Bannerlord was a grift

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a weak meme. Saying “you can’t know what could have been because it didn’t happen” means zero speculation, which is just an absolute halt to any progress whatsoever. Why argue about historical events? There’s *no way* to know for sure what could have happened, so mine as well just throw out the entire field of speculative study. There’s a reason arguments exist, at least within the field of speculation: make your case about what could have been, and if it convinced enough people, it is a good argument. This “throw the baby out with the bath water” argument of yours is nonsense.
The world can be unknowable if you are especially ignorant and fatalistic. It's basically a religious, conservative argument that everything is fine if you don't think about it too much.

And to respond to your locked blackpill thread, since I've thought about this for a while, here are two hard truths:
1. Keeping pressure on Taleworlds is a good thing as long as it's principled and about things they could do and fix. It works.
2. As much as I would like Taleworlds to be financially punished for delivering crap, it's both too late and mods will fix almost any crap. It will be a good game with mods, even if that's karmic injustice.
 
This is a weak meme. Saying “you can’t know what could have been because it didn’t happen” means zero speculation, which is just an absolute halt to any progress whatsoever. Why argue about historical events? There’s *no way* to know for sure what could have happened, so mine as well just throw out the entire field of speculative study. There’s a reason arguments exist, at least within the field of speculation: make your case about what could have been, and if it convinced enough people, it is a good argument. This “throw the baby out with the bath water” argument of yours is nonsense.
There is reason enough to doubt it just looking at the games that consistently make the top 20 or 30 on Steam past their initial release: MMOs, arena shooters, F2P, literally made for 8 year olds, etc.

Like, focusing on player count is literally driving the trends that people on this forum hate!
 
This is a weak meme. Saying “you can’t know what could have been because it didn’t happen” means zero speculation, which is just an absolute halt to any progress whatsoever. Why argue about historical events? There’s *no way* to know for sure what could have happened, so mine as well just throw out the entire field of speculative study. There’s a reason arguments exist, at least within the field of speculation: make your case about what could have been, and if it convinced enough people, it is a good argument. This “throw the baby out with the bath water” argument of yours is nonsense.
Except this isn’t just speculation, it is just assuming things and using that as an argument. This isn’t wondering what could have been, this is wondering about what could have been and then using that as a definitive argument, which it really shouldn’t be. There was nothing backing up his claim, only that the game was missing features and therefor has less players. He doesn’t go onto where those players would come from, as BL has double the playercount WB did. It is a bad argument.
 
5036 players on Warband right now. Why? I don't know since Bannerlord is already out, right. I don't think these guys lives in caves so they must definitely heard Bannerlord is out. Bannerlord has 14827. Let's add Warband number to Bannerlord. We would get 19863. As I am looking most played games right now, this number carry Bannerlord to rank 40. Let's say all the missing features was in EA, I would be generous and say this situation would give Bannerlord 2000 players more. Bannerlord would get to rank 36 as I see the numbers right now.

I mean even if without my hypothetical number, just with Warband players, Bannerlord is moving from rank 55 to 40.
did you guys followed development of Bannerlord at least from 2017 to 2020? Did you read weekly devblogs from Callum for 3 years?
So you are ignoring this question then I am assuming you did not follow the devblogs. So you don't any idea how much disappointment Bannerlord for me and you will never understand why this forum have some toxic people or some one liners bashing the game every chance they get. @Phantom425
 
Last edited:
5036 players on Warband right now. Why? I don't know since Bannerlord is already out, right. I don't think these guys lives in caves so they must definitely heard Bannerlord is out. Bannerlord has 14827. Let's add Warband number to Bannerlord. We would get 19863. As I am looking most played games right now, this number carry Bannerlord to rank 40. Let's say all the missing features was in EA, I would be generous and say this situation would give Bannerlord 2000 players more. Bannerlord would get to rank 36 as I see the numbers right now.
Bannerlord typically reaches close to 20,000 players per day. 14,000 is a low point, but I doubt it will stay the low point. Also, it does make sense for people to be playing WB, as some people prefer older games in series then the newer ones. Notice that I never said that BL is a better game then WB, in fact I basically stated the exact opposite, that WB has had a lot more polish then BL has had. WB currently, between the two, has more features that just are not in BL, while the same can also be said about BL, with it having features not found in WB. Some players will always prefer WB to BL and vice-versa.

Also, this is a pointless matter. What does it matter if BL could have more players? Do you want to think that, somehow, BL has not been successful? It objectively has been a success, and that is in fact one of the first talking points on this thread, acknowledging the success.
So you are ignoring this question then I am assuming you did not follow the devblogs. So you don't any idea how much disappointment Bannerlord for me and you will never understand why this forum have some toxic people or some one liners bashing the game every chance they get.
I ignored it because this has never been important to the discussion. I have always said that I understand why people are angry. You resorting to this and not actually refuting any of my other points.

As for me, I started following the game in about 2018, about when I really started playing WB. So I have not been around as much as a lot of other people, but I would say the same thing if I had been around for a year or ten.
 
While it must be admitted that some warband players are not playing bannerlord because they can’t run it (and warband runs on any potato), this number I imagine is relatively low, 10-20%. Of the people on GK siege, Mount and siege, tdm and duel servers, nearly all of them say it’s either because bannerlords combat is garbage or they have a mode they want to play like custom siege maps which are not available in bannerlord. Furthermore, people on full invasion, napoleonic wars and persistent world/kingdoms are all wanting to play bannerlord versions of these mods but cannot because bannerlord refuses to allow them such. Again, that number of people who can’t run it is low. I have a clan of roughly 150 total members, of polls I have taken (only a handful have not responded), only 7 of them reported being unable to run bannerlord. Furthermore, other clans from PW/PK such as Knights Templar and Boldania report similar ratios, roughly 4-6%.
 
Bannerlord typically reaches close to 20,000 players per day. 14,000 is a low point, but I doubt it will stay the low point. Also, it does make sense for people to be playing WB, as some people prefer older games in series then the newer ones.
Yes, it is a low point. WB players is also a low point. Warband in last 3 months has 6500ish player at its peaks. I was giving this numbers relative to time I was looking at it.
What does it matter if BL could have more players? Do you want to think that, somehow, BL has not been successful?
That is exactly what I am saying. Warband sold 10 million copies according to Ali Erkin at Gamecom 2018. Yes, that old game with its garbage graphics. I provided Warband ranks throughout the years. Its worst rank is 62 at 2018 and guess what Bannerlord dorps 60 sometimes. Hell, It is 63 right now. Objective or not, I don't consider these numbers as a success for Bannerlord.

I have always said that I understand why people are angry.
I don't think you do. Otherwise, I don't think you would say guys Bannerlord has 20000 players, it is a success. I can't imagine myself doing so because I closely watched its development from 2017 to its release, I have looked what information released prior to 2017.
 
Last edited:
That is exactly what I am saying. Warband sold 10 million copies according to Ali Erkin at Gamecom 2018. Yes, that old game with its garbage graphics. I provided Warband ranks throughout the years. Its worst rank is 62 at 2018 and guess what Bannerlord dorps 60 sometimes. Hell, It is 63 right now. Objective or not, I don't consider these numbers as a success for Bannerlord.
Except it has already made its money, and has a consistent player count of 17-20k. That is a success. Could it have done better? Maybe, although I personally doubt that. Even being in the top 100 is a success.

What you and I consider success is different, so we will just keep going around in circles indefinitely. From my view, the game is successful and good number of people would agree with me, as that number doesn't lie. The game continuing to have that number of players even a year is a success from my understanding of the word.
I don't think you do. Otherwise, I don't think you would say guys Bannerlord has 20000 players, it is a success. I can't imagine myself doing so because I closely watched its development from 2017 to its release, I have looked what information released prior to 2017.
No, I would. It has been a financial success. The game itself is successful. There is a difference from being successful and being good. That distinction is pretty clear.
 
Bannerlord typically reaches close to 20,000 players per day. 14,000 is a low point

This number will shoot up when there is a full release whether there is much more content or not i feel like its only at that number right now due to lack of content and even if there isn't much more added modders will be able to work without the constant changes
 
Your never know with some of the people in this forum
What else could they want? We want the game released with a lot of features and with modders (particularly multiplayer) to be unrestricted as they are currently. While everyone has a different approach, I don’t think anyone is advocating against a more complete and released game.
 
Just wondering, not saying you are, it’s just with the amount of hot takes from the people who defend Taleworlds, there’s never an argument too stupid to be made. My bad.
All good man i neither defend or hate taleworlds i just hope by launch there is a lot more content my hope is that all the performance changes in 1.6 are signs of good things to come but alas we can only hope
 
Last edited:
To be clear, my thread is acknowledging that bannerlord was a financial success, despite the false advertising, failed promises and lack of content. Nobody is debating that bannerlord made money.
 
Except it has already made its money, and has a consistent player count of 17-20k. That is a success. Could it have done better? Maybe, although I personally doubt that. Even being in the top 100 is a success.

What you and I consider success is different, so we will just keep going around in circles indefinitely. From my view, the game is successful and good number of people would agree with me, as that number doesn't lie. The game continuing to have that number of players even a year is a success from my understanding of the word.
Dev, get off your alt account already. xD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom