I didnt know this SteamSpy thing existed its pretty cool
check this out. I expected the overall sales of NMS to be much higher than less than a million
Space Engineers
Score rank: 74% Userscore: 89%
Owners: 1,985,881 ± 35,508
Players in the last 2 weeks: 123,448 ± 8,878 (6.22%)
Players total: 1,776,286 ± 33,593 (89.45%)
Peak concurrent players yesterday: 4,032
NMS
Score rank: 4% Userscore: 36% Metascore: 60%
Owners: 750,226 ± 21,866
Players in the last 2 weeks: 225,319 ± 11,992 (30.03%)
Players total: 739,018 ± 21,702 (98.51%)
Peak concurrent players yesterday: 4,959
currently
SE: Peak concurrent players yesterday: 3,536
NMS: Peak concurrent players yesterday: 2,992
Here's a historical chart of games over time showing the percentage of players concurrently connected versus their total owners. It's actually fairly interesting, notice how the trend of both ED and SE are flat all the way from release right up until today. However, the trend with more popular games is a larger percentage of concurrent players, falling off to more normal levels over time. Keep in mind that NMS has the 5th highest number of concurrent players on steam of all-time. That's just not realistic to maintain.
the current player base that are active right now in SE is higher then it is in NMS.
where is the normal?
They have 2 million people who own it. That means that 0.2% of people who own SE play SE concurrently. If we were to normalize the data we could say that if NMS also had 2 million owners, they would have had 8000 players yesterday.
All I'm showing in the graph above is that the trend for NMS is consistent with other popular games. I'm also showing that some games do not follow that same trend, but that's not what I'm analyzing.
Even with the data provided, there aren't enough datapoints to establish whether NMS is dead or not, but it does establish that it shares similarities with other popular games with regards to how it is trending. So why is it that NMS and other popular games are played so heavily initially and then drop off? I don't know that. Could be hype, could be that they are done playing it. Why do games like SE and ED never show that initial spike of player interest, but consistent, flat, concurrent players? I don't know that either. Is it an EA thing? Niche gaming thing?
I didnt know this SteamSpy thing existed its pretty cool
check this out. I expected the overall sales of NMS to be much higher than less than a million
Space Engineers
Score rank: 74% Userscore: 89%
Owners: 1,985,881 ± 35,508
Players in the last 2 weeks: 123,448 ± 8,878 (6.22%)
Players total: 1,776,286 ± 33,593 (89.45%)
Peak concurrent players yesterday: 4,032
NMS
Score rank: 4% Userscore: 36% Metascore: 60%
Owners: 750,226 ± 21,866
Players in the last 2 weeks: 225,319 ± 11,992 (30.03%)
Players total: 739,018 ± 21,702 (98.51%)
Peak concurrent players yesterday: 4,959
currently
SE: Peak concurrent players yesterday: 3,536
NMS: Peak concurrent players yesterday: 2,992
Here's a historical chart of games over time showing the percentage of players concurrently connected versus their total owners. It's actually fairly interesting, notice how the trend of both ED and SE are flat all the way from release right up until today. However, the trend with more popular games is a larger percentage of concurrent players, falling off to more normal levels over time. Keep in mind that NMS has the 5th highest number of concurrent players on steam of all-time. That's just not realistic to maintain.
the current player base that are active right now in SE is higher then it is in NMS.
where is the normal?
They have 2 million people who own it. That means that 0.2% of people who own SE play SE concurrently. If we were to normalize the data we could say that if NMS also had 2 million owners, they would have had 8000 players yesterday. ...
fair enough.
what is the % of NMS playing then using the same math you applied to SE?
actually I already did those numbers I forgot.
Elite
11% are still playing last two weeks
.7493% are still playing last 24 hour peak
NMS
30% are still playing the last two weeks
.661% are still playing the last 24 hour peak
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I didnt know this SteamSpy thing existed its pretty cool
check this out. I expected the overall sales of NMS to be much higher than less than a million
Space Engineers
Score rank: 74% Userscore: 89%
Owners: 1,985,881 ± 35,508
Players in the last 2 weeks: 123,448 ± 8,878 (6.22%)
Players total: 1,776,286 ± 33,593 (89.45%)
Peak concurrent players yesterday: 4,032
NMS
Score rank: 4% Userscore: 36% Metascore: 60%
Owners: 750,226 ± 21,866
Players in the last 2 weeks: 225,319 ± 11,992 (30.03%)
Players total: 739,018 ± 21,702 (98.51%)
Peak concurrent players yesterday: 4,959
currently
SE: Peak concurrent players yesterday: 3,536
NMS: Peak concurrent players yesterday: 2,992
Here's a historical chart of games over time showing the percentage of players concurrently connected versus their total owners. It's actually fairly interesting, notice how the trend of both ED and SE are flat all the way from release right up until today. However, the trend with more popular games is a larger percentage of concurrent players, falling off to more normal levels over time. Keep in mind that NMS has the 5th highest number of concurrent players on steam of all-time. That's just not realistic to maintain.
the current player base that are active right now in SE is higher then it is in NMS.
where is the normal?
...So why is it that NMS and other popular games are played so heavily initially and then drop off? I don't know that. Could be hype, could be that they are done playing it. Why do games like SE and ED never show that initial spike of player interest, but consistent, flat, concurrent players? I don't know that either. Is it an EA thing? Niche gaming thing?
I can help you with that.
What you will see with patterns like NMS is in fact 'hype'. Try to think about about 12 months prior to NMS. how many articles where written, how many people where ready to buy the second it came out. That does affect the numbers.
SE and ED if you look back never had that level of 'hype' or marketing.
That is how it works basically.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I didnt know this SteamSpy thing existed its pretty cool
check this out. I expected the overall sales of NMS to be much higher than less than a million
Space Engineers
Score rank: 74% Userscore: 89%
Owners: 1,985,881 ± 35,508
Players in the last 2 weeks: 123,448 ± 8,878 (6.22%)
Players total: 1,776,286 ± 33,593 (89.45%)
Peak concurrent players yesterday: 4,032
NMS
Score rank: 4% Userscore: 36% Metascore: 60%
Owners: 750,226 ± 21,866
Players in the last 2 weeks: 225,319 ± 11,992 (30.03%)
Players total: 739,018 ± 21,702 (98.51%)
Peak concurrent players yesterday: 4,959
currently
SE: Peak concurrent players yesterday: 3,536
NMS: Peak concurrent players yesterday: 2,992
Here's a historical chart of games over time showing the percentage of players concurrently connected versus their total owners. It's actually fairly interesting, notice how the trend of both ED and SE are flat all the way from release right up until today. However, the trend with more popular games is a larger percentage of concurrent players, falling off to more normal levels over time. Keep in mind that NMS has the 5th highest number of concurrent players on steam of all-time. That's just not realistic to maintain.
the current player base that are active right now in SE is higher then it is in NMS.
where is the normal?
...So why is it that NMS and other popular games are played so heavily initially and then drop off? I don't know that. Could be hype, could be that they are done playing it. Why do games like SE and ED never show that initial spike of player interest, but consistent, flat, concurrent players? I don't know that either. Is it an EA thing? Niche gaming thing?
I can help you with that.
What you will see with patterns like NMS is in fact 'hype'. Try to think about about 12 months prior to NMS. how many articles where written, how many people where ready to buy the second it came out. That does affect the numbers.
SE and ED if you look back never had that level of 'hype' or marketing.
That is how it works basically.
Both of those were marketed where it really mattered and that's plastered on the front of the Steam store with various sales over the years.
Here's a quality variable to the total sales number: What percent of sales were at full price and what percent were at x percent off. In a game where the money is make on box sales then that metric is very important. I would say more important than ongoing player concurrency.
you are equating the NMS marketing and hype to that of adds on Steam.
or equating a steam banner add to this
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Here's a historical chart of games over time showing the percentage of players concurrently connected versus their total owners. It's actually fairly interesting, notice how the trend of both ED and SE are flat all the way from release right up until today. However, the trend with more popular games is a larger percentage of concurrent players, falling off to more normal levels over time. Keep in mind that NMS has the 5th highest number of concurrent players on steam of all-time. That's just not realistic to maintain.
the current player base that are active right now in SE is higher then it is in NMS.
where is the normal?
...So why is it that NMS and other popular games are played so heavily initially and then drop off? I don't know that. Could be hype, could be that they are done playing it. Why do games like SE and ED never show that initial spike of player interest, but consistent, flat, concurrent players? I don't know that either. Is it an EA thing? Niche gaming thing?
I can help you with that.
What you will see with patterns like NMS is in fact 'hype'. Try to think about about 12 months prior to NMS. how many articles where written, how many people where ready to buy the second it came out. That does affect the numbers.
SE and ED if you look back never had that level of 'hype' or marketing.
That is how it works basically.
First off, I think it's important to mention that Hype and Marketing are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, anything that's marketed well will obviously have a high number of day 1 sales, which would, theoretically, create an initial spike in concurrent players, which falls off over time. It could be theorized that games like SE sees flat sales over time which means that they are in a perpetual state of recycling. They get new sales, players play for X amount of time and then they stop. We can't get that information, though. Also, we don't really have that data for NMS either. These are the types of information that I was telling you are missing. Concurrent Players is not even close to concrete data since it varies wildly based on a number of unknown factors.
However, there are conclusions we can start to draw based on my chart. That is, games with higher pre-orders are more likely to show drop-off curves in concurrent users similar to NMS. Let's not forget that The Division had the same type of doom and gloom posts a couple weeks after they released, stating it was all but dead.
As far as hype goes, I would be almost willing to bet money on the fact that NMS has had the highest player engagement of any game in history, if we're talking about the total concurrent players versus total owners. THAT could be a product of hype. However, it's actually funny that you mention hype today because I'm actually doing this training course on strategic planning, which is pretty mind-numbing, but they did refer to the hype cycle and I thought it was completely true, even for gaming.
I think that this applies, to some degree, for every game out there. I think it was probably more exaggerated with NMS, though, so the Trough of Disappointment (fucking love that term) was much deeper.
Here's a historical chart of games over time showing the percentage of players concurrently connected versus their total owners. It's actually fairly interesting, notice how the trend of both ED and SE are flat all the way from release right up until today. However, the trend with more popular games is a larger percentage of concurrent players, falling off to more normal levels over time. Keep in mind that NMS has the 5th highest number of concurrent players on steam of all-time. That's just not realistic to maintain.
the current player base that are active right now in SE is higher then it is in NMS.
where is the normal?
...So why is it that NMS and other popular games are played so heavily initially and then drop off? I don't know that. Could be hype, could be that they are done playing it. Why do games like SE and ED never show that initial spike of player interest, but consistent, flat, concurrent players? I don't know that either. Is it an EA thing? Niche gaming thing?
I can help you with that.
What you will see with patterns like NMS is in fact 'hype'. Try to think about about 12 months prior to NMS. how many articles where written, how many people where ready to buy the second it came out. That does affect the numbers.
SE and ED if you look back never had that level of 'hype' or marketing.
That is how it works basically.
First off, I think it's important to mention that Hype and Marketing are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, anything that's marketed well will obviously have a high number of day 1 sales, which would, theoretically, create an initial spike in concurrent players, which falls off over time. It could be theorized that games like SE sees flat sales over time which means that they are in a perpetual state of recycling. They get new sales, players play for X amount of time and then they stop. We can't get that information, though. Also, we don't really have that data for NMS either. These are the types of information that I was telling you are missing. Concurrent Players is not even close to concrete data since it varies wildly based on a number of unknown factors.
However, there are conclusions we can start to draw based on my chart. That is, games with higher pre-orders are more likely to show drop-off curves in concurrent users similar to NMS. Let's not forget that The Division had the same type of doom and gloom posts a couple weeks after they released, stating it was all but dead.
As far as hype goes, I would be almost willing to bet money on the fact that NMS has had the highest player engagement of any game in history, if we're talking about the total concurrent players versus total owners. THAT could be a product of hype. However, it's actually funny that you mention hype today because I'm actually doing this training course on strategic planning, which is pretty mind-numbing, but they did refer to the hype cycle and I thought it was completely true, even for gaming.
I think that this applies, to some degree, for every game out there. I think it was probably more exaggerated with NMS, though, so the Trough of Disappointment (fucking love that term) was much deeper.
I am under the impression that you are saying marketing and hype do not affect sale spikes.
I am suggesting that they do. Just to be clear on my position
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
First off, I think it's important to mention that Hype and Marketing are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, anything that's marketed well will obviously have a high number of day 1 sales, which would, theoretically, create an initial spike in concurrent players, which falls off over time. It could be theorized that games like SE sees flat sales over time which means that they are in a perpetual state of recycling. They get new sales, players play for X amount of time and then they stop. We can't get that information, though. Also, we don't really have that data for NMS either. These are the types of information that I was telling you are missing. Concurrent Players is not even close to concrete data since it varies wildly based on a number of unknown factors.
However, there are conclusions we can start to draw based on my chart. That is, games with higher pre-orders are more likely to show drop-off curves in concurrent users similar to NMS. Let's not forget that The Division had the same type of doom and gloom posts a couple weeks after they released, stating it was all but dead.
As far as hype goes, I would be almost willing to bet money on the fact that NMS has had the highest player engagement of any game in history, if we're talking about the total concurrent players versus total owners. THAT could be a product of hype. However, it's actually funny that you mention hype today because I'm actually doing this training course on strategic planning, which is pretty mind-numbing, but they did refer to the hype cycle and I thought it was completely true, even for gaming.
I think that this applies, to some degree, for every game out there. I think it was probably more exaggerated with NMS, though, so the Trough of Disappointment (fucking love that term) was much deeper.
I am under the impression that you are saying marketing and hype do not affect sale spikes.
I am suggesting that they do. Just to be clear on my position
Not at all, I'm actually saying that they do, but I got the feeling you were saying they were the same thing or mutually dependent.
First off, I think it's important to mention that Hype and Marketing are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, anything that's marketed well will obviously have a high number of day 1 sales, which would, theoretically, create an initial spike in concurrent players, which falls off over time. It could be theorized that games like SE sees flat sales over time which means that they are in a perpetual state of recycling. They get new sales, players play for X amount of time and then they stop. We can't get that information, though. Also, we don't really have that data for NMS either. These are the types of information that I was telling you are missing. Concurrent Players is not even close to concrete data since it varies wildly based on a number of unknown factors.
However, there are conclusions we can start to draw based on my chart. That is, games with higher pre-orders are more likely to show drop-off curves in concurrent users similar to NMS. Let's not forget that The Division had the same type of doom and gloom posts a couple weeks after they released, stating it was all but dead.
As far as hype goes, I would be almost willing to bet money on the fact that NMS has had the highest player engagement of any game in history, if we're talking about the total concurrent players versus total owners. THAT could be a product of hype. However, it's actually funny that you mention hype today because I'm actually doing this training course on strategic planning, which is pretty mind-numbing, but they did refer to the hype cycle and I thought it was completely true, even for gaming.
I think that this applies, to some degree, for every game out there. I think it was probably more exaggerated with NMS, though, so the Trough of Disappointment (fucking love that term) was much deeper.
I am under the impression that you are saying marketing and hype do not affect sale spikes.
I am suggesting that they do. Just to be clear on my position
Not at all, I'm actually saying that they do, but I got the feeling you were saying they were the same thing or mutually dependent.
the dependence, interchange of them, the possible exitence of them as silos or even the interpendence of them based on external factors is not only not related to my core point its not something I want to talk about as it relates to NMS because people have a different understanding of how it all works AND those misunderstandings are rarely ever germane to my core point so I try to avoid it because it often gets way out of control.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Here's a historical chart of games over time showing the percentage of players concurrently connected versus their total owners. It's actually fairly interesting, notice how the trend of both ED and SE are flat all the way from release right up until today. However, the trend with more popular games is a larger percentage of concurrent players, falling off to more normal levels over time. Keep in mind that NMS has the 5th highest number of concurrent players on steam of all-time. That's just not realistic to maintain.
the current player base that are active right now in SE is higher then it is in NMS.
where is the normal?
...So why is it that NMS and other popular games are played so heavily initially and then drop off? I don't know that. Could be hype, could be that they are done playing it. Why do games like SE and ED never show that initial spike of player interest, but consistent, flat, concurrent players? I don't know that either. Is it an EA thing? Niche gaming thing?
I can help you with that.
What you will see with patterns like NMS is in fact 'hype'. Try to think about about 12 months prior to NMS. how many articles where written, how many people where ready to buy the second it came out. That does affect the numbers.
SE and ED if you look back never had that level of 'hype' or marketing.
That is how it works basically.
First off, I think it's important to mention that Hype and Marketing are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, anything that's marketed well will obviously have a high number of day 1 sales, which would, theoretically, create an initial spike in concurrent players, which falls off over time. It could be theorized that games like SE sees flat sales over time which means that they are in a perpetual state of recycling. They get new sales, players play for X amount of time and then they stop. We can't get that information, though. Also, we don't really have that data for NMS either. These are the types of information that I was telling you are missing. Concurrent Players is not even close to concrete data since it varies wildly based on a number of unknown factors.
However, there are conclusions we can start to draw based on my chart. That is, games with higher pre-orders are more likely to show drop-off curves in concurrent users similar to NMS. Let's not forget that The Division had the same type of doom and gloom posts a couple weeks after they released, stating it was all but dead.
As far as hype goes, I would be almost willing to bet money on the fact that NMS has had the highest player engagement of any game in history, if we're talking about the total concurrent players versus total owners. THAT could be a product of hype. However, it's actually funny that you mention hype today because I'm actually doing this training course on strategic planning, which is pretty mind-numbing, but they did refer to the hype cycle and I thought it was completely true, even for gaming.
I think that this applies, to some degree, for every game out there. I think it was probably more exaggerated with NMS, though, so the Trough of Disappointment (fucking love that term) was much deeper.
I am under the impression that you are saying marketing and hype do not affect sale spikes.
I am suggesting that they do. Just to be clear on my position
more importantly SALES impact sales spikes more than hype or marketing.
Like I said earlier, Spore.. a game thats been panned as being a horrible game.. and most of its servers and cross play have been shut down.. was on the steam best sellers list a couple weeks ago. How many times has ED or SE been on that list?
Besides that... you can't really determine what the hype or marketing was on a specific game unless you post examples. You posted one picture of the game being tested on Colberts show... again.. they didn't pay for that.
No. I'm not equating those. I'm saying the adverts on Steam have a significant impact on sales. I'm saying Steam ads are more important, for Steam numbers, than a single random interview on television. Maybe that interview influenced PS4 sales though.
It's already been explained that early access games would have a different adoption curve because players can trickle in at any point before release. So your correlation between the effect of a single perceived marketing event and massive sales is weak at best and unsupported other than your personal conjecture.
In short a Steam ad can easily translate immediately to direct sales. An interest interview does not. It may convert to a sale, but unless there is a direct link to the sale the correlation can't be explicitly drawn.
you are taking my example of a single interview use to represent a sample of a whole as me suggesting its the whole of NMS hype?
do you want to be taken seriously or not?
look I have no problem talking about this but not in the manner you are doing it, sorry
The effect of NMS is MUCH larger that the effect of Steam adds. I cant take a conversation seriously that suggests otherwise I am sorry but I ccant
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Just like PGO, this title is likely to have a very short lifespan
According to EVE Offline there are only 19.8k players in Tranquility and it's 24 peak was a meager 26k. By the same sort of staggering powers of gamer deduction used by the OPs of these threads, EVE must be headed for shutdown pretty quick. If nothing else it's an obvious failure right?
Oh come now. If you know anything about MMO's and game development, you would know that EVE isn't even in the same ballpark as NMS. EVE started as an indie project, with little hype. It was launched 13 years ago. Which by MMO standards, makes it a fossil akin to Ultima Online. For reference, it was launched before WoW. In that time span, development has progressed it into a fully functional game with a myriad of features. In an age with exceptional graphics and significantly more entertaining gameplay, the mere fact that EVE manages to retain ANY subscribers at all is outright amazing.
NMS though. Was just launched months ago. It was hyped as an 'end all' space MMO. Then the half-truths and flat out lies started when people started asking about the game and it's development. They cut more than half of the features they talked about leading up to the launch. For a huge chunk of players, the game was near unplayable all together. For the ones that could actually load the game, a good chuck of those people found game-breaking issues so bad that the game was near unplayable. 90% of it's playerbase in what? 6 months?
And you are calling people out when you are comparing apples to oranges in the first place? Brilliant. These two games took completely opposite development paths. I can only hope that you can claim ignorance as a young gamer, because I honestly can't imagine any other excuse for your ridiculous comment.
Just like PGO, this title is likely to have a very short lifespan
According to EVE Offline there are only 19.8k players in Tranquility and it's 24 peak was a meager 26k. By the same sort of staggering powers of gamer deduction used by the OPs of these threads, EVE must be headed for shutdown pretty quick. If nothing else it's an obvious failure right?
Oh come now. If you know anything about MMO's and game development, you would know that EVE isn't even in the same ballpark as NMS. EVE started as an indie project, with little hype. It was launched 13 years ago. Which by MMO standards, makes it a fossil akin to Ultima Online. For reference, it was launched before WoW. In that time span, development has progressed it into a fully functional game with a myriad of features. In an age with exceptional graphics and significantly more entertaining gameplay, the mere fact that EVE manages to retain ANY subscribers at all is outright amazing.
NMS though. Was just launched months ago. It was hyped as an 'end all' space MMO. Then the half-truths and flat out lies started when people started asking about the game and it's development. They cut more than half of the features they talked about leading up to the launch. For a huge chunk of players, the game was near unplayable all together. For the ones that could actually load the game, a good chuck of those people found game-breaking issues so bad that the game was near unplayable. 90% of it's playerbase in what? 6 months?
And you are calling people out when you are comparing apples to oranges in the first place? Brilliant. These two games took completely opposite development paths. I can only hope that you can claim ignorance as a young gamer, because I honestly can't imagine any other excuse for your ridiculous comment.
Where did it ever say it was an "end all space MMO" I loosely followed it, it was never an MMO, and all I ever got from what they stated was that it would be a Space Exploration Game.
I only barely caught wind that it "might" have multiplayer though you would "never see another player in game". Hell I didn't even know it had combat until a month from release.
Quote: 'While player drop-off is by no means unusual for a new release game with major hype behind it, such an extreme drop-off in such a short space of time might raise some eyebrows (The Division on PC, for example, had an 81% drop-off a little less than two months after launch). However, these numbers do not reflect users playing PlayStation 4.' http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/08/24/no-mans-sky-pc-players-dropped-by-90-in-two-weeks
1,759 In-Game at the moment on steam
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
They have 2 million people who own it. That means that 0.2% of people who own SE play SE concurrently. If we were to normalize the data we could say that if NMS also had 2 million owners, they would have had 8000 players yesterday.
All I'm showing in the graph above is that the trend for NMS is consistent with other popular games. I'm also showing that some games do not follow that same trend, but that's not what I'm analyzing.
Even with the data provided, there aren't enough datapoints to establish whether NMS is dead or not, but it does establish that it shares similarities with other popular games with regards to how it is trending. So why is it that NMS and other popular games are played so heavily initially and then drop off? I don't know that. Could be hype, could be that they are done playing it. Why do games like SE and ED never show that initial spike of player interest, but consistent, flat, concurrent players? I don't know that either. Is it an EA thing? Niche gaming thing?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
what is the % of NMS playing then using the same math you applied to SE?
actually I already did those numbers I forgot.
Elite
NMS
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What you will see with patterns like NMS is in fact 'hype'. Try to think about about 12 months prior to NMS. how many articles where written, how many people where ready to buy the second it came out. That does affect the numbers.
SE and ED if you look back never had that level of 'hype' or marketing.
That is how it works basically.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
or equating a steam banner add to this
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
First off, I think it's important to mention that Hype and Marketing are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, anything that's marketed well will obviously have a high number of day 1 sales, which would, theoretically, create an initial spike in concurrent players, which falls off over time. It could be theorized that games like SE sees flat sales over time which means that they are in a perpetual state of recycling. They get new sales, players play for X amount of time and then they stop. We can't get that information, though. Also, we don't really have that data for NMS either. These are the types of information that I was telling you are missing. Concurrent Players is not even close to concrete data since it varies wildly based on a number of unknown factors.
However, there are conclusions we can start to draw based on my chart. That is, games with higher pre-orders are more likely to show drop-off curves in concurrent users similar to NMS. Let's not forget that The Division had the same type of doom and gloom posts a couple weeks after they released, stating it was all but dead.
As far as hype goes, I would be almost willing to bet money on the fact that NMS has had the highest player engagement of any game in history, if we're talking about the total concurrent players versus total owners. THAT could be a product of hype. However, it's actually funny that you mention hype today because I'm actually doing this training course on strategic planning, which is pretty mind-numbing, but they did refer to the hype cycle and I thought it was completely true, even for gaming.
I think that this applies, to some degree, for every game out there. I think it was probably more exaggerated with NMS, though, so the Trough of Disappointment (fucking love that term) was much deeper.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I am suggesting that they do. Just to be clear on my position
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Not at all, I'm actually saying that they do, but I got the feeling you were saying they were the same thing or mutually dependent.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Like I said earlier, Spore.. a game thats been panned as being a horrible game.. and most of its servers and cross play have been shut down.. was on the steam best sellers list a couple weeks ago. How many times has ED or SE been on that list?
Besides that... you can't really determine what the hype or marketing was on a specific game unless you post examples. You posted one picture of the game being tested on Colberts show... again.. they didn't pay for that.
do you want to be taken seriously or not?
look I have no problem talking about this but not in the manner you are doing it, sorry
The effect of NMS is MUCH larger that the effect of Steam adds. I cant take a conversation seriously that suggests otherwise I am sorry but I ccant
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
NMS though. Was just launched months ago. It was hyped as an 'end all' space MMO. Then the half-truths and flat out lies started when people started asking about the game and it's development. They cut more than half of the features they talked about leading up to the launch. For a huge chunk of players, the game was near unplayable all together. For the ones that could actually load the game, a good chuck of those people found game-breaking issues so bad that the game was near unplayable. 90% of it's playerbase in what? 6 months?
And you are calling people out when you are comparing apples to oranges in the first place? Brilliant. These two games took completely opposite development paths. I can only hope that you can claim ignorance as a young gamer, because I honestly can't imagine any other excuse for your ridiculous comment.
I only barely caught wind that it "might" have multiplayer though you would "never see another player in game". Hell I didn't even know it had combat until a month from release.
'While player drop-off is by no means unusual for a new release game with major hype behind it, such an extreme drop-off in such a short space of time might raise some eyebrows (The Division on PC, for example, had an 81% drop-off a little less than two months after launch). However, these numbers do not reflect users playing PlayStation 4.'
http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/08/24/no-mans-sky-pc-players-dropped-by-90-in-two-weeks
1,759 In-Game at the moment on steam
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me