself a favor and play something else without trying to ruin it for everyone else in the process.

Thankfully GGG knows better which is why after ~13 years we still have systems like the death penalty in place.

Clearly it wasn't a minority. Since it gained millions of subscribers, from next to none after the re-release.

I was specifically talking about games that had a bad launch, and redeemed themselves. Not what happened years after that.


The assumption that GGG knows best. You're right. They do know what their small dedicated fanbase wants.

But you also have to look at the other 90-95% of the players that don't even touch late-game. As per steam achievements.

Less than 12% of players reach level 80.

Less than 3% have beaten most of the end-game bosses.

Less than 6% participate in race events.

Less than 8% have ever picked up a Level 20 gem.



The vast majority of players, About 90%. Do not participate in the mechanics that are regularly defended here on the forums as essential for game integrity.

If 90% of players are quitting before level 80.

The drop off starts happening around level 40. According to achievements.

That's when mechanics like reduced resistances, XP loss on death, and more reliance on crafting/trading come into play. They might not be the sole cause for the drop off. The correlation is incredibly strong however.

A good solution that people have asked for. Is to simply make a version of the game that doesn't have these mechanics in it, and isn't tied to the rest of the playerbase/economy.

It's clear that SSF was able to be made without impacting the game. Why not just a solo version. For people that just want to chill and play?

Low rate of achievement on steam doesn't mean anything of a free-to-play game. As it is free, more people just try this game without really thinking about sticking with it, then just quit after a couple of hours when they see that it is not their style. I mean, only about 50% of players on steam killed brutus, which is pretty early in the game. It is hard to say that it is anything related to "mechanics like reduced resistances, XP loss on death, and more reliance on crafting/trading"

Also, about SSF, it only exists in the first place because people were using "SSF" in front of their nicks and a bot to track them and making a private ladder on the regular league. Then GGG saw a demand for that and that it was damn easy to implement, then they created a SSF oficial league. I really doubt that it would be an official league if it would demand anything like a balancing team, devs changing a lot of core mechanics, or something like that. So I don't think that is a good point to reforce your "solo version" of the game.

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

However, they managed to completely destroy the goodwill of their core playerbase with the last two expansions, due to bad decisions

Are you sure of this? Do you have any Data that can show this? I am not seeing this on my end.

"

DEvil27#6183 wrote:

Low rate of achievement on steam doesn't mean anything of a free-to-play game. As it is free, more people just try this game without really thinking about sticking with it, then just quit after a couple of hours when they see that it is not their style.

This is speculation, not based on data/sources. As I included sources in my comment. I expect you to do the same in return.

If these achievements do not matter. Then what does?

Achievements and steam graphs of player pop, correlate heavily.

Game spikes to 200k players. Drops to 20k players. That's ~10%. 12% or less of players hit 80, or participate in end-game content.

"

DEvil27#6183 wrote:

I mean, only about 50% of players on steam killed brutus, which is pretty early in the game. It is hard to say that it is anything related to "mechanics like reduced resistances, XP loss on death, and more reliance on crafting/trading"

I understand this. But the thing is. People on the forums are telling us these mechanics are integral for the game. A necessity.

They claim that changing them will cause issues.

Yet. Looking at Steam graphs. Achievements, as well as the levels that many of these mechanics start being needed. Is when the player drop off happens.

So these mechanics are only necessary, and liked, by a small population of all the players that try the game.

If they were more universally well recieved, I would assume there would be more than 5% of players engaging in end-game. I would assume that number to be higher than 10% at around level 80.

Destiny 2 is an entirely seasonal game too. And it manages to retain about 40% of it's playerbase despite this. PoE is dipping to lows that other games dont. Achievements on that game also show more players, experiencing more of the game.

"

DEvil27#6183 wrote:

Then GGG saw a demand for that and that it was damn easy to implement, then they created a SSF oficial league.

There is clearly a demand for more campaign too though, easier gameplay. People like coming to the new leagues, playing through the campaign, and then quit. That's untapped market potential.

"

DEvil27#6183 wrote:

I really doubt that it would be an official league if it would demand anything like a balancing team, devs changing a lot of core mechanics, or something like that. So I don't think that is a good point to reforce your "solo version" of the game.

This is a fair point. It might not work out. It might not be profitable.

I think it could work though. And might be worth trying. Especially if the game goes from retaining 5-10% of it's playerbase, to say, 20%, 25%.

Other games, like Destiny 2. Have managed to do it. Other live service games like DotA 2, League. Yeah, they all have dips. But they're consistently maintaining well over 300k players regularly.




If the goal of PoE 2 is to target the niche, small group of loyal fans and give them exactly the game they want. Fair. But I also beg the question.. Why do we have PoE 1, that already does that, and PoE 2, that's trying to do that?

"

Akedomo#3573 wrote:

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

However, they managed to completely destroy the goodwill of their core playerbase with the last two expansions, due to bad decisions

Are you sure of this? Do you have any Data that can show this? I am not seeing this on my end.

It's ironic that you want reliable data, while you use data that's meaningless, BUT here you are right. He makes a claim that's not supportable by any means.

The last two expansions would be "Necropolis" and "Settlers of Kalguur", and especially "Settlers" is extremely well received.

"

Akedomo#3573 wrote:

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

However, they managed to completely destroy the goodwill of their core playerbase with the last two expansions, due to bad decisions

Are you sure of this? Do you have any Data that can show this? I am not seeing this on my end.

Ulsa's quote referencing FFXIV - They have data that shows (a decline representing a minority of players, i.e. the majority of players stayed engaged with the game), and an arbitrary youtube search showing - not data, but rather confirmation bias.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 wrote:

"

Akedomo#3573 wrote:

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

However, they managed to completely destroy the goodwill of their core playerbase with the last two expansions, due to bad decisions

Are you sure of this? Do you have any Data that can show this? I am not seeing this on my end.

It's ironic that you want reliable data, while you use data that's meaningless, BUT here you are right. He makes a claim that's not supportable by any means.

The last two expansions would be "Necropolis" and "Settlers of Kalguur", and especially "Settlers" is extremely well received.

Could you provide some points of data that can strengthen your argument then?

Saying something is well received, isn't quite what I'm looking for unfortunately. Perhaps you have some stronger examples?

"

SpankyKong#9805 wrote:

"

Akedomo#3573 wrote:

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

However, they managed to completely destroy the goodwill of their core playerbase with the last two expansions, due to bad decisions

Are you sure of this? Do you have any Data that can show this? I am not seeing this on my end.

Ulsa's quote referencing FFXIV - They have data that shows (a decline representing a minority of players, i.e. the majority of players stayed engaged with the game), and an arbitrary youtube search showing - not data, but rather confirmation bias.

This was my assumption as well. I looked at the numbers/graphs. I didn't see this drastic decline, it seems the core playerbase is still very much playing. And some people that didn't like the changes left.

Feels very much like one of those 'THIS GAME IS DYING" posts right after a patch hits, because someone liked a mechanic that was changed.

Nulled.