It's a pro-argument for sure, but hours played isn't equal to hours you've had fun, and before someone says why play a game which isn't always fun: the rewards or success after a heavy grind in a MMO, RPG or RTS is what makes a game fun and addictive. What I discovered after playing the campaign as the patches rolled out throughout the months was that it was not rewarding enough, therefore I'd rather look at those hours as wasted and ultimately made the game even more expensive. Most of my hours are currently from the multiplayer or thr Bannerlord Online mod.Its honestly a pretty good argument. No matter how much we complain, I doubt, that anyone here has less than 300 hours in Bannerlord and it certainly did pay off. However, that doesent mean we dont have to improve it and not fill all its potential.
Yeah, people need to be very critical of mods and not throw money on what they'd like to see, but rather what they can see. The mod has been deleted from moddb which is a questionable move in itself and the developer appear to contain it to his own website without much possibility for public critique, and I don't see a thread about the mod here.I like how the "biggest" released Bannerlordmod atm is a Game of Thrones "overhaul" mod which is 99% bought assets thrown together with no plan or modding ability by one single guy, yet people on Youtube, Twitter and Steam still believe that mod is going to be "great". They even support it on Patreon! Oh boy, the ignorance within this "new"community TW decided to make their game for...
At this point, I can't even write down my opinion anymore because the words I would have to use would probably get me muted or banned. Just one thing that needs to be said: screw ****ers like that trying to make money based on expectations from Warband modders' previous unpaid work, **** them all, bloody bastards need to be cleansed. The audacity of calling that an "overhaul" and even making a Patreon for it....
You would think a Swede would get Steam asap for Counter-Strike, but that wasn't the case for me. I only got Steam at the start of 2009 due to Empire: Total War being one of the first games requiring activation through the DRM-service for me, even though it required two CD-roms for the installation itself (as it had a massive size for its time with ~40 GB).That would be true if you had said 2005-2007, but by the time Warband came out Steam was already the frontrunner in digital video game sales platforms. Still, you're right that Warband was available through several sources and many of the forum users at the time picked it up directly from TW. There was also an issue that came up several times with keys bought elsewhere not being the proper format for activation on Steam, and this surely contributed to some extent (though probably minor).
It was years and years ago, but I purchased my first copy of Mount and Blade on Amazon without any Steam activation needed whatsoever, and tend to remember that even Warband had the same options. You have to remember that Steam was still was quite new as a DRM service back in 2008-2010 and not many games were supported then aside from Valves own games, thus many players didn't feel the need to use it. So that could explain why a large chunk of the player population never has been accounted for through Steam statistics.It is odd that Warband does not have a release peak.
Many are hopeful for TW to suddenly change the same behavior they've kept for the last ten years ever since the first concept of Bannerlord.but I think their neglect <snip> will hurt them in the future.
I'm pretty sure no-one has claimed the mod is meant as a co-op campaign to begin with, even the developer has had to clarify his intention to a bunch of small-brains in the past. However, they're getting there, as they're soon to release factions of which players can pledge allegiance to within a few updates, and there's already ''Wildlands'' which is a PvP area in-game, as well as trading between players, making it more of an open-world RPG. Clearly they've had to recode things to work in the multiplayer. I find it funny when people expect this sole modder to have everything complete, plus more on day 1, especially when TW does, per your own rhetorics, obfuscate their code too. Anyway, BO has a rather clear roadmap on their discord compared to other studios.When I see people praising the Bannerlord Online Mod for all the wrong reasons, I just cringe. Bannerlord Online is not a co-op campaign. In fact, most of the campaign behaviours are removed from it for it to work and that is what I can tell from all the obfuscated code that it has. A playable co-op campaign would with all the features of a single-player campaign indeed be hard to develop as the devs claim.
I'll let time convince you otherwise. You can easily see I've been here ten years, you've been here a month. I've been attempting to tell you there was an overwhelming majority of optimists here during the Beta, giving constructive criticism, and wonderful, refreshing ideas, but also suggestions to keep what made Warband great. They soon became cynics, just realizing how little difference their collective voices meant, as you said yourself, even having a bunch of ideas in our signatures, make repetitive threads on the same issues or outright yell at them doesn't work. So what do you actually suggest would work? Sitting quiet in the corner, appreciating whatever comes out of their mess? I tell them of my dislike by not playing the game, just like many others, so please don't use the argument that those who're playing the game mean more than those that doesn't. Either way, your blind optimism is cute. Also, did you really just insult the whole modding community or was that just a poorly written sentence on your behalf?It isn't that I love the game, it isn't that I loathe the game, it is that I have patience with the game. The issues in the game will most likely be fixed at release or at some point shortly following release. TW isn't stupid, they know issues such as the Siege AI are important and things such as that, so they are going to continue to work on them until it is finished. The game is still in EA, and I know how people rightly dislike that argument, but it is looking like a game in EA right now. It isn't finished.
Also, the point about screwing modders is getting less and less valid. Following the 1.6.0 patch, we can see that TW does want to help modders, not just screw them over. Unlike what has been stated by others on the matter, it is unlikely that TW has an inferiority complex compared to modders.
Secondly, since there is a lack of a roadmap, we do not even know what will be added in the game pre-release and post-release. If they aren't added, they aren't. If they are, they are.
Making a game takes time. Making an engine takes even more time.
Edited the post to specify, but you commented before the change was committed. Mount and Blade is a sandbox game, not just a singleplayer game with a playthroughable story, but rather meant as an infinite world with infinite possibilities, and modders creating overhaul mods and new functions do further add to the infinity and persistence of it all.Almost no SP-focused title (like BL) keeps its playerbase longer than three months after launch.
If a title wants to maintain player engagement, it needs to drop regular DLCs, be an MMO or have a strong e-sports aspect.
I agree it does ...because it didn't live up to peoples' expectations.The massive drop from 250k to 25k makes sense.
I have to disagree. A lot of games keep a huge percentage of their initial numbers, and even increase them pretty soon after launch when the previously suspicious to the series also decide to buy in on the fun. The game you reference to later in your post is one of them (TF2). Some games like singleplayer games with a playthroughable story naturally decline, unlike sandbox games like Garrys Mod and Mount and Blade.Very few games will keep that number.
Valheim is developed by a studio of 5 people, and started as a side-project from one dude. It's a massive difference to the power of TaleWorlds, which is a studio of at least 200 developers. Valheims' population is yet stable with more concurrent players, per your own rhetorics, than the aforementioned game. Valheim will take about three years to complete per their estimation, meanwhile Bannerlord still has no public roadmap.In fact, just look at the game Valheim, a very successful game. That game follows the same trend as BL is, it is just earlier on.
1.6.0 may have been a bigger update than the previously patches/hotfixes, but you'd have to be new to the whole spectacle if you're naive enough to mark that as redemption for eight years of mismanagement and ignorance. I think someone a while back stated it perfectly; some players had been hyped for years, and now they cannot fathom having wasted all those years being hyped for an underwhelming experience, thus they force themselves to play or like the game, and remain as vigilant white knights on the forums. That, if anything, hurts the strength of our feedback and power as customers.You're right in one aspect, if the devs do nothing the game will die. That makes sense, however the devs are doing things. I've stated this thousands of times, but the 1.6.0 patch should be one of the most important patches for the community, as it showed that the devs would listen and they are continuing to work on the game.
Oh man, you don't take into account how the release of Football Manager 2021 led to the logical decrease of players in Football Manager 2020, just as Bannerlord led to the decrease of Warband players. The difference is whilst Bannerlord decreased rapidly post-launch, Football Manager 2021 only lost 20% of it's initial concurrent players and will probably keep that stable ratio until Football Manager 2022 is released, all whilst Bannerlord only has 10% remaining of its initial concurrent players, and to add salt to the wound, led to a further decrease in Warband as well.I also looked at the MP letter and the games they compare the two games and, while Football manager 2020 had a longer amount of higher players, BL is currently doing just as well as the game and is not decreasing in player numbers. The two games, at this point, are doing equally as good.
The logic in this comment. The situation might not be dire for you, if you love playing the game with all it's issues, bugs and lack of the basic things which made the Mount and Blade-series a success. Personally, I loved the full overhaul mods, and the multiplayer. I played the first game as well as Warband between the release and 2013, then got tired of the game, only to somehow happen upon a YouTube video showcasing the Napoleonic Wars DLC, and since then it's prolonged my stay in the series for an additional seven or eight years. The lack of stuff that will prolong players stay is dire, and that's clearly why the numbers dropped like never before ...Well, in the exception of No Man's Sky.There is no dire situation, although there is one.
Oh yes, it's great that the sequel has the same numbers after a year as the prequel had after ten years. If anything it means either not a lot of new players to the series came to remain, or old veterans didn't return. Nothing to be proud of. It's not an accomplishment.Also, saying that it had the same numbers of players that WB had before the release shows that players either quit WB or moved to BL, as there are now more players playing BL then WB, standing at an average 17-20k playercount.
I do not know of these individuals. I last played, and hosted Swedish server in TF2 back in 2014. However, I've never felt the need to be kept up-to-date on the politics of that game. What I can see from Steamdb is that it's a bad comparison. TF2 has had an stable population since it's release, and as previously said, even increased it's population when it got well-received remarks. In reality, the contrast is huge between the two games.You can take that as you will, and I will make my own assumptions, but the one point that I am making is that this dire situation is the same as people touting that Team Fortress 2 is dead year after year after year, while there is a problem it is far from life threatening for the game.
To be fair, I was mainly talking about the multiplayer population, and the massive drop from 250k to 25k within a month. You may say its steady, but Steamdb evidently shows that it'd continuously drop unless Twitch streamers remind their viewers of the existence of the game, and/or unless TW bait players into thinking they've released big updates, only for the players to realize it was just a glorified balance patch and leave again.These claims are both false. While the multiplayer may be dying, the game has kept a stead number a players following the after launch drop off. Claiming that the game is dying is is just denying the state of the game in terms of player count.