My point is there is no set-in-stone answer. An EA game might explode upon full release or not change. It's mostly down to what condition bannerlord is in when this does happen.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Bannerlord was a grift
- 主题发起人 Roy1012
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
- 状态
If anything can happen with an early access release then why are you convinced that things will suddenly change when the game goes into 1.0?
It's not going to be nearly as big, but there are a decent amount of people (myself, until I got it for Bannerlord online) waiting to buy it.
Not sure if this will be a huge streaming game, but there are thousands of people waiting to play single mods like Napoleonic Wars, Persistent Kingdoms, etc. It will certainly help the multiplayer sphere.
There are plenty of games out there which with a good percentage of its playerbase crack the four digit mark in play hours.
It's not about price and effort. Its about what the game is about (sandbox vs liniear) and how well the sandbox aspect is pulled off.
Bannerlord underdelivered in both scope of its sandbox (diplomacy) and its execution (balancing, grind, player control).
Bannerlord could easily be in the 4-digits club. It isn't though and Warband is. Not without reason.
I myself could be considered a WB-noob with my 600h. But in BL I only put in 80. Most of that was testing new patches and then leaving in disbelief, not actually playing the game.
Which ones and what is "a good percentage"?
Because dollars to donuts those are MP-focused titles. Average player is done with a single player game in 40-60 hours.
Paradox and all its army of strategy games would disaggree with you.
Also; Factorio, Total War, Sea Dogs
And this is cutting out all games which are MP focused. And even those would be relevant because a lot of WBs playerbase played MP. Bannerlods MP on the other hand....
Also; I wouldn't call 40-60h (really) good value for money for a strategy game. It is for a story driven roleplaying game or for a sub 40€ "casual" (for lack of a better word) game.
But in all the strategy games that I actually like (except for those I only play with friends online like AoE) I have 100h plus.
最后编辑:
And where did you see these numbers?
Because just looking at the first PDS title in my library, I see only 1.9% even completed the Survivor achievement of a game from 1066-1453. Not a direct comparison obviously, but it seems odd if there were "a good percentage" (which you never define for some reason?) who had over 1000 hours in the game that they apparently make a point of avoiding 1453.
There's not going to be a huge influx. There never has been for a game like Bannerlord. It'll probably be the same 30% bump from back-to-back patchs, that lasts all of a month.
lol
huffing straight copium
Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings Have Average Play Times of 190+ Hours
In fact, all of Paradox Interactives’ games have ludicrously high average play times. We’ve all done it. A Steam sale pops up and we drop 5 or 10 bucks on a title, and we might only play it for a few hours, if we install it at all. In contrast, games put out by the Swedish publishing house...
v1.escapistmagazine.com
190 average hours playtime is pretty good for the games industry but it still means a relatively low percentage get 1000 hours.
edit: PDS' success there is also a) an outlier and b) an argument for their DLC-driven model.
A full release of a game will probably be significantly more than that.
So you think that the release of the game is going to be just like any normal day during Early Access? Except you don't, you just said moments before that you think it'll be the same 30% bump from back-to-back patches. What are you even saying?
It takes a certain kind of player to reach a thousand hours in a game. I think you took that for granted. Of course not all players reach this. But there are games which encourage such players to do so and WB and Paradox games are exemples of that.There's not going to be a huge influx. There never has been for a game like Bannerlord. It'll probably be the same 30% bump from back-to-back patchs, that lasts all of a month.
lol
huffing straight copium
Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings Have Average Play Times of 190+ Hours
In fact, all of Paradox Interactives’ games have ludicrously high average play times. We’ve all done it. A Steam sale pops up and we drop 5 or 10 bucks on a title, and we might only play it for a few hours, if we install it at all. In contrast, games put out by the Swedish publishing house...
190 average hours playtime is pretty good for the games industry but it still means a relatively low percentage get 1000 hours.
edit: PDS' success there is also a) an outlier and b) an argument for their DLC-driven model.
The average playtime is pretty worthless at estimating that. More people throw a paradox title in the bin after not understandi g / enjoying it after 30min than people who reach 1000h obviously. But thats not the mistake of the game. Those players just bought the wrong type of game.
I'm just asking what percentage you believe reached 1000+ hours in PDS games.
Average playtime isn't worthless at estimating that, lol. Numbers-wise, average playtime is a useful tool for getting in the right ballpark because it sets upper bounds on the percentage of players breaking quadruple digits. If someone were to claim twenty percent of players get 1000 hours out of a PDS titles and the average (mean) playtime is 190 hours, then basic math tells everyone that the other eighty percent play it for negative hours. Obviously, that's bull****. Maybe ten percent works, but that means the other ninety percent played only ninety (which is still crazy-high outlier good) but I personally doubt that based on how many players fail to complete relatively easy but time-consuming achievements. I imagine there is a really thin crust of superfans who do have quad-digit hours played but they are buttressed by like two dozen others who don't come close.
That's setting aside that I said, "average single player game" not "PDS." PDS titles are already an industry outlier but much of that success is their DLC model keeping consistent engagement high. Bannerlord is nothing like that, for better or worse, and is probably going to wind up closer to industry average single player games because of the action aspects (which get old, quick) being front and center while everything else is shoved to the side.
What was unclear about my prediction? The daily active playercount will probably jump up around 30% like it did back in January, then fall back down within a month because the game won't change much (if at all) on release.
TW could certainly do other things to keep that high going but they've said zero about it, so I assume they are going to treat release as Game Complete and not pair it with a steady schedule of DLC, the one proven method of boosting and maintaining active playercount.
最后编辑:
The average playtime is misleading since a substantial amount of players left the game before even playing two hours. I explained that in my last post.
Also, why would you compare BL to an average game? WB wasn't average, WB had lots of players in the 4 digits (not all of them MP). So why should BL be measured with average games? M&B is a sandbox title. So comparing it to such titles makes sense.
Sandbox titles in general do and should have higher playtimes.
Why? Because since it is a sanbox title it cannot be as polished and as immersive of a spectacle as a linear game could be. It has to make up for that in other ways. That being: gameplay depth and replayability. Both of which drive playtime up. In order to understand a proper sandbox title fully I expect to put in 80h min (for paradox titles that would be more). If I enjoy it i will give it at least a second go after that.
WB was such a game.
BL isn't that kind of game even though it was advertised as such.
They still count as players. You claimed a good percentage of players had above 1000 hours. So, for the third time now, what do you consider "a good percentage"? Simple question, you can answer it with nothing more than a number.
Again: because it doesn't have a regular schedule of DLCs and it focuses more on action and less on strategy.
最后编辑:
I don't care about numbers. I think the point I made is very clear. I would be happy with the same percentage of players WB had.
To your second comment: thats exactly the point we are making and you are missing. BL was advertised as a sandbox and delivered (kind of) as an action game. Thats the problem.
Obviously you just pulled numbers out of your ass, so why does it matter? Would you be happier if 30% of Bannerlord players had gone up over 1000 hours with the game in its current state?
The original argument was wether 2000 to 3000 hours of playtime are realistic for a game and wether such games even exist.
These games obviously do and how large the percentage of players is in total is irrelevant. It is obvious that certain games do have a larger player base in the four digits where others have none. Not only MP-games but also sandbox games like WB belong to the former category.
Whereas you claimed it was MP only. (Which I think we both aggree now is not the case.)
Thats the basis of our discussion.
You derailed it by asking for percentages of players. Go on Steam search for any grand strategy paradox game and go to the review section. There you will find plenty of people who have played the game for over a thousand hours. You will find the same situation for certain other games with sandbox aspects (Skyrim for exemple) but obviously not for all or even most games.
WB is one of the former games. Therefore (to come to the original arguement and why I talked about four digit play hours in the first place) it isn't ridiculus to assume BL would be the same. Especially after the game was hyped up in the devlogs as the super improved sandbox experience.
You are the one asking and caring for specific numbers for which the reason is not clear for me why.
I never pulled numbers out of my arse but now it seems to me you are talking out of yours. I will take that back if I'm mistaken.
No, my original suggestion was that it was unreasonable of us to expect that kind of hours of playtime for the game's price. Getting it would be fabulous, but we wouldn't have paid for it.
...
No derail, I'm asking what you consider a good percentage of its playerbase. You brought it up first, not me. All I did was bring up that Paradox games had relatively few players who hit 1000 hours, even as an exception in the industry -- and that as much due to spending years drip-feeding DLC as anything else.
Because I'm dead certain you don't have any source behind your claim at all. Expecting any more than a rare few players to bust 1000 hours in a (mostly SP) game is pure nonsense. We're superusers by everyone's definition, extreme outliers in the fanbase.
- 状态
