• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

For Honor lost 95% of its peak con player # on Steam, has ~25% of owners as 1/2 MAU

This saddens me greatly, but it must be. For Honor was my childhood fantasy game come true, but Ubisoft completely cocked it up by adding every possible microtransaction strategy possible AND cheaping out on networking.

It is a game that deserves to crash and burn to send a message to publishers. I just wish it didn't have to be this particular game.
 

FelipeMGM

Member
That doesn't make it 'better'.

and why are you assuming I want to make anything look better? I have no ties whatsoever to this game, dont even ownt it

Just pointing out how this should have beem named beforehand to better represent the article. Im sure it dropped big time on consoles too but this number is Steam
 
They're calling The Division one of 2016's biggest bombs?

Just because a game loses its players does not make it a bomb. The Division sold fucktons.

I think The Division has more players than For Honor.

Edit: Apparently yes.



 
Massively multiplayer Bushido Souls x Deadliest Warrior is cool, but online centric games are so sad when they don't become one of the chosen few that the entire world plays and won't shut up about.

This is why we still need Square to find the right people to make real Bushido Blade. Same sim, 1 v 1 (fite me irl)... just maybe rethink the control scheme, stance/blade positioning method, and the ease of transitioning into other moves such as running away like a dishonorable coward. Same terrain advantage and set piece feels but in a semi-open area (the way Naughty Dog means it), so there's no loading screens anymore. Still able to slice down bamboo, but add wall/weapon collision. Something you can play local versus or easily invite one friend online for, and it won't be some expensive server farm ordeal that dies alone and infuriates investors.
 

Skyzard

Banned
Games as a service means post-launch dlc, events and updates. It gets all of that.

It's not a free-to-play title.

It's also one of the best fighting games ever, and best on PC thanks to 60fps.

Just loaded it up now and got into a dominion game of 8 players in 30 seconds. -And again just now. It's still easy to get into matches.


I swear before it used to tell you total player count (ie steam + uplay) but can't seem to find that stat anymore. It was available cheaper on uplay than steam. People who don't care about price likely just play games for a short while before moving on anyway.
 
This game could have been great if Ubi had listened to the community. Every update seemed to take one step forward and two steps back. Honestly, the game has a tremendous amount of potential, but I think it's hot garbage as it is. I put perhaps 50 hours into it before quitting, and that was more than enough for me.

Also, while people are making a point about this being an issue on Steam, there was a thread on reddit highlighting that the proportion of players that returned for a second season is astoundingly low. There's a trophy which lets you view this as a percentage.
 
It puts it in context though. For Honor just "feels" like a console game. I can't imagine anyone is surprised it doesn't have a dedicated PC community.

I'm sure PS4 is doing much better, but some level of audience tapering off is expected.
He's actually right. Console players also leave in droves after only a couple months. I mean, just look at Battlefield 1. No one would doubt that's a console focused game.
 

Griss

Member
When you play a great game for two weeks or a month and then drop it to move on to something else, that doesn't mean it's not a great game or not a success.

I have no idea what the quality of either The Division or For Honor is, but I find the idea that games must retain their playerbase for an extended period of time to be considered 'good' a strange one, especially when these games naturally attract a more casual consumer.

Shit, if I was Ubisoft, that's the last thing I'd want. I'd want people playing for two weeks, having fun, then buying another Ubisoft game.

Personally, I've never played any online game other than WoW for more than a month and with WoW I only played 4-5 months, and that felt like total overkill.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Games as a service means post-launch dlc, events and updates. It gets all of that.

It's not a free-to-play title.

It's also one of the best fighting games ever, and best on PC thanks to 60fps.

Just loaded it up now and got into a dominion game of 8 players in 30 seconds.


I swear before it used to tell you total player count (ie steam + uplay) but can't seem to find that stat anymore. It was available cheaper on uplay than steam. People who don't care about price likely just play games for a short while before moving on anyway.
They removed player counts back in Feb. So no idea how this site is getting numbers from anything BUT steam.
 
I wonder why R6:S grew but this fell off so quickly.
Dedicated servers, better support, less gouging on the micro transactions.

Siege kinda flopped it's launch but had loads of good word of mouth following it, a good start to the pro league and good support.

For Honor was the opposite, great launch in terms of sales, but the support (balance changes, exploit fixes) just wasn't there for it.
Follow that up with the competitive scene being who can learn said exploits and use them most effectively to win and the poor p2p servers.
 

killroy87

Member
But the article says it's going through the same predicament as steam albeit a bit slower currently?

Are there any games that don't lose player base, to some degree, over time? R6 Siege is the only one I can really think of that's truly grown. I'm sure there are more too, but this isn't exactly uncommon.

That's just how games work. Your first couple weeks after launch will be the highest, for obvious reasons, and then the weeks after that will steadily drop until you eventually taper off with a regular community that you work to keep engaged. Things like sales, promotions, and what not will serve as temporary spikes in numbers as you try to bring new players in and reactivate lapsed players.
 

DeathoftheEndless

Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
They're calling The Division one of 2016's biggest bombs?

Just because a game loses its players does not make it a bomb. The Division sold fucktons.

Yeah, that makes no sense. Both games were huge successes. People like to try to paint games they don't like as failures, even when they sell really well lol.
 

Shai-Tan

Banned
Ownership stats are fine for most AAA games on Steam? And not every multiplayer game is going to have 20K+ concurrent players. With only 3k average players and 7k peak that's enough to find games. Looks fine and healthy to me. Maybe the long term repeatability of the game is just not there. Very few multiplayer games have the long term appeal to be played by 20K+ people on average

edit: you also can't make inferences about console player base from steam player base. Some games have many more console players than Steam players, even some PC centric series like Battlefield have entries like Battlefield 1 that have many more console players
 

Laiza

Member
Unfortunate given the interesting concept but issues with networking, micro-transactions and just the fact that the game is tough to be competent at without moderate amounts of time investment all went against it.
Not only that, but For Honor represents a unique case where increasing your skill level actually makes the game play worse. Let me repeat that: the game becomes more and more boring to play the more you invest into it. The defensive meta at high-level play makes for extremely boring, incredibly stale gameplay that no one really wants to deal with. That is going to kill anything resembling a competitive scene before it can really get going.

The fact that the devs have utterly failed to address this to this day speaks volumes. It's a fundamental problem with the game's design, and needs equally fundamental fixes to address, but they have not done anything other than put bandaids over it (usually by giving some classes more offensive tools, which only sidesteps the problem by funneling people into certain classes rather than fixing the core issue). They have got to nerf parrying at some point, because this shit just can't continue.

I can only hope they get their heads screwed on right before the game really is truly dead. At this point I'm playing exclusively PvE just to avoid the defensive bullshit you run into with decent human players. Even the level 3 bots (the highest difficulty) aren't nearly as bad.

Game has potential. It's just unrealized thanks to the dev team's sheer incompetence.
 

Majukun

Member
never ever considered the game since it has microtransactions in it...maybe i'll be able to buy it cheap very soon
 

dmcAxle

Neo Member
Fighting games are hard

True but even then the game just has too many flaws for even a fighting game player to enjoy. The defensive meta is not fun and instead of fixing it they are just doing small changes to individual characters.

Moves in the game need to be faster, guardbreaks need to be more threatening and parrying needs to be less rewarding. Right now the only mixup is feinting, everything else is just reactable and the game becomes "solved".
 
Dedicated servers, better support, less gouging on the micro transactions.

Siege kinda flopped it's launch but had loads of good word of mouth following it, a good start to the pro league and good support.

For Honor was the opposite, great launch in terms of sales, but the support (balance changes, exploit fixes) just wasn't there for it.
Follow that up with the competitive scene being who can learn said exploits and use them most effectively to win and the poor p2p servers.
No, no, no. I see this repeated a lot, I own both games, own the season passes for both games and R6 Siege is easily worse on microtransactions. For starters it takes ages to buy a single DLC operator. Additionally every single item in FH is under one currency, R6 siege has three (real dollars, renown and R6 credits).

Also balance changes happen often and have pretty much all been great, the biggest issue holding it back is the shitty servers and defensive meta. They're fixing the latter by making parrying less of a punish and giving existing and DLC characters a lot of mixups.
 

Dysun

Member
The beta turned me off the game, it wasn't fun to play. Felt like another in the long line of Ubisoft games with good production values and interesting concepts but poor implementation and execution
 
The Division was awesome and I played for 3 months. Havent touched it since the launch era but I dont regret my day 1 purchase.
 

TitusTroy

Member
I enjoyed the beta but knew it would die quick hence the reason I didn't buy the game...it's fun for a few weeks but gets old really fast...I give credit to Ubisoft for thinking outside the box and coming up with new gameplay mechanics instead of the same old ones they've used for years with the Assassin's Creed, Far Cry etc games
 
They're calling The Division one of 2016's biggest bombs?

Just because a game loses its players does not make it a bomb. The Division sold fucktons.
It sold fucktons but chances are they were expecting more from DLC sales to go even/profit

AAA gaming is stupid like that
 

wildfire

Banned
Are there any games that don't lose player base, to some degree, over time? R6 Siege is the only one I can really think of that's truly grown. I'm sure there are more too, but this isn't exactly uncommon.

That's just how games work. Your first couple weeks after launch will be the highest, for obvious reasons, and then the weeks after that will steadily drop until you eventually taper off with a regular community that you work to keep engaged. Things like sales, promotions, and what not will serve as temporary spikes in numbers as you try to bring new players in and reactivate lapsed players.

That's not how it works for the best selling subscription/recurring fee based games.

The understanding of mobile games, mmos and what are now being called games as a service (GAAS) needs to improve.
 
No, no, no. I see this repeated a lot, I own both games, own the season passes for both games and R6 Siege is easily worse on microtransactions. For starters it takes ages to buy a single DLC operator. Additionally every single item in FH is under one currency, R6 siege has three (real dollars, renown and R6 credits).

Also balance changes happen often and have pretty much all been great, the biggest issue holding it back is the shitty servers and defensive meta. They're fixing the latter by making parrying less of a punish and giving existing and DLC characters a lot of mixups.

Believe what you want to believe, but steel takes far longer to earn in For Honor than gaining renown in Siege.

As for the balance, tell me more about the unlock exploits, the soft feints and so on?
 

TitusTroy

Member
Just like any other 99.99% of the games 4 months after release? Shocking!

P.S.: It was the 2nd best selling game of Q1 2017. In the whole industry, not only Steam

I love the way people like to post some obscure stat to make something sound much more positive lol...wow the 2nd best selling game of Q1 lol??...that's like saying it's the best selling Wednesday game at 9:45 PM...means nothing...you can always inflate stats to make something appear to be something else

Q1 means a 3 month period...so to say it was the 2nd best selling game for a limited 3 month window is silly...especially if it didn't face a lot of competition during those 3 months
 
I love the way people like to post some obscure stat to make something sound much more positive lol...wow the 2nd best selling game of Q1 lol??...that's like saying it's the best selling Wednesday game at 9:45 PM...means nothing...you can always inflate stats to make something appear to be something else

Q1 means a 3 month period...so to say it was the 2nd best selling game for a limited 3 month window is silly...especially if it didn't face a lot of competition during those 3 months

come on man
3 months is totally different from Wednesday at 9:45 PM

the game will likely stay in the Top 20 for the full year.
but some should add, that this data is for the US of A
 

Skyzard

Banned
I love the way people like to post some obscure stat to make something sound much more positive lol...wow the 2nd best selling game of Q1 lol??...that's like saying it's the best selling Wednesday game at 9:45 PM...means nothing...you can always inflate stats to make something appear to be something else

Q1 means a 3 month period...so to say it was the 2nd best selling game for a limited 3 month window is silly...especially if it didn't face a lot of competition during those 3 months

What? Tonnes of big games came out in Q1.

And your comparison to 9:45 pm is dumb.
 

Stealth50

Member
To put things into perspective I looked at the other recent fighting games on Steam, using peak at release and peak 3 months later:

For Honor: Release: 45.836. 3 Months later: 3614. Drop: 92.1%
Street Fighter V: Release: 14.155. 3 Months later: 2134. Drop: 85%
Mortal Kombat X: Release: 5070. 3 Months Later: 1374. Drop: 72.9%

My point is that looking at one game without comparing it to others is kinda pointless.
 

Majora

Member
I love the way people like to post some obscure stat to make something sound much more positive lol...wow the 2nd best selling game of Q1 lol??...that's like saying it's the best selling Wednesday game at 9:45 PM...means nothing...you can always inflate stats to make something appear to be something else

Q1 means a 3 month period...so to say it was the 2nd best selling game for a limited 3 month window is silly...especially if it didn't face a lot of competition during those 3 months

Oh come off it. Of course being the second best selling game in the first three months of the year means something. It's not an obscure stat at all, you're being ridiculous.
 
Top Bottom