Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 18, 2025, 15:30:

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on May 18, 2025, 13:40:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 18, 2025, 12:59:

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on May 18, 2025, 12:24:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 18, 2025, 10:12:

Osc8r wrote on May 17, 2025, 17:40:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 17, 2025, 11:18:
LOL, I looked at the Steam reviews... The very first one was whining about the steam player count for this game, look I am all for shitting on games for being bad, and this well very may be; (I looked over other reviews too) but it is early access, and I will be god damned if I base my opinion of a game on the Steam fucking concurrent player count. Alos I liked Anthem, which everyone knows is total shit, and I will still argue to this day that it was fun and not nearly as bad a lot of people said. SpoilerAlert! They had shit computers, and the PS4 and XBONE couldn't run it for shit. Should have been a PS5 game like CP2077.So what do I know?

Why wouldn't you take it into account though? There's a reason it's the highest rated review. If you're playing a game that's built around playing with other people, i'd say the player count (or lack there of) is one of the KEY factors, regardless of whether it's in early access or not.

If there's less than 1000 people playing world wide, there's no point me even downloading it in Australia as i'd never find a match, nor would they likely invest in regional servers if they aren't making any $. In addition, a low player count usually means there will be less development on it, and a higher risk of being abandoned.

Luckily there's 3k playing now on the free weekend, so i'll give it a try.

But the good thing about Steam reviews, you pick and choose the one's which feel better aligned with your views and priorities.

-edit-

Ok, i tried it, and as i had feared, 7 matches in and i've yet to see another player (4-5 minutes queue times). So it's just running around the same two maps killing mindless AI and then extracting without a care in the world. Most of your time is just spent fighting the horrible inventory UI and managing the dozens upon dozen of items you find each run. Throw in some pretty dull and clunky combat, and yeah... i don't think this one is going anywhere good - and there's a good reason it's not popular.

So yeah, player count definitely matters especially when it comes to multiplayer games!

Yeah, I see what your saying, but if you look at other titles, say "last epoch" which dropped down to 68 players after four months of early access you will notice that it took almost 20 months to reach the same numbers that Legacy: Steel & Sorcery" did on day one. Not saying that this is a good game by any means, I wouldn't know I have not played it, I do think Last Epoch was good. I really do question the practice of using Steam player counts as some kind of meaningful metric to determine success or potential success, especially when the game is not a Steam exclusive as is often the case. Legacy does appear to be a Steam exclusive at this time.

Using the player count numbers gives you an idea of how a game is doing, ignoring it completely is just depriving oneself of data. Context of course still matters like if a game only cost one million dollars to make, reached 25k concurrent players, and cost $50, it's a pretty safe bet the game was profitable just by math alone. When you look at previous or similar games, you can get an idea of if a game is doing well or not. Again, not definitively but it helps in ball parking a game's health.

Yes, but like per yesterdays Engagement Ring the Borderlands series has sold 93 million copies over time, but according to Steam, the peak player counts across the entire series is less then 400k in total, what good is a metric that can have a +/- 99.6% margin of error? I wouldn't ignore the Steam count entirely, but I do have to question its usefulness as an accurate barometer. Look at the Steam player count for Fortnite, it has ZERO players, it's not even a game, but Epic alleges that there are 650,000,000 players or something ridicules. I also only went to the 5th grade, so it's possible that I lack understanding.

Peak does not equal total sales obviously and you can only expect it to be a fraction of that for any game. Also the 93 million you quoted is for the entire Borderland franchise, not just one game. Either way, it's still only one piece of data and requires putting in to context. If you know a game didn't release on Steam day 1 for example then you know the values will be lower. Also if a game has console versions or not can do the same. Available on Game Pass at launch? Yeah that will skew the numbers too. So long as you don't use the Steam numbers as your only source of data to draw a success/failure conclusion then you're already on the right track.

As in regards to this game, I didn't play it even though I got in to the alpha almost a year back. I watched streamers cheesing the game to death and decided I didn't want to be part of that. I think the number here show the game isn't doing well but things can change over time.

Right, Epic could have had 700 million fortnights players had they only published it on Steam... bRUH, I am just annoyed that inaccurate metrics, based on nothing but feelings alone are being used all the time now, but, I am only in my 50's so maybe that was always the case and I just didn't notice because I am always busy and shit.

It's not you, they are obfuscating the data more and more at every turn now. Especially when you see, "engagements", "players", "contacts", "downloads", etc. Anything but actual sales figures or revenue generated which trust me, they know VERY astutely. This is just bean counters and execs spinning things.

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on May 18, 2025, 13:40:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 18, 2025, 12:59:

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on May 18, 2025, 12:24:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 18, 2025, 10:12:

Osc8r wrote on May 17, 2025, 17:40:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 17, 2025, 11:18:
LOL, I looked at the Steam reviews... The very first one was whining about the steam player count for this game, look I am all for shitting on games for being bad, and this well very may be; (I looked over other reviews too) but it is early access, and I will be god damned if I base my opinion of a game on the Steam fucking concurrent player count. Alos I liked Anthem, which everyone knows is total shit, and I will still argue to this day that it was fun and not nearly as bad a lot of people said. SpoilerAlert! They had shit computers, and the PS4 and XBONE couldn't run it for shit. Should have been a PS5 game like CP2077.So what do I know?

Why wouldn't you take it into account though? There's a reason it's the highest rated review. If you're playing a game that's built around playing with other people, i'd say the player count (or lack there of) is one of the KEY factors, regardless of whether it's in early access or not.

If there's less than 1000 people playing world wide, there's no point me even downloading it in Australia as i'd never find a match, nor would they likely invest in regional servers if they aren't making any $. In addition, a low player count usually means there will be less development on it, and a higher risk of being abandoned.

Luckily there's 3k playing now on the free weekend, so i'll give it a try.

But the good thing about Steam reviews, you pick and choose the one's which feel better aligned with your views and priorities.

-edit-

Ok, i tried it, and as i had feared, 7 matches in and i've yet to see another player (4-5 minutes queue times). So it's just running around the same two maps killing mindless AI and then extracting without a care in the world. Most of your time is just spent fighting the horrible inventory UI and managing the dozens upon dozen of items you find each run. Throw in some pretty dull and clunky combat, and yeah... i don't think this one is going anywhere good - and there's a good reason it's not popular.

So yeah, player count definitely matters especially when it comes to multiplayer games!

Yeah, I see what your saying, but if you look at other titles, say "last epoch" which dropped down to 68 players after four months of early access you will notice that it took almost 20 months to reach the same numbers that Legacy: Steel & Sorcery" did on day one. Not saying that this is a good game by any means, I wouldn't know I have not played it, I do think Last Epoch was good. I really do question the practice of using Steam player counts as some kind of meaningful metric to determine success or potential success, especially when the game is not a Steam exclusive as is often the case. Legacy does appear to be a Steam exclusive at this time.

Using the player count numbers gives you an idea of how a game is doing, ignoring it completely is just depriving oneself of data. Context of course still matters like if a game only cost one million dollars to make, reached 25k concurrent players, and cost $50, it's a pretty safe bet the game was profitable just by math alone. When you look at previous or similar games, you can get an idea of if a game is doing well or not. Again, not definitively but it helps in ball parking a game's health.

Yes, but like per yesterdays Engagement Ring the Borderlands series has sold 93 million copies over time, but according to Steam, the peak player counts across the entire series is less then 400k in total, what good is a metric that can have a +/- 99.6% margin of error? I wouldn't ignore the Steam count entirely, but I do have to question its usefulness as an accurate barometer. Look at the Steam player count for Fortnite, it has ZERO players, it's not even a game, but Epic alleges that there are 650,000,000 players or something ridicules. I also only went to the 5th grade, so it's possible that I lack understanding.

Peak does not equal total sales obviously and you can only expect it to be a fraction of that for any game. Also the 93 million you quoted is for the entire Borderland franchise, not just one game. Either way, it's still only one piece of data and requires putting in to context. If you know a game didn't release on Steam day 1 for example then you know the values will be lower. Also if a game has console versions or not can do the same. Available on Game Pass at launch? Yeah that will skew the numbers too. So long as you don't use the Steam numbers as your only source of data to draw a success/failure conclusion then you're already on the right track.

As in regards to this game, I didn't play it even though I got in to the alpha almost a year back. I watched streamers cheesing the game to death and decided I didn't want to be part of that. I think the number here show the game isn't doing well but things can change over time.

Right, Epic could have had 700 million fortnights players had they only published it on Steam... bRUH, I am just annoyed that inaccurate metrics, based on nothing but feelings alone are being used all the time now, but, I am only in my 50's so maybe that was always the case and I just didn't notice because I am always busy and shit.

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 18, 2025, 12:59:

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on May 18, 2025, 12:24:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 18, 2025, 10:12:

Osc8r wrote on May 17, 2025, 17:40:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 17, 2025, 11:18:
LOL, I looked at the Steam reviews... The very first one was whining about the steam player count for this game, look I am all for shitting on games for being bad, and this well very may be; (I looked over other reviews too) but it is early access, and I will be god damned if I base my opinion of a game on the Steam fucking concurrent player count. Alos I liked Anthem, which everyone knows is total shit, and I will still argue to this day that it was fun and not nearly as bad a lot of people said. SpoilerAlert! They had shit computers, and the PS4 and XBONE couldn't run it for shit. Should have been a PS5 game like CP2077.So what do I know?

Why wouldn't you take it into account though? There's a reason it's the highest rated review. If you're playing a game that's built around playing with other people, i'd say the player count (or lack there of) is one of the KEY factors, regardless of whether it's in early access or not.

If there's less than 1000 people playing world wide, there's no point me even downloading it in Australia as i'd never find a match, nor would they likely invest in regional servers if they aren't making any $. In addition, a low player count usually means there will be less development on it, and a higher risk of being abandoned.

Luckily there's 3k playing now on the free weekend, so i'll give it a try.

But the good thing about Steam reviews, you pick and choose the one's which feel better aligned with your views and priorities.

-edit-

Ok, i tried it, and as i had feared, 7 matches in and i've yet to see another player (4-5 minutes queue times). So it's just running around the same two maps killing mindless AI and then extracting without a care in the world. Most of your time is just spent fighting the horrible inventory UI and managing the dozens upon dozen of items you find each run. Throw in some pretty dull and clunky combat, and yeah... i don't think this one is going anywhere good - and there's a good reason it's not popular.

So yeah, player count definitely matters especially when it comes to multiplayer games!

Yeah, I see what your saying, but if you look at other titles, say "last epoch" which dropped down to 68 players after four months of early access you will notice that it took almost 20 months to reach the same numbers that Legacy: Steel & Sorcery" did on day one. Not saying that this is a good game by any means, I wouldn't know I have not played it, I do think Last Epoch was good. I really do question the practice of using Steam player counts as some kind of meaningful metric to determine success or potential success, especially when the game is not a Steam exclusive as is often the case. Legacy does appear to be a Steam exclusive at this time.

Using the player count numbers gives you an idea of how a game is doing, ignoring it completely is just depriving oneself of data. Context of course still matters like if a game only cost one million dollars to make, reached 25k concurrent players, and cost $50, it's a pretty safe bet the game was profitable just by math alone. When you look at previous or similar games, you can get an idea of if a game is doing well or not. Again, not definitively but it helps in ball parking a game's health.

Yes, but like per yesterdays Engagement Ring the Borderlands series has sold 93 million copies over time, but according to Steam, the peak player counts across the entire series is less then 400k in total, what good is a metric that can have a +/- 99.6% margin of error? I wouldn't ignore the Steam count entirely, but I do have to question its usefulness as an accurate barometer. Look at the Steam player count for Fortnite, it has ZERO players, it's not even a game, but Epic alleges that there are 650,000,000 players or something ridicules. I also only went to the 5th grade, so it's possible that I lack understanding.

Peak does not equal total sales obviously and you can only expect it to be a fraction of that for any game. Also the 93 million you quoted is for the entire Borderland franchise, not just one game. Either way, it's still only one piece of data and requires putting in to context. If you know a game didn't release on Steam day 1 for example then you know the values will be lower. Also if a game has console versions or not can do the same. Available on Game Pass at launch? Yeah that will skew the numbers too. So long as you don't use the Steam numbers as your only source of data to draw a success/failure conclusion then you're already on the right track.

As in regards to this game, I didn't play it even though I got in to the alpha almost a year back. I watched streamers cheesing the game to death and decided I didn't want to be part of that. I think the number here show the game isn't doing well but things can change over time.

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on May 18, 2025, 12:24:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 18, 2025, 10:12:

Osc8r wrote on May 17, 2025, 17:40:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 17, 2025, 11:18:
LOL, I looked at the Steam reviews... The very first one was whining about the steam player count for this game, look I am all for shitting on games for being bad, and this well very may be; (I looked over other reviews too) but it is early access, and I will be god damned if I base my opinion of a game on the Steam fucking concurrent player count. Alos I liked Anthem, which everyone knows is total shit, and I will still argue to this day that it was fun and not nearly as bad a lot of people said. SpoilerAlert! They had shit computers, and the PS4 and XBONE couldn't run it for shit. Should have been a PS5 game like CP2077.So what do I know?

Why wouldn't you take it into account though? There's a reason it's the highest rated review. If you're playing a game that's built around playing with other people, i'd say the player count (or lack there of) is one of the KEY factors, regardless of whether it's in early access or not.

If there's less than 1000 people playing world wide, there's no point me even downloading it in Australia as i'd never find a match, nor would they likely invest in regional servers if they aren't making any $. In addition, a low player count usually means there will be less development on it, and a higher risk of being abandoned.

Luckily there's 3k playing now on the free weekend, so i'll give it a try.

But the good thing about Steam reviews, you pick and choose the one's which feel better aligned with your views and priorities.

-edit-

Ok, i tried it, and as i had feared, 7 matches in and i've yet to see another player (4-5 minutes queue times). So it's just running around the same two maps killing mindless AI and then extracting without a care in the world. Most of your time is just spent fighting the horrible inventory UI and managing the dozens upon dozen of items you find each run. Throw in some pretty dull and clunky combat, and yeah... i don't think this one is going anywhere good - and there's a good reason it's not popular.

So yeah, player count definitely matters especially when it comes to multiplayer games!

Yeah, I see what your saying, but if you look at other titles, say "last epoch" which dropped down to 68 players after four months of early access you will notice that it took almost 20 months to reach the same numbers that Legacy: Steel & Sorcery" did on day one. Not saying that this is a good game by any means, I wouldn't know I have not played it, I do think Last Epoch was good. I really do question the practice of using Steam player counts as some kind of meaningful metric to determine success or potential success, especially when the game is not a Steam exclusive as is often the case. Legacy does appear to be a Steam exclusive at this time.

Using the player count numbers gives you an idea of how a game is doing, ignoring it completely is just depriving oneself of data. Context of course still matters like if a game only cost one million dollars to make, reached 25k concurrent players, and cost $50, it's a pretty safe bet the game was profitable just by math alone. When you look at previous or similar games, you can get an idea of if a game is doing well or not. Again, not definitively but it helps in ball parking a game's health.

Yes, but like per yesterdays Engagement Ring the Borderlands series has sold 93 million copies over time, but according to Steam, the peak player counts across the entire series is less then 400k in total, what good is a metric that can have a +/- 99.6% margin of error? I wouldn't ignore the Steam count entirely, but I do have to question its usefulness as an accurate barometer. Look at the Steam player count for Fortnite, it has ZERO players, it's not even a game, but Epic alleges that there are 650,000,000 players or something ridicules. I also only went to the 5th grade, so it's possible that I lack understanding.

This comment was edited on May 18, 2025, 13:26.

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 18, 2025, 10:12:

Osc8r wrote on May 17, 2025, 17:40:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 17, 2025, 11:18:
LOL, I looked at the Steam reviews... The very first one was whining about the steam player count for this game, look I am all for shitting on games for being bad, and this well very may be; (I looked over other reviews too) but it is early access, and I will be god damned if I base my opinion of a game on the Steam fucking concurrent player count. Alos I liked Anthem, which everyone knows is total shit, and I will still argue to this day that it was fun and not nearly as bad a lot of people said. SpoilerAlert! They had shit computers, and the PS4 and XBONE couldn't run it for shit. Should have been a PS5 game like CP2077.So what do I know?

Why wouldn't you take it into account though? There's a reason it's the highest rated review. If you're playing a game that's built around playing with other people, i'd say the player count (or lack there of) is one of the KEY factors, regardless of whether it's in early access or not.

If there's less than 1000 people playing world wide, there's no point me even downloading it in Australia as i'd never find a match, nor would they likely invest in regional servers if they aren't making any $. In addition, a low player count usually means there will be less development on it, and a higher risk of being abandoned.

Luckily there's 3k playing now on the free weekend, so i'll give it a try.

But the good thing about Steam reviews, you pick and choose the one's which feel better aligned with your views and priorities.

-edit-

Ok, i tried it, and as i had feared, 7 matches in and i've yet to see another player (4-5 minutes queue times). So it's just running around the same two maps killing mindless AI and then extracting without a care in the world. Most of your time is just spent fighting the horrible inventory UI and managing the dozens upon dozen of items you find each run. Throw in some pretty dull and clunky combat, and yeah... i don't think this one is going anywhere good - and there's a good reason it's not popular.

So yeah, player count definitely matters especially when it comes to multiplayer games!

Yeah, I see what your saying, but if you look at other titles, say "last epoch" which dropped down to 68 players after four months of early access you will notice that it took almost 20 months to reach the same numbers that Legacy: Steel & Sorcery" did on day one. Not saying that this is a good game by any means, I wouldn't know I have not played it, I do think Last Epoch was good. I really do question the practice of using Steam player counts as some kind of meaningful metric to determine success or potential success, especially when the game is not a Steam exclusive as is often the case. Legacy does appear to be a Steam exclusive at this time.

Using the player count numbers gives you an idea of how a game is doing, ignoring it completely is just depriving oneself of data. Context of course still matters like if a game only cost one million dollars to make, reached 25k concurrent players, and cost $50, it's a pretty safe bet the game was profitable just by math alone. When you look at previous or similar games, you can get an idea of if a game is doing well or not. Again, not definitively but it helps in ball parking a game's health.

Osc8r wrote on May 17, 2025, 17:40:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 17, 2025, 11:18:
LOL, I looked at the Steam reviews... The very first one was whining about the steam player count for this game, look I am all for shitting on games for being bad, and this well very may be; (I looked over other reviews too) but it is early access, and I will be god damned if I base my opinion of a game on the Steam fucking concurrent player count. Alos I liked Anthem, which everyone knows is total shit, and I will still argue to this day that it was fun and not nearly as bad a lot of people said. SpoilerAlert! They had shit computers, and the PS4 and XBONE couldn't run it for shit. Should have been a PS5 game like CP2077.So what do I know?

Why wouldn't you take it into account though? There's a reason it's the highest rated review. If you're playing a game that's built around playing with other people, i'd say the player count (or lack there of) is one of the KEY factors, regardless of whether it's in early access or not.

If there's less than 1000 people playing world wide, there's no point me even downloading it in Australia as i'd never find a match, nor would they likely invest in regional servers if they aren't making any $. In addition, a low player count usually means there will be less development on it, and a higher risk of being abandoned.

Luckily there's 3k playing now on the free weekend, so i'll give it a try.

But the good thing about Steam reviews, you pick and choose the one's which feel better aligned with your views and priorities.

-edit-

Ok, i tried it, and as i had feared, 7 matches in and i've yet to see another player (4-5 minutes queue times). So it's just running around the same two maps killing mindless AI and then extracting without a care in the world. Most of your time is just spent fighting the horrible inventory UI and managing the dozens upon dozen of items you find each run. Throw in some pretty dull and clunky combat, and yeah... i don't think this one is going anywhere good - and there's a good reason it's not popular.

So yeah, player count definitely matters especially when it comes to multiplayer games!

Yeah, I see what your saying, but if you look at other titles, say "last epoch" which dropped down to 68 players after four months of early access you will notice that it took almost 20 months to reach the same numbers that Legacy: Steel & Sorcery" did on day one. Not saying that this is a good game by any means, I wouldn't know I have not played it, I do think Last Epoch was good. I really do question the practice of using Steam player counts as some kind of meaningful metric to determine success or potential success, especially when the game is not a Steam exclusive as is often the case. Legacy does appear to be a Steam exclusive at this time.

Osc8r wrote on May 17, 2025, 17:41:

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on May 17, 2025, 15:54:
Game is like Dark and Darker but with a WoW coat of paint. Did I mention it's yet another extraction game? Pass.

Arc Raiders is looking awesome!

Fingers crossed.

But then again, i haven't really played many extraction shooters as they didn't offer co-op/duo's, or had forced squads, absurd pricing etc.

I was looking forward to ARC Raiders before they added PvP (and I like to play PvP) and I think it will do well enough. I just really don't like the extraction game mode in general as it rewards a griefing game play style.

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on May 17, 2025, 15:54:
Game is like Dark and Darker but with a WoW coat of paint. Did I mention it's yet another extraction game? Pass.

Arc Raiders is looking awesome!

Fingers crossed.

But then again, i haven't really played many extraction shooters as they didn't offer co-op/duo's, or had forced squads, absurd pricing etc.

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on May 17, 2025, 11:18:
LOL, I looked at the Steam reviews... The very first one was whining about the steam player count for this game, look I am all for shitting on games for being bad, and this well very may be; (I looked over other reviews too) but it is early access, and I will be god damned if I base my opinion of a game on the Steam fucking concurrent player count. Alos I liked Anthem, which everyone knows is total shit, and I will still argue to this day that it was fun and not nearly as bad a lot of people said. SpoilerAlert! They had shit computers, and the PS4 and XBONE couldn't run it for shit. Should have been a PS5 game like CP2077.So what do I know?

Why wouldn't you take it into account though? There's a reason it's the highest rated review. If you're playing a game that's built around playing with other people, i'd say the player count (or lack there of) is one of the KEY factors, regardless of whether it's in early access or not.

If there's less than 1000 people playing world wide, there's no point me even downloading it in Australia as i'd never find a match, nor would they likely invest in regional servers if they aren't making any $. In addition, a low player count usually means there will be less development on it, and a higher risk of being abandoned.

Luckily there's 3k playing now on the free weekend, so i'll give it a try.

But the good thing about Steam reviews, you pick and choose the one's which feel better aligned with your views and priorities.

-edit-

Ok, i tried it, and as i had feared, 7 matches in and i've yet to see another player (4-5 minutes queue times). So it's just running around the same two maps killing mindless AI and then extracting without a care in the world. Most of your time is just spent fighting the horrible inventory UI and managing the dozens upon dozen of items you find each run. Throw in some pretty dull and clunky combat, and yeah... i don't think this one is going anywhere good - and there's a good reason it's not popular.

So yeah, player count definitely matters especially when it comes to multiplayer games!

This comment was edited on May 17, 2025, 23:59.

Game is like Dark and Darker but with a WoW coat of paint. Did I mention it's yet another extraction game? Pass.

LOL, I looked at the Steam reviews... The very first one was whining about the steam player count for this game, look I am all for shitting on games for being bad, and this well very may be; (I looked over other reviews too) but it is early access, and I will be god damned if I base my opinion of a game on the Steam fucking concurrent player count. Alos I liked Anthem, which everyone knows is total shit, and I will still argue to this day that it was fun and not nearly as bad a lot of people said. SpoilerAlert! They had shit computers, and the PS4 and XBONE couldn't run it for shit. Should have been a PS5 game like CP2077.So what do I know?

Steam reviews aren't very kind. Early Access. Doesn't seem worthy a free weekend test drive right now.