Weirdly enough, I have at least two games in my Steam library that are over 5 years old, still being developed, both of which had major releases recently with more to come.
7 Days to Die doesn't count. That game is an absolute freak of nature.
You're always going to find exceptions to the rule, though. And it's telling that neither game are from Triple-A studios.
Ok, so going by the metrics in the graph here it seems to indicate more people were and are playing BG3, even higher than AAA studios on release. How is that not "successful"?
And as a note, BG3 has half the budget of Starfield and again by the graph above, more than 4 times the players at launch.
Not every piece of media is going to be the Mona Lisa or Original Star Wars, but in this case a relatively small studio on a small budget outperformed the AAA studios in this graph. I don't know in what universe that's a failure.
I mean, I'd talk about my recent games more but they aren't ever relevant to the discussion.
Because when is Against the Storm, Book of Demons, or Symphony of War ever going to come up? They don't get controversy bucks or FOMO triggers going, so they just never happen because we don't have consistent video game discussion threads. Just a random one pops up every now and then and its usually buried by outrage farmers.
Shit on your own post I wrote a long screed about Triangle Strategy just a few days ago, a modern AAA game I just went back to and likely will many times over the years. Because for once there was a topic where a non-classic was relevant to the discussion.
You're right about how the falloff works, but should we expect story-driven single-player games to have a constant ongoing player base? I'm sure the devs would love that but they don't expect it. That's always been the market even before the AAA explosion. Studios have to keep making something new or die.
Absolutely agree. OP makes it sound like the game flopped though when it clearly didn't. It's the equivalent of putting your head in the sand.
Weirdly enough, I have at least two games in my Steam library that are over 5 years old, still being developed, both of which had major releases recently with more to come.
7 Days to Die doesn't count. That game is an absolute freak of nature.
You're always going to find exceptions to the rule, though. And it's telling that neither game are from Triple-A studios.
Ok, so going by the metrics in the graph here it seems to indicate more people were and are playing BG3, even higher than AAA studios on release. How is that not "successful"?
And as a note, BG3 has half the budget of Starfield and again by the graph above, more than 4 times the players at launch.
Not every piece of media is going to be the Mona Lisa or Original Star Wars, but in this case a relatively small studio on a small budget outperformed the AAA studios in this graph. I don't know in what universe that's a failure.
I mean, I'd talk about my recent games more but they aren't ever relevant to the discussion.
Because when is Against the Storm, Book of Demons, or Symphony of War ever going to come up? They don't get controversy bucks or FOMO triggers going, so they just never happen because we don't have consistent video game discussion threads. Just a random one pops up every now and then and its usually buried by outrage farmers.
Shit on your own post I wrote a long screed about Triangle Strategy just a few days ago, a modern AAA game I just went back to and likely will many times over the years. Because for once there was a topic where a non-classic was relevant to the discussion.
You're right about how the falloff works, but should we expect story-driven single-player games to have a constant ongoing player base? I'm sure the devs would love that but they don't expect it. That's always been the market even before the AAA explosion. Studios have to keep making something new or die.