Congratulations.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 wrote:

Why? GGG collected data from over a decade and is running it this way because of the conclusion they made, and this led to a growing community, while most other life-service games decline. In fact, GGG does so well that they are able to develop PoE2.
So, again, WHY should they change it exactly?

You and I have been over this a million times. Other games have better player retention. Why try to improve player retention? If the answer isn't self evident to you, there's nothing I could say.

"

SpankyKong#9805 wrote:

You and I have been over this a million times. Other games have better player retention. Why try to improve player retention? If the answer isn't self evident to you, there's nothing I could say.

Aha... other games have better player retention...

PoE1 has a player retention every league now of over 200k players (only on Steam), which puts PoE1 in the top 10 on Steam.
Furthermore, most games that "do better" are "team-based" games like "Counter-Strike" or "Dota 2". Where to population behaves entirely differently compared to a "seasonal ARPG".

So, you "think" GGG has to make major changes to suit a vocal minority because "pLaYeR rEtEnTiOn" when they actually have aaall the data (over a decade) and know how to run their business best!? Mkay.

Would you think that GGG would change stuff IF the retention isn't where they want it to be?

"

Ulsarek#7159 wrote:

Exactly, why? PoE really picked up in 2016 with Ascendancy and has been steadily growing since, crushing the competition again and again. Clearly there's something they're doing right.

I trust GGG more than a small group of people on the forums proclaiming the games decline or death over X because they aren't getting their way. GGG knows better and that is why they're a successful business and leading the genre.

Yep. GGG has ALL the data they need, they have over a decade of experience, they have THE game in the ARPG genre and definitely know better than some dudes on the internet of how to run their company.

When I say player retention, I'm not talking about spikes at the start of a season. I'm talking about sustaining a high count, relative to the total player population, of players staying engaged with the game.

As far as "the data" it doesn't support what you're claiming. Their competitor has a far higher percentage of peak players who continue to engage with that game currently (almost 4 times better), and far better on the month to month dropoff.

Plus, POE 1 always had XP penalty so I'd love for you to point to me the supposed data.

POE 2 EA represents a golden opportunity to seize their greater potentially, if they don't squander it.

This is a great thread, really good opinions on both sides.

"

SpankyKong#9805 wrote:

When I say player retention, I'm not talking about spikes at the start of a season. I'm talking about sustaining a high count, relative to the total player population, of players staying engaged with the game.

Why should PoE "sustain" a higher player count in the league when ppl are done playing the league? Do you want ppl permanently play PoE? Is it impossible for you to understand that the game is not designed that way?

"

As far as "the data" it doesn't support what you're claiming. Their competitor has a far higher percentage of peak players who continue to engage with that game currently (almost 4 times better), and far better on the month to month dropoff.

What game are you talking about that performs almost 4 times better than PoE?

"

Plus, POE 1 always had XP penalty so I'd love for you to point to me the supposed data.

Wdym? I honestly don't know what you are asking for.

If players are engaged with the game longer, they're probably more likely to purchase more. Higher player retention = profit.

The game I'm referring to is Diablo 4. It didn't launch on steam so obviously it will have lower peak players, but when it got to steam - did it ever see month-to-month steep player dropoff rates comparable to POE 2?

On the data - you said they've had a decade of experience and data to know better. But in that decade, they have always had the system one way (with XP penalty).

The only comparison available to us, for what player retention would look like without XP penalties, is from other games like Diablo. 4% of POE 2 players remain. 16% of Diablo 4 players remain.

"

SpankyKong#9805 wrote:

If players are engaged with the game longer, they're probably more likely to purchase more. Higher player retention = profit.

Yes, great. Change things only for profit. If GGG would like to have more and/or would need more profit - they would change it.

"

The game I'm referring to is Diablo 4. It didn't launch on steam so obviously it will have lower peak players, but when it got to steam - did it ever see month-to-month steep player dropoff rates comparable to POE 2?

I mean... the drop is obviously not the same, but have you looked at the total numbers? There isn't really something to drop in the first place.
Hell, "Don't Starve Together" has better numbers:
https://steamcharts.com/app/322330

"

On the data - you said they've had a decade of experience and data to know better. But in that decade, they have always had the system one way (with XP penalty).

The only comparison available to us, for what player retention would look like without XP penalties, is from other games like Diablo. 4% of POE 2 players remain. 16% of Diablo 4 players remain.

You know, I could be mean and say "Diablo 4 has only more players percentage-wise remaining because these D4 players are gamer dads who take months to finish a game", but that would be only a theory... a gaming theory. Anyway.

You can yap as much as you want about it, unless PoE2 has no players coming back in the future... nobody... cares.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 wrote:

It indicates it TO YOU and you have an incorrect view, and a few ppl already explained it over and over to you.

Doesn't make it fact, or correct. Flawed reasoning behind a lot of it. I'm pointing out the flawed reasoning. This is why I put so many questions in my responses. They are literally there to help you reason through this yourself.

The problem is. You aren't willing to consider that your reasoning is flawed. You argue with me instead. Twist my words. You completely gloss over entire paragraphs of questions that are aimed at helping you reason through this yourself. And when you do try to answer some of them, you do so in a dishonest way. It's a common thing people do when they have a cognitive bias that they don't want to confront. They actively avoid, or intentionally downplay, or cherrypick an answer.

Almost all of my posts include a statement. And then my reasoning/examples to back it up.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 wrote:

And it's not a "we think you are wrong" or "we assume you are incorrect", it's factually - "you are wrong".

What you don't realize, is that this is an emotional argument. Not logic. You think I'm wrong, because you feel I'm wrong. Not because you've actually listened to, or thought through what I've written. This is reactionary. You are quick to find something wrong with a statement, and quick to share your personal opinions on it. But you aren't reasoning through it. You aren't answering my questions that I ask. I'm just wrong. According to you.

I usually counter this with another list of examples. Idea's that require abstract thought and critical thinking to connect the dots on. To recognize the patterns. This gets met with further emotional arguments. I even make the effort to tell you after you've made this mistake. "You aren't understanding me' And then I clarify. You still continue to ignore it. Still make more assumptions, mistakes in understanding.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 wrote:

Your "logic" is:
If a game starts at 100% population, but loses over 90% over 3 months, it's a bad game.

No, My logic is. The game doesn't have good player retention. There's a reason for that. Usually it's because it's a bad game.

Good games don't lose 94% of their playerbase over 2-3 months. That's considered a flop. This is a live service game. League of legends doesn't have dips of 94% of players leaving. Dota 2 doesn't. Apex Legends doesn't. Why does PoE get to be the exception? All these other games are seasonal in a lot of ways too. New patches, new content.

I gave you plenty of examples as to why it's not a very good game. Everything from Microtransactions. To things like XP loss on death. This is exactly what the forums were flooded with a few months ago. It's the majority opinion of your average gamer. They don't like XP loss on death, and they don't play games with it.

Again. You don't FEEL these are an issue for you, you might even enjoy them. So you excuse them. Defend them. Emotional argument.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 wrote:

Ok then. Do these players come back after 3 months? Yes. They do.
In fact, they not only come back, the overall population grew over time:
https://poedb.tw/us/League#ConcurrentPlayers

Some do. But they don't stay. Healthy, thriving games have healthy, stable populations. Not huge dips and spikes. Imagine if your heartrate was like this. Do you think you'd feel very good?

PoE does not have good player retention. That is a fact. And I've used achievements to back this argument up, as well as my own experiences to describe how they're connected. I've also included examples of other games with healthier, more stable playerbases. Other live-service games. Just like PoE. League, DotA 2, Apex Legends, Fortnite. Among others. All have seasonal content too, events. Yet they maintain much more stable playerbases.

Here's DotA 2. 3 year view. Yes, it has some spikes and dips. But it consistently has above 600k players.

Here's PoE 1. Same thing. 3 year view.



I understand the games are different. But if PoE was a game that lots of people liked. It wouldn't have a graph that looks like that, at all. Tons of people love ARPG's afterall. One of the more popular game genre's.

Don't try to dismiss this either, just because they aren't the 'same' genre. Good live service games, regardless of genre. Maintain a respectable playerbase. PoE simply, Does not. You can go look at the graphs yourself.

The achievements also help paint a picture of what this game looks like in terms of player retention. And specifically where it has player retention, and... What players want in this game.



Here is a picture of a PoE 1 achievement that helps prove my point. Though you can go look at them yourself. You get this, automatically. Just by hitting level 80. 11.4% of players have this achievement.

So out of that huge spike of players that you keep bragging about and constant growth. Less than 12% of them, have ever hit level 80. Hitting level 80 is incredibly easy. You can do it in just a few evenings of play after you finish the acts.

This game also has incredible emphasis on lategame, GGG and the people on the forums talk about how necessary this late-game is. How all these mechanics are necessary to keep the game in it's best state.


You have also argued there's a large competitive scene around this game. Not just in terms of Economy. But also in regards to races. You have been in the other thread defending GGG's warning/bans over the widescreen hack, because you claim it gives players an advantage, and competitive integrity is important in this game. As competition is a core aspect of it. Your words. Not directly quoted. But you've said similar.

Okay. Well. My statement. There's not as many players as you think there is, engaging in competition in this game.

Here's my reasoning, and my example, as to why I say this.



Less than 6% of players have ever participated in a race in this game.

Here's another great indicator of just how many people actually reach late-game. Level 20 skill gems. They don't lose XP, and you level them just by playing. Less than 9% of players have a level 20 gem. And remember, this also includes ones you buy. If at any point you level, or pick up a level 20 gem, you get this achievement.



Atziri, Easiest late-game boss to do. Just open a portal with some items you find/buy. 3% of the games playerbase has done it.





So. Here's the part where you use your critical/abstract thinking. If the majority of players aren't hitting late game, and aren't participating in races. What parts of the game are they enjoying most?

Is it the mapping system? Is it the late-game crafting system? Is it the trade system? Is it the complexity of min-maxxing your character? The late-game builds? Trying to itemize correctly to clear late-game content?

I'll help. It seems, according to these examples. That the majority of players drop out of this game, before they really have to interact with any of these systems. Correct?

It seems like 90% of players, play through the campaign. And largely quit before they interact with any of the systems I stated above.

So, should GGG be spending their time, making late-game content? Or Improving the Campaign, and the rest of the game.

Which one is going to be more profitable, Which one is going to give more people, an enjoyable experience? Remember. Less than 5% of players reach late-game. You are one of those 5% of players. 90-95% never touch it.

Are you the.. Minority? Or the Majority?

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 wrote:

Your next conclusion fallacy is:
"If a game has this population behaviour, it has poor player retention."

Nope. It has not. Because the players are coming back with new content.
You only look at a time frame of "league start - league end" and conclude "bad retention", but the retention is from league to league to league.
If you would actually look at any data, you would see that over the years, from league to league, the retention was so good that the community grew every single time. You know, long-term.

I have touched on this quite heavily above. But incase you didn't quite understand the argument I was making.

The game does indeed have a good amount of players that play the Leagues when they come out.

But they don't hit late-game in them. Most people play them till level 50-80. And quit. And then.. What's left, is players like you.

If 90% of people that join to play a League, quit before late-game. It has player retention yes. But for the campaigns. For the story. Not the atlas. Not the xp loss on death. Not the 'difficulty' that you enjoy. Which is what you base most of your arguments on. Aspects of the game YOU enjoy. It seems most players don't like this stuff. If they did.. Wouldn't they stay, and play? Wouldn't the player numbers be more consistent, higher, stable?

So, You are what's left after 90% of players quit. Are you.. The majority? Or the Minority in this case?

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 wrote:

Here the definition of "player-retention":
Player retention is a metric that measures how many players continue to use a game or app over time. It's a key factor in a game's long-term success.

"

Like I said. If your game is dipping to 19k average players, after potentially selling a million plus copies. You're what's left after everyone else left. You are the minority.

The forums were full of feedback regarding this game just a few months ago. People saying they're leaving because of these mechanics. Now they're all gone. And it's just you, and me, and a handful of others.

That doesn't even make sense. You conclude:
"Well, after 4 months only 19k are left, thus these ppl are the minority who enjoy the game in its current state."
Furthermore, you always pretend that "they are gone" and imply "they won't come back", while you can't base that on anything.

My Statements about this game. Is that the emphasis on crafting, trading, and late-game is not what the majority of players want. I have said most players don't like punishing death mechanics, artificial difficulty. Even Microtransactions. I have always held my ground on this, never changed it.

You say the game is getting popular. And you defend late-game mechanics, as well as things like the economy, and trading, the competition, even microtransactions, as being ESSENTIAL to the game. And one of the reasons people love it so much. You say that it is growing in population because of this stuff.

I say. Given that 90% of players drop off, and you are what's left. The game isn't growing because of these things that you like or defend as essential. It is growing because people like the campaign, and the gameplay earlier in the game.

You are the minority. A small percentage of the playerbase that GGG caters a lot of the game to. And this, unfortunately, is driving away a lot of players that would otherwise stay. They said so on the forums. And then they all left when GGG, and the community, with people like yourself, arguing with them. Telling them they're essential.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 wrote:

Bruh... hundreds of ppl complaining about "EXP loss" or something is... guess what... THE MINORITY because it's only a few hundred ppl. Even a few thousand is the minority.

How many people do you actually think frequent these forums on a regular basis? 100? 200 people? From what I see, it's maybe 70 people.

How many people showed up to express displeasure about a ton of PoE's core mechanics after Early-access released? There was a 120 page forum thread on how XP loss on death is a bad mechanic. There were actually dozens of threads like this popping up. People saying they're quitting. How many people do you think showed up? How many threads have people made about it?

There was thousands of new players, coming in and making this statement. So. What is that. 70, maybe 100 regular forum goers. Vs 1000, 1500, 2000 new players, all saying "XP LOSS SUCKS".

Is that a minority, or a majority?

Remember. 90% of the players that play this game. Play for the acts, the campaign. And quit when they start engaging with this late game stuff that you claim is essential.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 wrote:

And why? Why does the game need more than 20k ppl after 4 months?

And why not? A big healthy game, full of happy players. Is a good thing for a game company. Why WOULDN'T you want to have a successful game? Why would you actively make a niche game that only really appeals to a 20-30k players, when you can make one that appeals to 150k? a million?

And because, like stated above. It's indicative of low player retention, bad game design. I gave you tons of examples as to why. If they realized that there are game mechanics holding this game back. They can go improve them. The game naturally gains more players, more stability in the playerbase. Rather than the reliance on Seasonal mechanics, to keep the numbers up. GGG puts so much emphasis on the late-game, and it very clearly, isn't what 90% of the playerbase wants.

Even if you personally like it, and think it's the best thing in this game.

PoE 1 can stay as a niche game, for players like you. Why do we need PoE 2 to fill that same role? Why wouldn't they try to have the game appeal to more people? They clearly have a playerbase that enjoys the Campaign. Why not capitalize on it?



You've claimed I've just made stuff up. Well, here's a good example of my statements, my reasonings, and examples. If you want to reply, I suggest you take the time to make a similar message. Think before you write. Thanks for reading.

"

Akedomo#3573 wrote:

Good games don't lose 94% of their playerbase over 2-3 months. That's considered a flop. This is a live service game. League of legends doesn't have dips of 94% of players leaving. Dota 2 doesn't. Apex Legends doesn't. Why does PoE get to be the exception? All these other games are seasonal in a lot of ways too. New patches, new content.

Are you kidding?

League of Legends, Dota 2, and Apex Legends are team-based multiplayer games with a ladder to climb, where ppl queue and play matches.
Furthermore, they are NOT ARPGs. So HOW you play the game (the "end goal") is entirely different.

"

I gave you plenty of examples as to why it's not a very good game. Everything from Microtransactions. To things like XP loss on death. This is exactly what the forums were flooded with a few months ago. It's the majority opinion of your average gamer. They don't like XP loss on death, and they don't play games with it.

YOU think it's not a good game. But I guess YOU are right and everyone else is wrong.
The long-term success of GGG - is wrong.
The ever-growing community - is wrong.
The Steam Reviews that end up with "very positive" - are wrong.

"

Some do. But they don't stay. Healthy, thriving games have healthy, stable populations. Not huge dips and spikes. Imagine if your heartrate was like this. Do you think you'd feel very good?

Comparing a game cycle with heart rates...

So... you think that it is an unstable player population when it looks like this:
150k - Scourge (2021-10-22)
158k - Archnemesis (2022-02-04)
131k - Sentinel (2022-05-13)
152k - Kalandra (2022-08-19)
127k - Sanctum (2022-12-09)
211k - Crucible (2023-04-07)
165k - Ancestor (2023-08-18)
167k - Affliction (2023-12-08)
189k - Necropolis (2024-03-29)
229k - Settlers (2024-07-26)

Overall, not only do ppl come back, but the retention is GROWING.

"

PoE does not have good player retention. That is a fact. And I've used achievements to back this argument up, as well as my own experiences to describe how they're connected. I've also included examples of other games with healthier, more stable playerbases. Other live-service games. Just like PoE. League, DotA 2, Apex Legends, Fortnite. Among others. All have seasonal content too, events. Yet they maintain much more stable playerbases.

Holy, not every live-service game is like every other live-service game.
You only use examples that are as irrelevant as it even gets.
And that you say "PoE does not have good player retention. That is a fact." over and over again, without it being a fact, only shows that you don't understand what "player retention" is.
I already posted the definition, but here it is again:
Player retention is a term used to describe the ability of a gaming platform or company to retain its players or users over a period of time. It is a key metric that measures the success of a game or gaming business in keeping players engaged and interested in their offerings.

If you can NOT comprehend that the retention in a short season doesn't matter because it's about the "long-term" player retention - it's a you problem.

"

So out of that huge spike of players that you keep bragging about and constant growth. Less than 12% of them, have ever hit level 80. Hitting level 80 is incredibly easy. You can do it in just a few evenings of play after you finish the acts.

Who? Cares? Your Steam achievement argument is meaningless. Not only because GGG actually knows when ppl stop playing the game and gave already interviews on that matter, but furthermore - it doesn't make sense.

You say "but only 12% on Steam reached lvl 80". Ok... and!?
Around 12% of players only reached "Plat" in "League of Legends".
It's meaningless, period.

It's always the same with you. You look at something and make an extremely flawed conclusion.
"Path of Exile 1" was released on Steam in 2013. That's over 10 years of ppl who try out a FREE2PLAY game and did not reach level 80.
Do you know how many ppl try other games and don't reach a specific point?
Yeah... again... meaningless.

"

You have also argued there's a large competitive scene around this game. Not just in terms of Economy. But also in regards to races. You have been in the other thread defending GGG's warning/bans over the widescreen hack, because you claim it gives players an advantage, and competitive integrity is important in this game. As competition is a core aspect of it. Your words. Not directly quoted. But you've said similar.

Okay. Well. My statement. There's not as many players as you think there is, engaging in competition in this game.

Bla. You never ever heard of the "PoE Gauntlet". Next nonsensical part...

"

Atziri, Easiest late-game boss to do. Just open a portal with some items you find/buy. 3% of the games playerbase has done it.

Again. Your Steam achievement argument doesn't matter.
Furthermore, you never ever killed Atziri and that you think that she is the easiest one shows that you have no clue about the game at all.
Hell, you never ever 6-linked an item and make suck statements...

"

The game does indeed have a good amount of players that play the Leagues when they come out.

But they don't hit late-game in them. Most people play them till level 50-80. And quit. And then.. What's left, is players like you.

Again. You have nothing to base your statement on. What? sTeAm AcHiEvMeNtS?
Nobody... cares. They represent EVERY single person over a decade that tried PoE and not how many ppl reach endgame in a specific league.

"

You are the minority.

Nope.