That's a pretty normal player activity trend for SP games. Huge release numbers that taper off after three or four months. Nothing short of DLC gets people to stampede back into activity, something I had to actually go out and graph like a year ago:
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.
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?
Of course, what benefit high playercount actually brings to a mostly SP game with zero in-game monetization is itself a question worth asking.
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.
The average BL gamer started it up, played for a couple hours and then dropped it in anticipation of the game being completed sometime in the future.
“T-they aren’t real fans, they don’t appreciate the game like us real fans do. Only we can state our opinion on the game, and no one else because they’re icky. Everybody totally hates the game, let me do some quick mental gymnastics to prove that point and then we can save M&B.”
Bruh... here is a collection of quotes from the "most helpful" "positive" Steam reviews:
"I see a whole bunch of complaints about it being unfinished. Which yes I understand. But tell me the truth..."
"Bannerlord when ?"
"My overall impression is possitive but that doesn't mean there are not a lot of issues with the game..."
"I have over 1000 hours in Warband. This is EA and i have over 400 hours in already. Are there bugs? Yes. Does it have issues? Yes. However it's still a great game despite these issues. It's the best "medieval warlord simulator" out there. I have gone for months at a time not playing this, then I come back and put another 100 hours in. Games great. And with more time and polish it'll be amazing. And you know the Mods are gonna be amazing."
"...The game is still unfinished, and although some features aren't added, mods can help, but not always..."
"...Sieges are plagued by the AI and player controlled soldiers not using ladders, siege towers and engines in a reasonable fashion. If there are 2 ladders to one side to scale a wall, only one will be used. Some siege towers have 3 ladders. Typically 1 is used normally but you might see 2 every so often. Very rarely 3..."
"its not finished but its still great. battles are EPIC"
"Enjoyable? Yeah. Will it ever be finished? Who knows."
"Thick tavern maids"
"It's good, will be even better when it's finished"
"...In many instances parts of the game feel incomplete, unimplemented, or broken. Despite an excellent early game experience, the glaring unaddressed issues of the game stack up and steeply produce an unsavory late game experience, which needs attention. For a game released over a year ago, most of the early access development has been directed toward optimization and bugfixes, and one can only wonder what type of spaghetti we have been cooking..."
"The Single Player Campaign is worth 2.5 k. Waiting and hyped af for the official Multiplayer campaign mode
)"
"I have played an ungodly amount of this game and still I am unsure of how to play correctly."
"...I cant wait to see what else will be added as the early access nears the full release."
"Nut"
Like I said... the "positive" Steam reviews are from people rating based on the potential of the game, not of the actual game itself. They are fully admitting that the game is busted and unfinished and are looking forward to it being "completed."