This game's player count not growing.



  • STEAM PLAYER COUNT GRAPH
    Amount of players not growing*?

    *except immediately after sales and during noob weekend

    EDIT: PLEASE VIEW MY 2nd PAGE REPLY



  • I don’t see it shrinking by that graph. Seems stable actually, besides the sales / free weekend.



  • when you go to college maybe you will learn how to read a graph…



  • In between sales it goes down.





  • @BillDoor:

    Compared some other games
    http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=219640q49520q220240q208480

    Amazing. Some dude in canada and a few other guys all over the world (AKA Tornbanner in October and before) defeated corporations. Then again I suck at reading these graphs so it may not be true.



  • Don’t worry it will.



  • @Kimiko:

    Don’t worry it will.

    FOR THE GLORY OF CHIVALRY!!
    :berz: :cheers: :berz: :cheers:



  • @adamcel6:

    Amazing. Some dude in canada and a few other guys all over the world (AKA Tornbanner in October and before) defeated corporations. Then again I suck at reading these graphs so it may not be true.

    To put it mildly, your notion of victory is… interesting. That graph is comparing PC ports of console games (all the games in that graph saw the overwhelming majority of their sales on the home consoles), AAA (thus, massive piracy, low multiplayer numbers) titles at that, to a (very) niche, multiplayer only title.

    Two of the games on the graph are from Ubisoft, a company the discerning consumer (I’d like to think most people in the PC scene are at least a tad discerning) knows to be notorious for DRM, and lately, tacked-on, lackluster multiplayer. It’s a hard sell to the PC market, and Ubisoft is probably only second to EA in terms of pure vileness. Add to that the poor souls that play those games via Ubisoft’s own brand of malware, uplay (instead of Steam), and the numbers aren’t that surprising.

    As for Boringlands 2, it doesn’t have competitive multiplayer.

    It’s a victory as far as player retention goes - Chivalry does seem to hover around the same numbers excepting sales/weekeneds, but definitely not a victory in the long run - business wise. Retention is great when you have relatively high numbers of players, and have a way to monetize them (Black Ops 2 recently introduced this - it’s rotten, but it’s business). This isn’t the case here, but I’m sure it’s at the very least flattering to the devs to have a dedicated playerbase.



  • Wow tornheinous, umad bro?

    Here’s a graph based on recent games developed by Indie studios
    http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=219640q107410q1250q201790q63380&from=1362395833

    Sorry my last graph wasn’t up to your scientific method. I just listed the last 3 games I bought on sale.



  • @BillDoor:

    Wow tornheinous, umad bro?

    I didnt read his post as mad at all.



  • Yeah…not seeing the mad there.



  • I always laugh at these kind of posts.

    I mean really, this game sold SO well when it was released, and especially over Christmas (#1 for the entire week remember?), that I’d not really expect it to grow that much anymore, everyone already has it!

    Many people who initially bought it will just have because it was on sale and saw it so high in the listings, and either played it a bit or not at all. The people who actually like it and play are actually pretty consistent, which shows that’s it’s done well, specially for their first ever commercial game!

    Remember Chiv doesn’t have any kind of active levelling components (with benefits / unlocks) or anything to actually force / entice people to keep playing, it’s one of those games most will pick up, have a blast, and then put down for a bit inbetween playing other games.



  • @BillDoor:

    Wow tornheinous, umad bro?

    Here’s a graph based on recent games developed by Indie studios
    http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=219640q107410q1250q201790q63380&from=1362395833

    Sorry my last graph wasn’t up to your scientific method. I just listed the last 3 games I bought on sale.

    Your point, good sir? Your argument is ‘welp, at least we’re doing better than these guys’? It’s an incredibly poor way to measure success, and indeed growth. See, you might as well list Chivalry alone on a graph (you really might as well have since the titles are again, cooperative, not competitive, except DayZ - not even calling it Arma at this point), because all it shows is retention. So how am I mad? I never said it’s a bad thing, on the contrary, there’s a dedicated few that love the game and… can’t get enough of it, apparently. That’s wonderful! But it does nothing from a business standpoint.

    The question the devs have to ask is why the people, which peak during the oft mentioned sales and weekends and whatnot, don’t stick around? Why they aren’t inclined to praise the game to the heavens and expose their friends/contacts to it, driving up sales? Until they can answer that and do something about it, there will be no growth, only a small, more or less static contingent of dedicated players, heartwarming, but of little value.



  • The success and quality of this game is mind boggling. I remember when I played Age of Chivalry and was pissed because the hit detection was shit and two handed swords were OP.



  • I definitely screwed up making this topic, as well as when I replied to it before this :oops: . But anyways, the discussion about sales and success of TBS is always interesting.



  • @tornheinous:

    The question the devs have to ask is why the people, which peak during the oft mentioned sales and weekends and whatnot, don’t stick around? Why they aren’t inclined to praise the game to the heavens and expose their friends/contacts to it, driving up sales? Until they can answer that and do something about it, there will be no growth, only a small, more or less static contingent of dedicated players, heartwarming, but of little value.

    I think it is pretty obvious that it is a niche game. There are only so many people who like sword-fighting. Most kids like shooting guns.

    FPS players do not have skills that transfer to this game. It is very skill based and so when you have clan people destroying pub teams its not very fun for new players.

    Its a slower game too, you can be running for 40 seconds, get slaughtered in two alt-feint-slash attacks and be running back all over again.



  • @elitenoob:

    I think it is pretty obvious that it is a niche game. There are only so many people who like sword-fighting. Most kids like shooting guns.

    FPS players do not have skills that transfer to this game. It is very skill based and so when you have clan people destroying pub teams its not very fun for new players.

    This. Most kids would rather have an assault rifle and see the other guy first to win, then see points pop up in the middle of the screen. I see how a team of noobs playing chivalry for free or eight bucks would leave the game permanently after a clan brutally eviscerates them back to the spawn, then switches to fists to complete the victory.



  • @tornheinous:

    Your point, good sir? Your argument is ‘welp, at least we’re doing better than these guys’? … I never said it’s a bad thing, on the contrary, there’s a dedicated few that love the game and… can’t get enough of it, apparently. That’s wonderful! But it does nothing from a business standpoint.

    Actually that is my point, although not put so snarkily. This is a small independent team that frankly has a lot to learn and a community that, mostly, is willing to let them because the game is so damn fun. Look at what others have done with far more resources.

    @tornheinous:

    The question the devs have to ask is why the people, which peak during the oft mentioned sales and weekends and whatnot, don’t stick around? Why they aren’t inclined to praise the game to the heavens and expose their friends/contacts to it, driving up sales? Until they can answer that and do something about it, there will be no growth, only a small, more or less static contingent of dedicated players, heartwarming, but of little value.

    From a purely business standpoint there is a great deal of value to a base of dedicated players. After the initial content updates are done, they will have a group of fans to spread the news about their currently undisclosed upcoming project.
    I posted Chivalry on my social media. Didn’t you? I had to tell everyone where I disappeared to for hours every evening and all day Saturdays. They thought I died. :o

    @tornheinous:

    So how am I mad?

    Actually I meant the ‘no smart pc gamer would buy Ubi’ rant. Mind, I was pretty pissed when Ubi introduced always-on requirement and I still won’t buy starforce titles but EA has taken the crown for dirty DRM tactics (not to mention money-sucking design philosophies). The fact is they won. They won and there’s nothing you can do about it, but maybe buy the games you really want when they’re on sale. (Yay Steam!)
    Dissing on the small indie developer for not having an immediate and constant upward growth cycle of the base product seems out-of-spirit with the Ubi hate.

    @adamcel6:

    @elitenoob:

    It is very skill based and so when you have clan people destroying pub teams its not very fun for new players.

    I see how a team of noobs playing chivalry for free or eight bucks would leave the game permanently after a clan brutally eviscerates them back to the spawn, then switches to fists to complete the victory.

    I bought this game for my brother-in-law this last sale. He joined a game with me, took Vanguard and rushed me. 3 crossbow bolts and 2 saber stabby stabby!!!s later he ragequit. I do feel bad. :(
    But, he’ll be back and his two best gaming friends will see it and want it and their friends will see it. This game has room to grow.



  • @tornheinous:

    @BillDoor:

    Wow tornheinous, umad bro?

    Here’s a graph based on recent games developed by Indie studios
    http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=219640q107410q1250q201790q63380&from=1362395833

    Sorry my last graph wasn’t up to your scientific method. I just listed the last 3 games I bought on sale.

    Your point, good sir? Your argument is ‘welp, at least we’re doing better than these guys’? It’s an incredibly poor way to measure success, and indeed growth. See, you might as well list Chivalry alone on a graph (you really might as well have since the titles are again, cooperative, not competitive, except DayZ - not even calling it Arma at this point), because all it shows is retention. So how am I mad? I never said it’s a bad thing, on the contrary, there’s a dedicated few that love the game and… can’t get enough of it, apparently. That’s wonderful! But it does nothing from a business standpoint.

    The question the devs have to ask is why the people, which peak during the oft mentioned sales and weekends and whatnot, don’t stick around? Why they aren’t inclined to praise the game to the heavens and expose their friends/contacts to it, driving up sales? Until they can answer that and do something about it, there will be no growth, only a small, more or less static contingent of dedicated players, heartwarming, but of little value.

    The reason I think is simple enough. It’s a niche game that will only appeal to an audience that learns from their mistakes and strives to challenge themselves to get better. Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t enjoy the initiate steps of getting their butt handed to them repeatedly when they start and have to contend with others who are hundreds of hours ahead of them in experience.

    There’s no way around that for the broad scope of the game, although something that was mentioned earlier that may help are starter servers for lower ranks, say 0-10. Tribes Ascend does this.


Log in to reply