You traded Elite for Valheim?
Less than 5k cmdrs logging in now.
- Thread starter Dragsham
- Start date
The reason why you see fewer players in Elite these days isn't just because of the decline in total numbers but also because of the galaxy split introduced at the launch of Odyssey. ED on PC is now basically two games, and players can be visible only in one at a time.
The only way to fix that problem is by upgrading Horizons to client 4.0, so that Horizons and Odyssey folks can instance together at least in space.
The only way to fix that problem is by upgrading Horizons to client 4.0, so that Horizons and Odyssey folks can instance together at least in space.
There's a lot of strange waffle in this thread. However you cut it, the graph does look bad. It's an undeniably low drop at the end.
The build up of excitement on the run up to may 2021 is clearly visible, people playing to prepare for the launch of the new update, big spike at launch, and a huge drop to the lowest point it has been since the game launched. I'd say that's pretty telling and worth discussion.
The build up of excitement on the run up to may 2021 is clearly visible, people playing to prepare for the launch of the new update, big spike at launch, and a huge drop to the lowest point it has been since the game launched. I'd say that's pretty telling and worth discussion.
The steam charts give us a very reliable poll of the number of people playing ED. Yes it doesn't include everyone and it doesn't have every statistic we would like but as a metric it is very reliable.
Interestingly we can check to see how accurate it is by looking at other things such as the number of people searching on Google for Elite Dangerous to see if there are any discrepancies, and it supports the view that there was a big peak of interest at the launch of ED:O but it has slumped in a dramatic way.
While ED has always had peaks and troughs in players one so dramatic after such a major update should be concerning to anyone that is interested in ED having long term support.
As a player my view has long been that ED has suffered from not enough Dev time being given to it. Features have been added but not worked enough in to maturity (for my liking), Even features that did get some rework have not had enough. Maybe from a business POV this was a sound move, the extra players from this work would not have spent enough on the game and extras.
I suspect that unless these numbers can improve making additional DLC will be a difficult sell to the board.
Interestingly we can check to see how accurate it is by looking at other things such as the number of people searching on Google for Elite Dangerous to see if there are any discrepancies, and it supports the view that there was a big peak of interest at the launch of ED:O but it has slumped in a dramatic way.
While ED has always had peaks and troughs in players one so dramatic after such a major update should be concerning to anyone that is interested in ED having long term support.
As a player my view has long been that ED has suffered from not enough Dev time being given to it. Features have been added but not worked enough in to maturity (for my liking), Even features that did get some rework have not had enough. Maybe from a business POV this was a sound move, the extra players from this work would not have spent enough on the game and extras.
I suspect that unless these numbers can improve making additional DLC will be a difficult sell to the board.
A lot of games have that, and especially games that have been around for a while exhibit similar behaviour before, during and after a new DLC.
Then you'd be absolutely wrong considering there is more cherry-picking of stats than you'd find in a field of cherry bushes during picking season.
This doesn't really add anything. Lots of games that slowly die and get not more significant development time? Well, great!
Or are you saying that games that have this kind of dip in players and interest go on to thrive? In which case some examples would be good.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. i'm just looking at a graph that has a load of peaks and troughs, and the release of horizons showing a steady increase in player numbers overall, and the release of Odyssey showing a monumental drop.
Surely those two releases are being compared on the same stats on this one graph?
Surely those two releases are being compared on the same stats on this one graph?
I'm not really invested in this months steam stats thread sorry but next time I feel like actively participating in a future stats thread i'll ping you.
great chat, really worth you dropping in then
It's just that these numbers are numbers and any cause and effect attributed to them is just pure speculation on our part. It seems like some people really like to emphasive the negative narratives, possibly to validate their own feelings of disappointment in the product. Just like you, perhaps by accident, started off with the negative explanation instead of the positive one.
The way you said that makes it sound like you already made your mind up anyway, what's the point?
It's been a while but this thread is prime, a-grade, major league DOOOOOOOOOOOOM
As Inara was mentioned, to clear some misconceptions I can say only that - by my numbers, there is much more than 5,000 commanders currently playing. By "much more" I mean at least tens of thousands of commanders. And that's just numbers from Inara, so in reality there will be even more active commanders. No doom coming.
Not really. It's been lower then this before and it's recovered. I'm thinking it will recover again. There are still probably well over 100,000 people playing on all clients reasonably regularly, but as long as people keep buying the product, it's not an issue. They don't need huge amounts of people playing, they just need people buying.
Why bother?
As long as Frontier consider keeping their servers dealing with players of the game, however many players one particular store list as playing in any particular minute is purely academic.
I guess it has as much relevance to players as the almost obligatory post containing a history of Frontier's share prices.
It doesn't matter what steam tells anyone, at the end of the day it only tells part of the story, Frontier have real numbers and they aren't sharing them.
I like how stating basic statistics is considered "dOoOoOOoOOOom" now...
Like, mate, that ain't "doom", that's just how things are. Yeah, steam statistics don't represent absolutely everyone, but it's still a good majority of the player base.
Does that spell "DOOOM!!1!!!11"? Maybe, maybe not. It's all down to if and how FD remain invested in the game. Total concurrent players may influence that slightly, but unless it completely drops to zero, we're probably not gonna be seeing actual doom anytime soon.
I also find it interesting back when total concurrent steam players were at an all time high it was cause for celebration, but now that they're at an all time low, ya'll conveniently ignore them...
Like, mate, that ain't "doom", that's just how things are. Yeah, steam statistics don't represent absolutely everyone, but it's still a good majority of the player base.
Does that spell "DOOOM!!1!!!11"? Maybe, maybe not. It's all down to if and how FD remain invested in the game. Total concurrent players may influence that slightly, but unless it completely drops to zero, we're probably not gonna be seeing actual doom anytime soon.
I also find it interesting back when total concurrent steam players were at an all time high it was cause for celebration, but now that they're at an all time low, ya'll conveniently ignore them...
Interestingly, some people like to focus on the positives instead of the negatives. For instance, I love the way you did your hair today. Suits you well and really brings out those beautiful eyes.I also find it interesting back when total concurrent steam players were at an all time high it was cause for celebration, but now that they're at an all time low, ya'll conveniently ignore them...