Bannerlord was a grift

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phantom425

Sergeant
It took 3 months for BL's active player numbers to drop from 91% from 248,034 to 20,337 and hasn't spiked substantially since. In three months from release, Fallout 4 dropped 87% from 471,995 to 57,102 and eventually stabilized at roughly 21k active gamers still playing five years later. That was for an actual complete game which people could finish with next to no replay value.
Firstly, that’s a Fallout game, a game with a much larger fanbase. Secondly, I don’t get how you could say there is next to no replay value. Fallout 4 has replay value, and that is clearly shown by people still playing it.

I also don’t think it shows people are overwhelming happy, I didn’t even start the argument of the game being loved I only argued against it. However, what it does show is that people do like the game enough to keep playing it.
Nor do I think measuring success is really beneficial to the conversation anyway.
I agree.
The people playing Crusader Kings III are playing it but do not believe it is in a great state, they play it because it has potential.
What
Again...why do those people prove that the game is in a positive state, when a larger number existed and abandoned the game, clearly displeased?
There is quite literally no proof that people stopped playing BL because they were displeased. The Steam reviews literally disprove this.
believe that the average pollies barely capping 20k on Bannerlord matter more than the tens of thousands that dropped off Bannerlord because they were "Warband harcore" players. Which, in the end, speaks volumes about you and your stance here.
No, because they had their fun with the game and stopped. This forum is made up of people who are passionate about M&B, most of whom are hardcore WB fans.
 

AxiosXiphos

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Again...why do those people prove that the game is in a positive state, when a larger number existed and abandoned the game, clearly displeased? The people playing Crusader Kings III are playing it but do not believe it is in a great state, they play it because it has potential. Not because they think it doesn't need more work. In fact, the same can be said about RDR2 and many of the games you mentioned. People playing a game doesn't prove there's nothing wrong with the game or that all the players believe it's in a reasonably great state. At all.

Of course you would try that "hardcore Warband" fans argument. A tiresome and terrible argument, but one people make here all of the time as if it makes any good point. From that statement alone, I can conclude that you, for some reason, believe that the average pollies barely capping 20k on Bannerlord matter more than the tens of thousands that dropped off Bannerlord because they were "Warband harcore" players. Which, in the end, speaks volumes about you and your stance here.
I'm asking you to explain your case - and all you are doing is saying nothing proves anything. I agree with that. I'm not suggesting that. If all you want to prove is that these numbers don't prove Bannerlord is or isn't successful then I am on board. We can leave it there.

The hardcore fan (of which i am clearly one) is only to point out that the forum population is a mere drop in the ocean of the overall player count.

Largely it's a meaningless argument.
 
Last edited:

Ser Jon

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I'm asking you to explain your case - and all you are doing is saying nothing proves anything. I agree with that. I'm not suggesting that. If all you want to prove is that these numbers don't prove Bannerlord is or isn't successful then I am on board.

The hardcore fan (of which i am clearly one) is only to point out that the forum population is a mere drop in the ocean of the overall player count.

Alright and let me know if I'm misunderstanding anything here about your post, please.

What exactly have you been given and or have seen that would bring you to the conclusion that the overall player count enjoys the game (thus nothing is bad) and that the forum population is a very small portion of the player base and are the only ones that think Bannerlord is in a bad way? And what do you think the 50k+ people who abandoned the game think, or why do you think they left? And, what makes you think that the forum population is so small and isn't part of the active player base? It all seems like a reach to me.

There is quite literally no proof that people stopped playing BL because they were displeased. The Steam reviews literally disprove this.

Do you also mean the reviews made months ago or by people who barely cap 100 hours and then stopped playing/haven't played in a year? As if any of these people are going to come back to alter their reviews when they come back 6 months later and find the game hasn't changed much at all. Yes. Reviews certainly proves without a shadow of a doubt there's absolutely nothing wrong with Bannerlord right now. :roll:
 

AxiosXiphos

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Alright and let me know if I'm misunderstanding anything here about your post, please.

What exactly have you been given and or have seen that would bring you to the conclusion that the overall player count enjoys the game (thus nothing is bad) and that the forum population is a very small portion of the player base and are the only ones that think Bannerlord is in a bad way? And what do you think the 50k+ people who abandoned the game think, or why do you think they left? And, what makes you think that the forum population is so small and isn't part of the active player base? It all seems like a reach to me.
  1. What exactly have you been given and or have seen that would bring you to the conclusion that the overall player count enjoys the game (thus nothing is bad) and that the forum population is a very small portion of the player base and are the only ones that think Bannerlord is in a bad way? - We have absolutely no way of knowing one way or another; that's my 'argument'. I have nothing to prove here. Nor any statement at all.

  2. And what do you think the 50k+ people who abandoned the game think, or why do you think they left? Do you know they abandoned it? maybe some only play on certain days. Perhaps they are waiting for EA release, or custom servers or a certain mod they like. How is this any different to any other game shown before? And why do we need to judge bannerlord for this; but give the others a pass?

  3. And, what makes you think that the forum population is so small and isn't part of the active player base? It all seems like a reach to me. Well the forum population is small... what do you want from me? Go count the active users....? They are still an important part of the feedback process; but in a numbers game the forum is a small part of it.

All we know is bannerlords reviews & player trends closely match a number of other games - so... what are we supposed to make of that...?
 

Ser Jon

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
  1. What exactly have you been given and or have seen that would bring you to the conclusion that the overall player count enjoys the game (thus nothing is bad) and that the forum population is a very small portion of the player base and are the only ones that think Bannerlord is in a bad way? - We have absolutely no way of knowing one way or another; that's my 'argument'. I have nothing to prove here. Nor any statement at all.

  2. And what do you think the 50k+ people who abandoned the game think, or why do you think they left? Do you know they abandoned it? maybe some only play on certain days. Perhaps they are waiting for EA release, or custom servers or a certain mod they like. How is this any different to any other game shown before? And why do we need to judge bannerlord for this; but give the others a pass?

  3. And, what makes you think that the forum population is so small and isn't part of the active player base? It all seems like a reach to me. Well the forum population is small... what do you want from me? Go count the active users....? They are still an important part of the feedback process; but in a numbers game the forum is a small part of it.

All we know is bannerlords reviews & player trends closely match a number of other games - so... what are we supposed to make of that...?

1. Firstly, we do have a means of judging this, but if your intent was not to press an argument, why initiate an opposing argument against me (and others numerous times) and insist numerous times that all of these things directly disproves that the game is in any other state but a "smashing success". You have done that many times. You even regularly mentioned Warband hardcore players as the only people who have a problem and thus the reviews and 17k people playing must mean its a success. For someone who is not trying to make an argument and insists it cannot be proved one way or another, you are rather bent on maintaining that it can. And is a positive.

2. Because they aren't playing it? Do you think 50k people just stopped playing it because they met nirvana playing it the first time through in just 2 months? You can scroll through reviews and see that a comical amount of these people haven't touched the game since 2020 or in 7+ months. And recent reviews come in with a whopping 40-50hrs and they play occasionally if not stop playing after that at all. How do you not see there's something important in that? To ignore the drop off and insist that because barely 20k people play that the majority likes it is ridiculous. And this isn't about other EA games, this is about Bannerlord. That's why people don't bring up others.

3. I don't think you understood me, but that could be my fault. I'll try to rephrase. Why do you think the only people who have a problem with it are forum goers who are Warband purists when 50k people stopped playing for a reason, why do you think 50k+ people stopped playing and why do you think the only people complaining are forum Warband purist goers who number in the minority?
 

julijs

Sergeant
WBNWVC
They have been bloated, yes, but if you look at reviews for people who have played over 100 hours of the game, which is a decent amount of time to put into a game, they still come out of 86% positive.
and what about the large portion of people who only peaked at 20 hours or less that reviewed the game, which from 74,975 reviewers are also 86% positive. that's a huge number to go on 168k total reviews, and in my rough estimate that would drop the game review score by like 15%.

I know its just pure speculation, but I doubt its ideal talk that a bulk of positive reviews are from the very first months of EA when Taleworlds was releasing very frequent patches that made everyone optimistic and trusting of the games future.

If they had known the direction and actual complexity the game intends to build itself upon from the very beginning, there would have been an uproar. Point being that most people aren't even aware or have totally forgotten about Bannerlord, especially since they were MIA for arguably its entire lifetime after release when it comes to personal statements and "devblogs".

going back to the argument that was thrown around here a few pages back, its not because people are dumb or stupid for liking the game, its the prospect of them just not being well-informed about Bannerlord goals. they all have faith that the game will become this dreamland masterpiece of layers in depth as they very much mentioned in their devblogs prior to release.

If they still keep going this way all the way until release, sure the game will have quite a lot of content, but it will all come at the cost of responsiveness- which for a sandbox game is very important, to feel the after affects of changes that you personally had control over, not some scripted CAI that play repetitively and generically. (saving this for another thread about the niche genre that we like, but fails to cultivate and drop into bad sandbox practices)
 

Ser Jon

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
If they had known the direction and actual complexity the game intends to build itself upon from the very beginning, there would have been an uproar. Point being that most people aren't even aware or have totally forgotten about Bannerlord, especially since they were MIA for arguably its entire lifetime after release when it comes to personal statements and "devblogs".

Exactly. These sorts of things are incredibly important in this discussion, and they are largely ignored. 10 of my friends on Steam who have it have not played it since 2020 or Jan 2021 because they would rather wait and see if it delivers what it said it would. It's not that they don't think there's something in it right now, it just feels lifeless and incomplete.

going back to the argument that was thrown around here a few pages back, its not because people are dumb or stupid for liking the game, its the prospect of them just not being well-informed about Bannerlord goals. they all have faith that the game will become this dreamland masterpiece of layers in depth as they very much mentioned in their devblogs prior to release.

Agreed. It isn't that anyone who enjoys it right now is stupid, just largely uninformed or largely not engaged in what was promised or what is happening with development and the devblogs, so they don't know. If they had the greater context of the situation, it is hard not to think they wouldn't have a different view of the game.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
He's right though, those DLC's are basically big patches (with a solid amount of free content as well). In bannerlord you should see the numbers spike when it has a decent update but you don't really. You can bring up something like DayZ for a more accurate comparison and you see something similar, every big patch saw a spike in players coming back to find out what's new and what's been added, and the game had a long near dead point due to lack of meaningful updates.
Patches don't get advertising (which is the big thing driving those numbers back up) but there was a decent spike in January for BL with the back-to-back patches, around 30%.
Except that snip you provided shows a much less drastic drop-off in active player numbers - and this for a game that I gather is far less replayable than a Mount & Blade game.
That's because the Rise of the Tomb Kings DLC dropped in December. Otherwise it had a ~75% drop (70K to 18K) in player population before bouncing back up during the third month post-release. And that's not an accident: DLC drives player engagement. That sucks for us because even near-complete, bug-free, well-polished games don't keep their player count (for example, TW Three Kingdoms) which means that companies have no incentive to push in that direction.

I'm almost certain we've had this discussion before.
Active players dropped like a rock after release and haven't budged since. Considering that endgame quests weren't even functional at EA release, how can anyone say that fans just played through the SP campaign and moved on - like any other SP game?
To be clear, I never implied they completed the game. Most Mount and Blade players (any title) never complete a full game. Mostly because Mount and Blade has had probably one of the worst late/endgames of a major title since ever. People play until they get to a point where it is frustrating or too much grind to handle, then go play something else. Average players, mind you.

Obviously superfans will rack up hundreds of hours but nobody big makes games specifically with them in mind, otherwise they'd go out of business.
I'm not saying that active player count is a monetizable and valuable thing here. I'm saying that when white knights talk up the GORILLIONS of happy BL players and positive Steam reviewers, their case is unconvincing.
Then why do you bring it up as a mark against the game? The verdict there is "good game, well done, gj" especially compared to some of the other disasters to have released in 2020 (Cyberpunk 2077, lol). When you guys talk about BL's EA being a disaster and TW being the worst developer, it doesn't make sense to point at playercount because it isn't actually doing anything unusual there.
It's not really about the number of players making it a success, but an illustration that the extreme drop off in players in just 2 months of release says something quite important about Bannerlord and its development progress.
If that drop off is pretty standard (and it is) then it means TW isn't doing anything worse than everyone else. Which sucks if you want to push them to hustle development or add more features but games are a hype-based industry and quality is usually secondary.
 

Ser Jon

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
If that drop off is pretty standard (and it is) then it means TW isn't doing anything worse than everyone else. Which sucks if you want to push them to hustle development or add more features but games are a hype-based industry and quality is usually secondary.

Doing just as bad as others shouldn't be someone's arguing point though, especially if it is coming off the heels of "Most people like it". 😅
(not saying that you were doing that, just putting it out there)

It's the compliance of customers with sub-par quality that allows developers to push quality to second or third place. By not saying something, or doing something, or refusing to discuss said games numerous problems, it reinforces the developers into that mindset that it is okay. Which solves nothing, not for them and not for the customers. What a shame what modern quality in games has stooped to.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Totally unrelated, but I'm amazed that W&P spiked above the launch peak. Probably the Greenskins rework more than the DLC itself.

It paints an accurate picture of player activity in largely SP games, which M&B always has been. Even at its peak, Warband MP was a small fraction of total Warband player count. It frustrates me to no end that we don't have a better game in Bannerlord to build a stronger MP community from, in what is already a niche title.
Yeah, I remember trying to get more people playing MP was one of their goals and I thought Captain Mode would be good for that (based on Tiger Knight, Conqueror's Blade, etc.) but they decided to sorta ignore CM in favor of their weird new mode that was essentially Mordhau but worse in every way.

I'm not going to pretend to understand why they went that direction when Mordhau exists in that niche already.
 

Ser Jon

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
It was probably to draw in Mordhau players looking to get their itch scratched. A band aide fix to why people aren't playing MP. Rather than fix what the MP players want fixed, they try to appease to more and more niche groups outside of the M&B community to get more players.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
Do you also mean the reviews made months ago or by people who barely cap 100 hours and then stopped playing/haven't played in a year?
Do you genuinely expect every single person to be able to put hundreds of hours into an SP game over the course of a year? They played it, had their fun, and started playing different games. Not everyone devotes all of their time to one single game, they have other games that they like to play.
Reviews certainly proves without a shadow of a doubt there's absolutely nothing wrong with Bannerlord right now.
They don't prove that there is nothing wrong with BL whatsoever, and that's never been my point. What they prove is that the narrative that's been pushed around for the past few months of everyone actually hating BL is incredibly wrong.
And what do you think the 50k+ people who abandoned the game think, or why do you think they left?
Do you actually think that BL could have a consistent playerbase of 70k if everything went well? That would make it in the top ten most-played Steam games. It is currently sitting at 62, which is nothing to gawk at but I'm certain you'll say that that shows that clearly, the game is a critical failure in the eyes of the playerbase because it isn't number 1.
 

Ser Jon

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Do you genuinely expect every single person to be able to put hundreds of hours into an SP game over the course of a year? They played it, had their fun, and started playing different games. Not everyone devotes all of their time to one single game, they have other games that they like to play.

No, but if their max time on a game doesn't exceed 50hrs typically in an EA game that had nothing really in it and they haven't played since launch, that should tell you something, shouldn't it? I do find it curious though that game time is so important to the "Bannerlord is great right now, just look at the reviews and game time!" argument but then it is directly opposed when you shed reasons why it isn't as good as you* think it is.

*plural you

They don't prove that there is nothing wrong with BL whatsoever, and that's never been my point. What they prove is that the narrative that's been pushed around for the past few months of everyone actually hating BL is incredibly wrong.

And why do you think that disproves the "people hate BL" narrative? I know plenty of people who dislike BL's direction right now that still hop on every now and then, and some who still play often even though they hate a large portion of what it is or isn't doing. In fact, I bet you a lot of the people here who have some of the most negative things to say about BL still play it regularly. Playing it doesn't necessarily prove that everyone's pleased with it or think it's a great game.

Do you actually think that BL could have a consistent playerbase of 70k if everything went well? That would make it in the top ten most-played Steam games. It is currently sitting at 62, which is nothing to gawk at but I'm certain you'll say that that shows that clearly, the game is a critical failure in the eyes of the playerbase because it isn't number 1.

No, of course not. Those people who left and stayed gone did so for a reason though. You are ignoring that point, and it is getting frustrating to repeat it here after doing so for a few people. Don't hyper fixate on the numbers directly. This isn't about its overall player base numbers, but the reason why those 50k+ people left. That's a large number. We're not talking 1-3k people, but half of hundred thousand people leaving a game the same year it launched. If the game had maintained 20k from launch to Jan 2021 for example, and dropped to 7k, the question would be "Why did the 13k leave and stay gone?". I hope that's much clearer to you now.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
No, but if their max time on a game doesn't exceed 50hrs typically in an EA game that had nothing really in it and they haven't played since launch, that should tell you something, shouldn't it?
No, because that's kinda what people do. BL was hyped up, so people got the game, tried the game, and moved on. A lot of people do that with different games, and it isn't some weird norm that started with BL. The game time argument was brought up not as evidence to support the claim that a lot of people find the game enjoyable, but as a counter to an argument that shows people don't really like the game. It was first brought up by Roy who said that anyone who plays over 50 hours in the game hates it, and that was immediately disproven.
And why do you think that disproves the "people hate BL" narrative? I know plenty of people who dislike BL's direction right now that still hop on every now and then
And I know a bunch of people who like BL and think that it is an improvement over WB. Your friend group doesn't prove that a lot of people dislike BL, it just proves that your friend group dislikes BL's current direction. And it disproves it because the game is still getting good reviews and people are still playing the game. People don't play games that they don't like, and definitely don't play games that they hate.
No, of course not. Those people who left and stayed gone did so for a reason though. You are ignoring that point, and it is getting frustrating to repeat it here after doing so for a few people.
Because you ignore what we said to counter it. Other SP games have drop-offs akin to what we saw in BL. You are, quite literally, ignoring what is directly in front of you. People play a single-player game and move on. The fact that BL has 10-20k average players is an achievement, not a failure.

People stopped playing because they had their fun and moved on. The answer is the same for the first drop and the hypothetical second drop. It has happened time and time with SP-focused games, and you literally ignore that pattern to question "Well if they stopped playing, do people really like the game?"
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
No, but if their max time on a game doesn't exceed 50hrs typically in an EA game that had nothing really in it and they haven't played since launch, that should tell you something, shouldn't it?
It tells you that it's an average player. The playtime averages for EA games are the same as full release games.
 

Ser Jon

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
No, because that's kinda what people do. BL was hyped up, so people got the game, tried the game, and moved on. A lot of people do that with different games, and it isn't some weird norm that started with BL. The game time argument was brought up not as evidence to support the claim that a lot of people find the game enjoyable, but as a counter to an argument that shows people don't really like the game. It was first brought up by Roy who said that anyone who plays over 50 hours in the game hates it, and that was immediately disproven.

I don't think this started with BL, and I don't recall saying that it had. And okay. So then why should we hold these reviews in high regard? They followed through on hype, played the little content that was available, made a positive review based on that available content and stopped playing since it came out. 50k+ people. To assume that that insane amount of people all left because they were content with what was offered in a game that openly advertised it was not complete and lacked a comical amount of promised features is absurd. Why doesn't it show that they just moved on? Why is it assumed that they were all pleased and just decided that 50 out of a broken EA title was good? Where does this assumption come from? Is it simply because you think it happened like that for others, it somehow means that's what's happening here?

And that's completely different than playing other games and getting their fill of its complete state. It's different here too because BL hasn't changed much at all since launch and these people are leaving to wait it out, and a lot of these reviews being passed about here to prove it's all good even discuss that.

I don't really know who Roy is or what context he said that in, but yes. I agree with you on that. It's not entirely true. It's more of an exaggerated blanket statement, but I wouldn't know more until I see what he said.

And I know a bunch of people who like BL and think that it is an improvement over WB. Your friend group doesn't prove that a lot of people dislike BL, it just proves that your friend group dislikes BL's current direction. And it disproves it because the game is still getting good reviews and people are still playing the game. People don't play games that they don't like, and definitely don't play games that they hate.

I wasn't using it prove that everyone dislikes BL, but to point out that using reviews and player numbers to deduce that everyone likes it or that generally the player base thinks its all good is absurd. :confused:

"People don't play games they don't like" what a bold statement, one which is easily disproven by looking through this forum. I play it occasionally, and I can tell you it's not something I praise in terms of quality. I have to install a trillion mods to even make it enjoyable, but that doesn't mean I don't "hate" it less. So again, your assumption that because its being played its good is ridiculous.

Because you ignore what we said to counter it. Other SP games have drop-offs akin to what we saw in BL. You are, quite literally, ignoring what is directly in front of you. People play a single-player game and move on. The fact that BL has 10-20k average players is an achievement, not a failure.

People stopped playing because they had their fun and moved on. The answer is the same for the first drop and the hypothetical second drop. It has happened time and time with SP-focused games, and you literally ignore that pattern to question "Well if they stopped playing, do people really like the game?"

I haven't ignored a thing and that's clear by the fact that I've responded to and directly opposed the arguments presented to me. Opposing them somehow means ignoring them to you though, which I'm not surprised by at all.

And what other games do or have doesn't mean bug all for BL, and I've pointed that out quite a few times. Stellaris' performance doesn't reflect a damn thing about BL, nor does any other game. I'm calling out the rather garbage arguments being presented here by pointing out the absurdity of your points. Assuming that people who stop playing BL are all doing it because they got their fill and just moved on is pure stupidity.

Do show me where you are getting the data to back your assumption on why these people leave the game. I'd love to see what you have that proves 50k+ people who left a game all did so because they were just so duper happy with it and decided it was time to move on from such a superb experience.

It tells you that it's an average player. The playtime averages for EA games are the same as full release games.

So you think steep drop offs mean nothing, always?
 
Last edited:
And why do you think that disproves the "people hate BL" narrative? I know plenty of people who dislike BL's direction right now that still hop on every now and then, and some who still play often even though they hate a large portion of what it is or isn't doing. In fact, I bet you a lot of the people here who have some of the most negative things to say about BL still play it regularly. Playing it doesn't necessarily prove that everyone's pleased with it or think it's a great game.
People who hate a game don't play it. Disliking or disapproving aspects of the game or its development direction isn't the same as hating it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom