Wasn't worth it, was it?

"

Fapmobile#0758 wrote:

Why do people even care about that? Would it affect your personal gaming experience if there were (for example) 1 million players 24/7?

This is true if you play SSF. It also works with D3/D4 because loot is bound and non-tradeable.

Player count is important in trade-based games like PoE. You need people to trade with and party-play for multi-farming strategies. Although, the latter may not be a problem if you exclusively play with friends.

"

hasatt0#7256 wrote:

"

Fapmobile#0758 wrote:

Why do people even care about that? Would it affect your personal gaming experience if there were (for example) 1 million players 24/7?

This is true if you play SSF. It also works with D3/D4 because loot is bound and non-tradeable.

Player count is important in trade-based games like PoE. You need people to trade with and party-play for multi-farming strategies. Although, the latter may not be a problem if you exclusively play with friends.

Maybe it used to, but since asynch trade was introduced it really doesn't

It was certainly worth it from a financial viewpoint, they got hundreds of millions from Early Access selling $30 a pop to impressionable Twitch viewers and hype players. Me included :(

"

Fapmobile#0758 wrote:

Why do people even care about that? Would it affect your personal gaming experience if there were (for example) 1 million players 24/7?

They could be playing PoE1. They could be playing anything else. Instead, we are here politely listing all the reasons the game is “so bad” across multiple topics. The pacing feels off, the systems feel unfamiliar, it gets labeled a Dark Souls knockoff, a bad copy, and somehow also “not Path of Exile” enough.

And yet, patch day arrives and likely 700k+ players log in across all platforms, with the following days holding strong. On Steam alone, it comfortably sits in the top four games. For something supposedly falling apart, it is a perfectly well working game, and that is while still being in early access. Even a relatively small patch appears to hook more players than PoE1 managed to reach at any single point over more than a decade. Not to trash PoE1, that would be rude and unfair, but we also cannot pretend the numbers are not telling a story.

Criticism is fine. Preferences are fine. But at some point, the data speaks quietly for itself. GGG clearly did something right here, and the player counts make that difficult to ignore.

Was it worth it to drop the game that made possible to create a worse version that will take another 2-3 years to get decent?

Was it worth it to drop everything today? for a maybe tomorrow?

"

Xystre#4581 wrote:

Was it worth it to drop the game that made possible to create a worse version that will take another 2-3 years to get decent?

Was it worth it to drop everything today? for a maybe tomorrow?

I cackled, but not for the reason you might think. :D

What could possibly be the reason why that CCU compared to day 1 is so low. Lets put on our thinking caps here. Might it be... the release of PoE2 0.4?

Lets also ignore the fact that higher CCU on league launch directly affects any CCU after for the specific statistic you posted I guess.

The reason why Steam puts out CCU statistics is because it's useful for operational monitoring (server load, matchmaking health...) but it's dangerously incomplete when you want to measure a game's (or in this case, a league's) overall success.

Much more useful would be a look at DAU (Daily Active Users) or MAU (Monthly Active Users) to display engagement trends. Even then, looking at these statistics without context (such as PoE2 releasing a new patch) is dishonest as heck.

"

ArtCrusade#4438 wrote:

I cackled, but not for the reason you might think. :D

What could possibly be the reason why that CCU compared to day 1 is so low. Lets put on our thinking caps here. Might it be... the release of PoE2 0.4?

Lets also ignore the fact that higher CCU on league launch directly affects any CCU after for the specific statistic you posted I guess.

The reason why Steam puts out CCU statistics is because it's useful for operational monitoring (server load, matchmaking health...) but it's dangerously incomplete when you want to measure a game's (or in this case, a league's) overall success.

Much more useful would be a look at DAU (Daily Active Users) or MAU (Monthly Active Users) to display engagement trends. Even then, looking at these statistics without context (such as PoE2 releasing a new patch) is dishonest as heck.

Instant CCU values are indeed irrelevant, though the trend over time periods is a very good indicator.
The trend cannot 1 to 1 tell the success of the game. That's true, but not because that graph tells lies, but rather because what defines success is not intrinsicly defined. Success could be profit margins, longevity, server loads, positive coverage difference. It all depends on the owner and his objectives really.

Regarding PoE1, retention is low, because of PoE2 most probably, but not because of 0.4 release directly. Keepers has been a bad league with the worst retention ever, but the downwards trend started from the start.
You cannot identify an obvious inflexion point related to PoE2.
That said, it's highly probable that Keepers was way undercooked because of 0.4 proximity.

Considering 0.4 came 42 days after 3.7 (2 - 2 months GGG ? sure...), you could make a point that it stole some players, but the reality is that 3.27 died quickly enough by itself.

"

rob_korn#1745 wrote:

...

For sure 3.27 was undercooked and GGG could have given it some more attention. Could muse about why they didn‘t, likely due to PoE2 as you guessed.

But that wasn‘t the point I wanted to make anyway. I‘m just really tired of people misusing statistics like that. I think I need to compile an FAQ of sorts so I can quote that directly instead of repeating the same info over and over

i see allot of people asking questions and no ones asked this....WHERE ARE THE GOD DANMED SWORDS!!!!!

Yes.