Look, it's so easy to lie with statistics. I'll call this out when any side does it, and I'll give OP the benefit and say this is unintentional.
Starfield and Cyberpunk are the only singleplayer games in the top thirty as far as playerbase. Falloff is natural, and they're competing with much older games, all multiplayer, which shows what people consistently play. Counter-Strike, DotA, PUBG, Apex Legends, GTA5.
Comparing Starfield to Cyberpunk, both were very hyped up games...falloff is going to happen. It took less than a month for Cyberpunk to reach 10% of initial playercount, Starfield is still around 33%.
I picked a semi 'our guy' game for comparison, Kingdome Come: Deliverance was the first that sprang to mind. It reached 10% of peak in about a month too. The Witcher 3, a fan favorite, lasted like a week longer before hitting 10%.
Like or hate Starfield - and there's plenty of criticism to levy - but it's at the very least doing as expected...arguably better. Playercount will keep falling, but that's to be expected.
Oh, and I didn't even touch on it because it has some multiplayer, but Baldur's Gate 3 blows both out of the water in a big way, retaining 75% of its playerbase after a month, and is still at 30% after almost two months.
If people are going to dunk on any of these games, at least do it for correct reasons, not spinning numbers to represent a narrative that isn't true.
Huh, weird. Not sure how I did that either. I'll leave it, just for you.
I guess it's just one of those things where people throw something else in there somehow. Turrent is another one I see, instead of turret. Not sure where the N comes from, but a bunch of people do it for whatever reason.
Starfield and Cyberpunk are the only singleplayer games in the top thirty as far as playerbase.
Its a classic /v/-type thinking pattern.
Oh this single player game didn't have infinite playercount growth 3 months in. OH NO NO NO/X-sisters what went wrong/I....am....forgotten/SHAZAM
Its actually not just people being dumb. Its the thinking that Devs cultivate to make you think GaaS and other "lifetime updates" are a good thing. You can't just make a game, you need a season pass full of updates and monthly challenges and a plethora of content cut from the base game designed to make you keep coming back.
Its people falling for marketing and then judging other games based on it.
Baldur's Gate 3 blows both out of the water in a big way, retaining 75% of its playerbase after a month, and is still at 30% after almost two months.
To keep on the trend with bad stats, this is still bad stats. BG is a long ass game, which means it'll retain the same players for a long time just trying to finish it, which also has considerable differences in replay as far as my understanding goes with things like Durge.
Not replay to "try a new build" or pick a different background that only has a little flavor text, like most RPGs, but almost a whole new game level in narrative changes and characters. Which compounded with that "long ass game" thing means retention for it specifically is incredibly easy.
Look, it's so easy to lie with statistics. I'll call this out when any side does it, and I'll give OP the benefit and say this is unintentional.
Starfield and Cyberpunk are the only singleplayer games in the top thirty as far as playerbase. Falloff is natural, and they're competing with much older games, all multiplayer, which shows what people consistently play. Counter-Strike, DotA, PUBG, Apex Legends, GTA5.
Comparing Starfield to Cyberpunk, both were very hyped up games...falloff is going to happen. It took less than a month for Cyberpunk to reach 10% of initial playercount, Starfield is still around 33%.
I picked a semi 'our guy' game for comparison, Kingdome Come: Deliverance was the first that sprang to mind. It reached 10% of peak in about a month too. The Witcher 3, a fan favorite, lasted like a week longer before hitting 10%.
Like or hate Starfield - and there's plenty of criticism to levy - but it's at the very least doing as expected...arguably better. Playercount will keep falling, but that's to be expected.
Oh, and I didn't even touch on it because it has some multiplayer, but Baldur's Gate 3 blows both out of the water in a big way, retaining 75% of its playerbase after a month, and is still at 30% after almost two months.
If people are going to dunk on any of these games, at least do it for correct reasons, not spinning numbers to represent a narrative that isn't true.
Just happy to see someone else making this typo. I do it all the time and have no idea why.
Huh, weird. Not sure how I did that either. I'll leave it, just for you.
I guess it's just one of those things where people throw something else in there somehow. Turrent is another one I see, instead of turret. Not sure where the N comes from, but a bunch of people do it for whatever reason.
Are you from Seattle by any chance?
Its a classic /v/-type thinking pattern.
Its actually not just people being dumb. Its the thinking that Devs cultivate to make you think GaaS and other "lifetime updates" are a good thing. You can't just make a game, you need a season pass full of updates and monthly challenges and a plethora of content cut from the base game designed to make you keep coming back.
Its people falling for marketing and then judging other games based on it.
To keep on the trend with bad stats, this is still bad stats. BG is a long ass game, which means it'll retain the same players for a long time just trying to finish it, which also has considerable differences in replay as far as my understanding goes with things like Durge.
Not replay to "try a new build" or pick a different background that only has a little flavor text, like most RPGs, but almost a whole new game level in narrative changes and characters. Which compounded with that "long ass game" thing means retention for it specifically is incredibly easy.
Great post. Love it when we keep each other in check whilst still assuming good faith!