this is ruining the games industry.

[@Stryxo]

Visit helixsleep.com/stryxo to get 25% off your Helix mattress, plus a free sleep bundle, offer ends soon! Thank you Helix for sponsoring!

[@YoFadeOut-nw3ql]

ok pookie bear :3

[@elgindor]

As of today house flippers 2 has a better review of 83% and 12287. Starfield has a review of 64.4 and current players of 12320. Don’t tell me it’s doing well.

[@C_A_I_N_N]

Professional for judging whether a game is good or bad or rather more specifically I think you don't realize, whether it's worth playing based on its player count is because a game with no players almost certainly is not going to be getting another game unless the next sequel released and that's why the current game you're playing has no players and that also means no updates for the do you want to play any of its bugs or issues it may have so even for a single player game, no players playing it is a bad sign and a good reason to not play it means there's going to be no one to play with and wait times are going to be a lot while and there's going to be a high chance of you running into the same players you played with the last five or 10 games which is shit got toxic then that's going to be annoying

[@numberonedad]

starfield just stinks buddy and yeah the difference between player retention with BG3 is telling, especially compared with bethesda's delusional marketing and supposed future plans for it. the paid reviews didn't help matters. "it's by no means a perfect game" is grading it on a hilarious curve made only for bethesda. the comparison with fallout 4 is also instructive because that was also a relative dud. i also don't understand your conclusion, why news of concurrent player numbers would affect anyone's enjoyment of a single player game, sounds like they're not actually enjoying it much then and are reliant on others to convince them they are.

[@SLAYERSARCH]

a cs2 dev asked me if i bought prime after asking him why there is no ballance.

[@SirProtagonist]

"Remember kids, if a game isn't literally the most played game in the world it's a dead game and horrible and you shouldnt be wasting your time with that trash."

[@ItzFallible]

What? Tell me u r joking

[@XenoTheEnergized1339]

​@@ItzFallibleIt's in quotes of course it's a joke

[@alface935]

​@@XenoTheEnergized1339True

[@Wierie_]

I blame the console normies and basement pc master race dwellers

[@CMFZ_Jax]

Damn now can play nothing but CS2 anymore Sad

[@KeWDu]

The fact that all of this isn't common sense in the gaming industry is ridiculous.

[@rogoznicafc9672]

because common sense isnt common and this goes out for every single thing, not just gaming

[@ItzVoyager]

it is, no one thinks like this. Only stupid people that barely play games that write these article

[@dripfoe_3307]

Yup and yup

[@Lilleh__]

@@rogoznicafc9672 rare sense then

[@Holynoelle]

​@@Lilleh__Sixth sense

[@dada129sm64]

The reason for this problem is that ppl treats every game like a game that could be played forever Not every game needs to be as consistently popular as skyrim,minecraft,csgo,etc. Why this argument is so common is that some developpers starts treating their games as a live service. New content drop or mods drops and ppl still play those games. Kinda like everyone is trying to make a ''forever game''. Not every game needs that. Sometimes a good story and great gameplay is good enough

[@alexf0723]

And it's so contradicting, because they want a game that plays forever but complain when games are "too long" lmao

[@EngieMak]

@@alexf0723or when the game become boring and repetitive because duh, that the downside of a "forever game" All good thing come to an end.

[@BeeedUz]

I think Outer Wilds is the best example of this. One of my all time favourite games that I've only ever played twice, but I doubt I'll ever play it again unless I want to just 're-immerce' myself in the story. It doesn't need you to play it forever to stick with you as it did for me

[@magnusm4]

Every game can be played forever. Look at chess. Same game, same rules. Still played hundreds of years later. I love Sanitarium and still love to play through it or watch a let's play. Not a very popular or known game but it can still be played for years even when it's the same every time cause it's fun. Even when it's flawed and can be slow with the weird movement controls.

[@redhunnid5142]

@@magnusm4Stop just stop bro nowhere near the sand thing can chess get live updates can chess get switched around ll I’ve with pay to win items can chess make you stop and have to wait on a surprise update before you can even make a move it’s just not the same thing man

[@Rainbowhawk1993]

Sometimes, it’s good to be ignorant and just play the single player games you want to play without the public opinion breathing down on you.

[@Toby_Kat]

Right on!! I’ve actually been jumping back to my 360 and PS3, playing through games I’d always meant to try or come back to, and it’s been SO much fun! Not caring about working toward anything pointless and fleeting or playing into any FOMO pass garbage is just the way I always want to be, haha

[@Joshdrew352]

All the time*

[@rogoznicafc9672]

but then you play only ubisoft games and think they are good while simultaneously having a worse experience with gaming ON PURPOSE

[@Joshdrew352]

@@rogoznicafc9672 huh? No one brought up Ubisoft? 💀

[@DesolateLavender]

​@@rogoznicafc9672As they said, nobody mentioned Ubisoft. I don't like their games either, but if someone does... That's fine. If they like it, it's not a bad experience to THEM. Simple.

[@JackalSlag]

the main takeaway is that pokemon sword and shield aren't hated enough and i agree

[@winniethexiping1062]

Nah bro I ain’t taking sword and shield slander lightly, I’m coming for you lil bro

[@Franshela]

FINALLY DUDE. I hate the "this game is bad and my opinion is valid because Steam charts and Metacritic" mentality

[@MalikATL]

tbh I don't blindly buy games anymore without watching KZbin reviews and reading steam reviews

[@teapouter]

Cool. All these games are bad in spite of Steam and Metacritic numbers.

[@SirProtagonist]

I wish more people would read reviews. Heck ive even found that the negative reviews provide a better insight on what a game does right/wrong much better and quicker than positive ones that I usually just jump straight there to read what was the dealbreaker for people. And of course get annoyed at people calling literally every RPGmaker game an undertale ripoff.

[@mightygamerjames]

@@SirProtagonistunless it’s being hated

[@TheNameIsSR]

​@@MalikATLyeah me neither, but it's good to watch multiple reviews (not just from mainstream sides) to get multiple opinions/perspectives

[@JustLeonJay]

The video perfectly described something I've been frustrated with for awhile with the gaming community and the obsession with single player games being "dead." I dont think a single player game can ever be "dead" as long as you can still play it. "Dead" used to mean that it was a multiplayer game that didn't have enough players to support matchmaking or no one is playing on servers, now people throw the word around for every game that isn't talked about every day for a year.

[@doughnutdave6432]

Stryxo. You rarely miss. This video is so perfect. I think a recent example I think of is when Fortnite “fell off” after 2019 and people call this game dead every other month. Player numbers do not gauge a games quality

[@jetsflyingoffatrain4338]

imo fortnite "fell off" because of the amount of bloat epic put into the game. the amount of random shit in the game and random brand deals from chapter 2 really put me off

[@TFGA_tFoMS]

I still play FN, and I do still find it find to play with friends. But I do agree, tha game has become kinda bloated, epic is trying to do too much, at once

[@Sketchy_2]

Bro you still got people that claim fortnite is "dead". It's so annoying

[@doomguy.23frommars60]

​@@jetsflyingoffatrain4338yeah and now it's up again its the top 4 or 3 most played games this year especially after this update

[@doomguy.23frommars60]

​@@TFGA_tFoMSyeah they want to turn into roblox but just battle royale which is good because fuvk roblox and the new game modes especially lego fortnite is a W and I can't wait for creative 2.0 it's gonna be insane I like the direction with it's gonna be an everything game

[@chimpyboi3540]

It is funny how I would be considered one of those players who abandoned Starfield. It is true, I have stopped playing...after beating the game and putting in 100 hours. Not much else to do until there are some mods, but those game journalists gotta put out shovelware so they can get those clicks

[@jp969]

And that's the sad thing. Journalists have to make trendy clickbait articles because if those are not doing good numbers, they get fired. The metric most websites and papers use nowadays is google analitycs. The system is not made for actual quality journalism, is for generating "clicks" and "engagement".

[@spugelo359]

There is still 1 thing to consider though, not everyone started the game right at launch. The fact that player count dropped that bad tells me that not many new players bought it after launch, and that isn't good news for overall sales.

[@Nickyreaper2008]

God help you friend. I have put 110 hours into Shitfield so i know your pain. Horrible game.

[@jacobmonks3722]

​@@Nickyreaper2008 It can't be that bad if you played it for over 100 hours.

[@YayaFeiLong]

@@jacobmonks3722 Bethesda games have this really peculiar quality about them where they're absolute dogshit but you feel compelled to sink literal weeks of your life into them for some reason

[@Xoilen]

There’s one singular trend that has been the sole reason for the decline in the games industry. Greed. The gaming industry has become nothing more than another marketing scheme and the marketers have found the most efficient way they can produce a product and make as much money as possible off of it. There’s a reason Ubisoft and other AAA studios were ranting about how games like Elden Ring and Baldur’s Gate shouldn’t be expected as the standard, they’ve found a formula that’s easy to follow and make billions off of and they don’t want that to change. After actually getting a minute into the video I realize this is not what the video is about at all. I’m going to leave my rant here though.

[@leadpaintchips9461]

TBH you're not wrong. The video is about using current player numbers as a measurement of success, and that conversation _was_ started by the industry to talk about how successful a game was. More eyeballs playing the game = more people to sell microtransactions to, and that's all that the industry as a whole cares about.

[@RetroCheats]

Wow people are dumb, if they're comparing single player games to online games.

[@belisarian6429]

I dont even think you need second part of that sentence, people generally are dumb :)

[@goodraptor505]

Sometimes I'm glad I live under a rock and play my silly little games, not keeping up on the world around me...

[@CliveGlitch]

I think this issue with low player counts for single player games is just a psyop of big companies to delegitimize that argument for live service games where it makes the most sense, especially when comparing them to past games from the same ip that weren't live services.

[@sky.le0363]

It all boils down to one thing here and to basically every big companies: greed. To them, good service doesn’t matter anymore because money talks the loudest to them, they’re not even ashamed about it anymore.

[@SL4PSH0CK]

Love how starfield added a new problem instead of fixing the writing; while BG3, shows how big writing offers to a game thats its dynanic narrative and Reactivity is considered an immersive sim.

[@Xenotork]

*Single player game releases* Kotaku: "Is this a Live-service game?"

[@EliteMicah]

I've never played a single pokemon game but I got peer pressured into opening my wallet for pokemon shield... Lets just say I'll never get peer pressured into buying a game again.

[@cooldemon5545]

If you want a good pokemon game I highly recommend Pokemon Omega Ruby/Alpha Sapphire.

[@theknightwithabadpictotall7639]

@@cooldemon5545 Or better yet, Black/White and Black 2/White 2

[@infinitespace2520]

@@theknightwithabadpictotall7639 Or even better, literally just Red and Blue

[@theknightwithabadpictotall7639]

@@infinitespace2520 Ain't no way you just proposed the idea of Red and Blue being better than the gen 5 games

[@yourehereforthatarentyou]

@@infinitespace2520red & blue have aged like dogshit. and while i’m at it, so have gold & silver, there’s a reason why they remade those games

[@jnight9608]

They’re missing the aspect called fun back in the day that’s what video games was all about having fun no matter what game you were playing you were having fun with friends or strangers not just playing the game but also coming up with their own games allowing people creativity and communicate with others which is another thing that is missing

[@jacobmonks3722]

You'll find a lot of fun if you branch out from the AAA scene, and I don't just mean indies. Find some mid-budget games because they usually have the polish of the big releases but try some more novel or unique ideas.

[@whatsthehistory4752]

Wow, I didn’t realize people judged games that way. I replay the bf3 campaign once a year because it’s the best bf campaign imo, that’s from 2011

[@xenosayain1506]

Honestly i think player numbers and retention is only good for attempting to assess the situation of a multiplayer game. If a pvp game has barely 1200 people on it daily, been out for a few months, and is on a steady decline. It is a way to assess possible lifespan of mp and if you want to risk investing time into it. For sjngle player ganes i agtee it is a silly metric to use to determine if youll purchase it or not

[@fabiofanf3e813]

if anything i wanna say this: it is beautiful how one week were saving galaxies from criminals the next were plataforming like never before, the next day were revusiting a fps classic wich we then follow by workibg at amazon, we then write stories, drive gt3 cars and then play a one-of-the decade rpg

[@ShaktiChaturvedi]

Bingo I went from tuning my car in Forza Motorsport to tuning my ability to parry in Lies of P.

[@EpicDonutDudeMemes]

The trick is to have low expectations so when an actual good game is getting released you will hear it right away from user feedback :) Did that with baldurs gate, first game I bought at full price in the past few years and it was so worth it

[@Phirestar]

Another key factor that has to be considered is replay value. Games that provide a flexible experience that gives players a ton of choices during and after a playthrough - multiple playstyles, branching narratives, New Game+, etc. - will _by default_ retain a greater number of concurrent players than games without those features. It wouldn’t be fair or rational to argue a game like The Last of Us Pt. 1 having a lower player-count than a game like Elden Ring means that it’s a “worse” game. One is a linear, story-driven experience with virtually zero ways for the player to change or influence the events of the game, while the other is an open world, action RPG with thousands of different ways to build your character and choose your own path of progression. Of course the latter would have more active users at any one time by than the former. More ways to play = more incentive to keep playing.

[@spugelo359]

But when you consider the flip side what you makes no sense anymore. Or would you say that a game that remains enjoyable for a longer time is not an improvement, compared to the exact same game with less replayability value? There is a place for shorter games, but you'd find it much harder to convince somebody to pay full AAA price for a game that lasts for a little while. That's just not great bang for the buck. But if you've got money to throw around sure buy those 10 hour enjoyable games and go through multiple of them in a single week. And then there are 'games', or more like movies that have no proper gameplay but still get a good rating. I would argue that as a game it's badly designed, but a good story. At core, a game doesn't require a story at all. Or even lore. All you really need is a fun gameplay and you can spice it up and make it more memorable with a good story.

[@kosmosXcannon]

I'm hearing that even modders are quitting Starfield, because base game is so bad that is isn't fun enough that modding it wouldn't be worth it. It's like you need something to work with at least.

[@angmori172]

I agree with you mostly, but considering the mind blowing amount of time so many people spent in skyrim, I think it's fair to judge starfield by player numbers. A Bethesda game should not last 22 hours. It is competing BG3 which I spent 100 hours in before I beat, and I could easily spend multiple times that amount if I didn't have so many other games to play.

[@malevolentmoose]

You know, judging a game by the numbers can provide some insight, but you gotta actually analyze as many numbers as reasonably possible, not just one number. If you look at how many players still play a game after a certain period of time, for example two months, you will see that: - Elden Ring and BG3 are very good at something like 30% retention, though it's worth considering that they are very long games, as well as that their pupularity wasn't just a single explosion, it was like a longer surge, - most games have about 15-30% retention, but there is variety - some manage more than 50% (the borderline-anomaly that is RDR2 did about 100%, it has a very unusual player count history), while small indies might not even retain 5% after an initial popularity boom (Limbo had something like 1.5%), - Starfield has about 15%, which is still fairly normal, although doesn't compare with games like The Witcher 3 or aforementioned Elden Ring and BG3.

[@justanotheraccounthere2014]

This. Cherry picking at its finest. By those "gaming journalist" train of "logic", Armored Core 6 is a total failure and not a good game. Current player number is around 1.5% of its peak, so yeah definitely dead bad game :)

[@iampfaff]

i mean if you’ve ever played red dead 2 you’d also get hooked on the story and characters.

[@spugelo359]

@@justanotheraccounthere2014 Tell that you didn't understand what you read without saying so.

[@spugelo359]

@@justanotheraccounthere2014 Also makes sense that it's at mere 1.5% now. I hardly herd anything about it at launch, saw 1 or 2 Asmond Gold clip on KZbin and nothing after that. Poof the game vanished, nobody I follow ever mentioned it or talked about it. None of my friends have played it. So yea, not nearly as amazing as you seem to believe it is.

[@theresnothinghere1745]

@@spugelo359 You didn't see much of a game in a niche genre therefore its bad? Excellent way of looking at things.

[@DianaProudmoore]

In DMC5's case, Capcom forced the devs to put a microtransactions in game like 1m Red Orbs, 10 Million Red orbs, etc~ The devs put a weapon that can grind those red orbs easily, and it's a freakin' cowboy hat~ We even found a glitch that can earn 999999999 red orbs within 5 minutes, invalidating the grind and buying red orbs online altogether~

[@RysenKai]

Similar mindset (as an example) to thinking McDonalds is so incredibly widespread and popular therefore it must have the best food.

[@datonedood3791]

*Great example for this* Half-life 2 I don't think half life is going to get +5,000 concurrent players at any time, and that game is legendary in the gaming sphere and holds up remarkably well today.

[@Nerobyrne]

I remember a quote from Vampire Masquerade Bloodlines: "It doesn't matter if you play the game, all that matters is that you bought it."

[@IamPotion]

I get your point with player count but I remember when Skyrim released there was still tens of thousands of players on at one time playing repeated gameplay. This was before mods btw, so there was literally only small changes in gameplay between each play through. I think issue with starfield is that the game tries tricking you into thinking it’s replayable but it isn’t. Where as Skyrim was actually replayable. The only thing that changes after new game plus is minor tweaks. The game isn’t good with story or mechanics or diverse elements. The graphics aren’t the best. Performance is horrible. I played 2 play throughs into the game with several new game plus on each. The game was stale and dry when I reached the 20 hours mark and it became unplayable after I reached the 100 hour mark. I decided to put it down until modders start to fix the game. Then I see a video yesterday saying that modders are jumping ship because starfield is so empty and pointless. The game is dying by losing players and it isn’t anyone’s fault but Bethesda.

[@Blairibus03]

Poor single-player retention is nothing new, just look at the percentage of players who got the trophy for starting a game compared to getting the trophy for beating it, it's almost always a ridiculously high drop-off.

[@theangryotaku3361]

heck, most games i've seen have like 70~80% of people with the tutorial completion achievement. the tutorial, the easiest part of the game, and it has a 1 in 5 drop-off

[@ims1n]

I love this conversation around how people should be presenting their opinions. Furthering the conversation in a different direction, I hate when people can't express or vocalize their opinions further than just the word "mid" or "bad". Where I would look to the general public as much as reviewers when a game first launches to decide if I would buy the game. I feel less inclined to do either because neither can represent their feelings in a simple manner that gives me the information needed. With boths scoring feeling the most washed and least informational ever. I usually feel more inclined just to spend the money and return it in 2 hours.

[@rewpertcone8243]

I agree with your point for other games, but Bethesda considered their game to be "the game for the decade" as in people are supposed to be playing this game for years and years.

[@kurtfrederiksen5538]

I would agree that "number of concurrent players" is generally not a good metric. However, I would have to add the modifier "in isolation". Generally, how I am seeing this metric being used with Starfield is to compare its number of concurrent players and compare it against current numbers for previous Bethesda releases. I feel this comparison has some value as it shows both that Bethesda games have an audience (in the players of their previous games), and how Starfield does when compared against games that are at least ~10 years old. Seeing how these games are also single player games of the same genera (rpg, explorable) and by the same publisher and studio I feel the comparison is fair. What this comparison shows is that games that are at least ~10 years old were able to keep an audience bigger than a game which was just released (which typically when you have the most players). I feel it shows that the older Bethesda games were able to maintain a player base for a long time while players quickly tire of Starfield. Granted, a more fair comparison might be to compare the games player base and fall off at the same time when compared to their release.

[@allenvanover4009]

the issue with starfield is that it was a game that was meant to keep players for longer than skyrim did and in that it failed. Bethesda was hoping to get a game they can rerelease and remaster for 10-15 years. The game plaing mostly like it was from 2011 decreased its replayability by a random metric of 80

[@thesorrow7499]

Ikr. You don't design the game with 1000 planets just for the sake of it. They wanted to create a game that would last for years without any mods.

[@randms2fake]

If a game has functional modding support, people keep coming back. In such sense, ability to keep the players' interest is mark of quality. Examples for such games come from Bethesda themselves. Fallout and Elder Scrolls series are legendary. Where as their other titles, even if remarkable (like Dishonored), are not.

[@carpetbeetle8349]

I would assume part of it is because some SinglePlayer titles (like Fallout:New Vegas and Skyrim) are over a decade old and still have a sizeable active playerbase, but as mentioned in the video, Starfield doesn't have proper modding yet.

[@FreshTillDeath56]

This is similar to why I never understood why people didn't want to play Undertale because of its fandom. If a game is specifically tailored to be enjoyed ALONE, what the flying fuck do you care what anyone else thinks about it.

[@Dhalin]

Eh. To be fair.... if you release a AAA game that is hyped to frick and back and it "hemorrhages" players within the first 2 or 3 months of its release, *SOMETHING WENT VERY WRONG.* There's a _reason_ why Failfield lost a bunch of players so fast. Buggy release, poorly optimized, bland game, the same usual fare for AAA games. Now, if a game is, say, a year old, and maybe not AAA, then a drop in players is understandable. The best thing to do, is to judge by Steam Reviews. Pull up the reviews graph that shows reviews over time, note any huge drops in the game's popularity and look up articles that might explain why (usually it has to do with scandals and not the game itself, though sometimes a bad update can cause it) and go from there. Usually an "Overwhelmingly Positive" game with 5,000+ upvotes is probably a good bet that the game is well-made, regardless of how many are playing it. A game that is "Mostly Positive" is probably going to have a few problems with it. Usually optimization or spotty gameplay mechanics that didn't jive well with people, or maybe a bad storyline. Obviously, higher vote count gives more consistent results, a "mixed" game with only 100 reviews, eh, who knows what you're getting. But if you see a "Mixed" game with 1,000 or more reviews, the game definitely has problems, you can be almost certain of that. Do the research before you buy. EDIT: Also, another thing gamers do that is kinda stupid: if you're concerned about potentially wasting money on a game you might not like... *WAIT.* Wait 2, 3, or hell, 6 months. Watch some youtube vids by random streamers, and see what it looks like, what they think, etc. Don't buy the game as soon as it comes out if you're not certain on it.

[@Umbramancer1]

I think the reason why total player count is used so often is because we do not have as easy access to game sales metrics.

[@Peter-ui6ey]

That was actually an impressive transition. And yeah, I would argue that trying to say "Oh, this game is objectively better" is like saying a book or movie is better. There's always gonna be that one guy that liked the Gollum game or Twilight or Trolls or whatever.

[@DatMageDoe]

Another common one I see is using Steam concurrent user counts to determine player activity... for a game with a significant presence on platforms other than Steam. Also frequently used against Starfield, I distinctly remember people saying that Starfield "Wasn't as big as Fallout 4 at launch" because they were comparing the Steam user counts for Fallout 4 at launch (A game whose PC release was ONLY on Steam at launch) to Starfield, while neglecting that Starfield is available on Xbox Game Pass. And its existence there no doubt ate into its Steam user count.

[@KrolPawi]

Literaly the only thing that matters in game is how much fun you have and all the things around gaming industry , revievs, metacritic score ,steam charts ,steam score are there to provide you information about the game and whetewer you will like it before you buy it ( beacuse as we know time and money are a limited resource ). So in that way steam charts and player retention is a usefull metric. Just not the only one you should consider ( honestly the last one you should consider but if you have trouble choosing between BG3 and lets say starfield you might as well pick one thats more popular )

[@TobyConger]

Everyone. SHARE THIS VIDEO WITH OTHER GAMERS. We NEED others to see this and realize their idiocy.

[@rodneybrown2059]

When it comes to certain games, I mostly check out the reviews to see whether or not if it's a game worth playing. And I love playing single player games, the ones I play have a great story, gameplay & mechanics, and good replay value(which I think is the most important thing when it comes to games). If game has me putting in hours of gameplay or has me coming back for more after I just finished the story is a good game.

[@TheMTOne]

Just wait til Games are like movies and we have weekend box office results.

[@SteinGauslaaStrindhaug]

It's something completely wrong with the mindset of the capitalists in culture industries. It's not only games, movies too (and I'm sure books and lot's of other things as well...) if a movie doesn't make several times it's budget within two weeks or whatever it's apparently "a massive failure". Admittedly this is partly because they stupid practice of not including marketing in the official "budget", so it can really make much more money than the budget and still not make a profit. But why the heck do they waste sometimes more than the cost of making the movie on marketing? If it's actually a good movie; it will eventually make a profit if you don't spend an insane amount of money on trying to force people to watch it? If consumers had just a little critical thinking, they would assume if they use an insane amount of marketing to try to "trick" you into watching it; that seems like an admission it's not particularly good if they have no confidence in it selling on it's own merits. The only thing that should matter to the capitalists is that they on average make more money than they would by putting them in a bank account or an index fund.

[@UnknownUser-dz5ch]

I agree completely. Yes i was one of the many elden ring players, but i beat it quickly and only recently went back to playing it after I got a PC so that i could mod with seamless coop

[@RigRacers]

Agreed... Except Starfields reviews are into the negative now. Modding or not, it's bad. Active players, or not, its bad. So I agree with your main point, but Starfields is a bit more reflective because its also a drop off because players DIDNT finish the game, not because everyone did. Sorry, not a BGS "hater" but am def a SF hater to the core after wasting time on it.

[@gpfhantom1890]

It's mainly articles that make these type of claims. Lets look at Cyberpunk 2077 for example, it launched horribly, but it still had a great amount of people playing the game regardless even though it was widely regarded to be "dogshit" because of all the bugs and other issues the game had, but people got into the story and really enjoyed it. Many gamers out there don't look at numbers to play the game, those numbers are exclusively for the Company's investors and CEO's to look at to see how much profit they are currently making or what kind of changes they should make to retain players. Gamers shouldn't look at these numbers and say the "game is bad", it's stupid and they will miss out on some awesome games.

[@theotherjared9824]

An entire generation of gamers have grown up believing games should be one specific thing. Live service, always online, battle pass, microtransactions, multiplayer focused with an active community. If a game doesn't have all of these thing, it i bad and not worth your time. Elden Ring being such a big hit seems to have knocked people out of their brain washing and opened their eyes to games being good isolated experiences and not time vampires. That's why live services are failing faster and single player games are coming back, the public wised up and are maturing their pallette.

[@KittyLitterYT]

Player Counts is a great way to gauge a game's popularity or it's staying power, but I have no idea who the hell is using it to judge quality.

[@brem-]

Reminds of when a while back some freak(s) on twitter were like "Harry Potter spent 6 years here and y'all leave after 2 months" and showing current player counts of Hogwarts Legacy. You know, Hogwarts Legacy, the single player Harry Potter game. They said that like it was some sort of own, because everybody hates Hogwarts Legacy because of some stuff J.K. Rowling said, even though if you were to look up if she worked in the game it would show that she had nothing to do with the game besides creating the IP back in 1997. I understand looking at the numbers when it's either really new or a live service game. Because if it's a brand new single player game that 10,000 people are playing, and then a day or so later it goes down to 1000 players you can either assume the game is pretty short, or it's so terrible that most people refunded it.

[@StormierNik]

Steam charts and visible player counts have done irreparable damage to the gaming industry. A game comes out, looks cool, people play the game, people like the game, it isn't quite known yet. People see a cool game, then they see that it has 1000 players. "Hmmm.. maybe it'll go down, I'll refrain from buying. Not that many people play it." So they don't buy it, they don't add to the player count, the next waves of people discover the game, see that the player count hasnt gone up from those last people, and it's gone down from some having their fill of the game and more not buying it. So that NEW wave of people doesn't buy it because of the dropping player count. THEN people go into reviews and say "Issue with the game is that no one is playing, losing player count, not recommended" WOOOO VICIOUS CYCLE OF PLAYER COUNTS. Back years ago before metrics like that, people would just play a game of it was cool. And whoever was playing, was playing. That was the community. Because you can't actually fucking tell the difference between 2000 players and 12000. You're playing with people either which way and you're not going to run into 2000 different people in one given day. If Steam made the numbers private for every game outside of the top 10, it would be better for literally everyone. I will stand by that.

[@Sketchy_2]

People always hate on live service games but then treat single player games as if they are a live service. It's baffling

[@mkfmgaming3019]

I recently made a pc to run a 24/7 Minecraft server with a few friends almost 10 people. And I gotta say it’s the most fun we’ve had playing a game in a very long time

[@JumpDaddy70]

I hate Starfield because I hate bethesda. They don't understand how guns work, which is frustrating. They refused to add gore for a nonsense reason. And they sacrifice good writing for Political activism.

[@shawnplaysgam3s835]

I didn’t even know this was a thing that people did with singleplayer games. My favorite games of all time are ones that I can play for a small amount of time and leave a lasting impact on me for a long time and I come back to every now and then, not ones that I have to log onto every single day and play for 4 hours just to remain relevant in my mind. Honestly, I don’t really care what game journalists say anymore, they couldn’t beat the cuphead tutorial

[@mple2836]

6:45 halo infinite's battle passes never expire btw, pretty cool

[@Oho_o]

And it causes a chain reaction. We read on the news that a game is bad, so our brains automatically assumes it's bad.

[@levicarey6864]

Babe wake up new Stryxo video

[@thomaskast7842]

Honestly this seems weird to me. Do people *really* look at player counts on single player games to determine whether or not it's a good game? Also, Elden Ring having 100k players so long after launch is a massive feat, that percentage is extremely high for any single player game so long after it's released.

[@magnusm4]

Love Doublefine. They made Psychonauts 2 and the writing was 100% in the world. No memes, references or jokes about something modern. And it was nothing but the game. No online requirements, no DLC, pre purchase or special edition stuff, no time trials or side stuff to grind the length. It's just the game following it's story and focusing on the gameplay and nothing else. It's a very rare thing today.

[@augustday9483]

It makes some sense to judge multiplayer games by their playercount, at least to a degree, since number of players is important for filling lobbies and keeping queue times low. But playercount shouldn't matter for a singleplayer game at all. It just doesn't make sense.

[@JChaosMaster]

That was like elden ring, had that massive drop off but it could easily be noted as either players sick of the game or beat it. To me I think the count is important because it allows us to better understand if good things might happen. Like if game A sells 40 million copies we are likely to get sequels.

[@refat17]

The worst is when people judge games by Twitch viewer counts. As if the number of people watching (not even playing) a game reflects its value.

[@alguem5996]

It's so annoying when people bring up charts and overall reviews to judge a game instead of, you know, playing the game. For example, I've been enjoying Starfield. I think it's fun enough. But I can perfectly understand why it would get a mixed review on Steam. It's lacking in quite a few aspects. The planets, one of the major and most advertised features of the game, are pretty "whatever" landscape-wise, or at least the planets I've been in. I wouldn't mind half or even most of the planets being barren rocks, it *is* a space game, and space is empty, but the geological formations themselves aren't exactly what I'd call "varied" and there is a lack of structures, even abandoned ones. I haven't experienced many bugs, I've always been pretty lucky with Bethesda's games in that regard. Most characters are kinda alright, but not what I'd consider ideal in an RPG. The character creation, from a purely visual standpoint, is considerably inferior to Fallout 4. In Fallout 4, it's intuitive and easy to use and some of my best characters came from that game. In Starfield, however, it is a clunky, unintuitive mess that leaves a lot to be desired. At least from a roleplaying standpoint, I'd consider it better than Fallout 4 and Skyrim. Traits and backgrounds can allow for a deeper roleplaying experience, and THANKFULLY Bethesda didn't bring back the voiced main character, but it's not as up there as Daggerfall or Oblivion (I haven't really played much of Morrowind). Anyways, my point is: judging a game, especially a single-player game, purely by active players or reviews (without at least reading said reviews) instead of playing the game even for just a moment is, a lot of times, extremely dumb. It could eventually either make you not play a game that you'd actually enjoy or make you overhype the game and then be disappointed it isn't the greatest game you've ever played.

[@zzqart]

People are still playing old Nintendo games like Mario 64 smash melee and super Mario galaxy they were burned onto a disk never receiving updates yet they are regarded as some of the best games ever created I just finished playing Zelda the wind waker HD on my steam deck and the game was phenomenal even by todays standards

[@Hikaimbe]

Why do people say "best game ever created"? not mad, but there is no perfect game, its based on preferences, wich is why pokemon fans opinions shouldn't be heard

[@Hikaimbe]

Games don't constantly need updates to be good. They just need to be solid, although dlc is nice from time to time

[@tankofish937]

PLEASE someone tell me me what the second game shown on screen in the video was it looks so fun 😭

[@JuanPablo-su6vw]

mirror's edge catalyst. Now you can stop crying

[@JuanPablo-su6vw]

Dear god , why did I was so mean? I m sorry

[@user-sn8zx5mv1x]

@@JuanPablo-su6vw Came back to the video and saw your reply, eh?

[@JuanPablo-su6vw]

@@user-sn8zx5mv1x who are you?

[@TsuiIzumi]

I blame it to the game as service mentality that is plaguing the industry right now, player retention is the new metric of success even for single player games without any monetization. Sadly, for some people games are not longer an experience that will take you a few dozen hours but something to play until it dies or they made a sequel.

[@JediMasterYoda66]

If it's a multiplayer game active players is the best way to judge on whether a game is good or not. For singleplayer games, only the activity of the first few weeks matters.

[@rickamsler3088]

Several people have mentioned this in the comments but i think it is only part of the issue. The idea of a "forever game" a game that just somehow stays relevent for no perceivable reasions. (skyrim and Minecraft are obvious comparables here) In this kind of mindset the idea of "player numbers" being important is a factor in a game's lifecycle has some relevency. But the more important factor is your individual player engagement. I have hundreds of hours in skyrim. i have played through the campaign more times than i can count. but with starfield i was told that I had to tough the game out to about 15 hours and the game would "open up" so much more. well i did and it didn't. The second issue is that too many companies don't have realistic expectations for their game. Why did bethesda spend millions and millions of dollars to end up with a product that feels like 2 or 3 different games haphasardly smashed together? and this hits really hard for single player games. you need a unified vision of what the story is going to be. you need to tie that story together with interesting gameplay and locations. and finally you don't want to bore the person buyuing your product. I watched an interesting video that went into "open world" game design and it showed some of the research on how long a player should be able to go without anything happening. and according to the video it was about 30 seconds to 1 minute. starfield can average about 5 minutes in places. To me this makes the player engagement metrics and returns, more important than any other individual factor in a single player game.

[@Munenushi]

also - and this may be because people are just morer stupider than yesteryear - games are becoming far more simplified and streamed out of their complexity... Example: Hitman series and World of Warcraft series Both games (Raids in WoW) plopped people down at one corner of a huge map and you had to figure it out on your own - which people HATE now for some reason. "where do I go??" "where is the bad guy??" "who are the good guys??" "what do I do now??" this is what people think (and post on forums) when in these situations - this is for large maps found in early Hitman games and large Raid/Party dungeons/areas in WoW like Mauraudon (which featured multiple areas, long winding paths, many of which overlapped each other, and color-coded areas with plants/crystals/etc that lit the areas in different colours to help the players a bit. For the simplified, IIRC it was The Great Vaults that used to be sort of a convoluted star shape, and you had to find your way around, with huge doors and behind some were large bosses to fight - this has been simplified down to a T-shape with evenly spaced doors and bosses just standing there waiting for you to go to the next door to fight them - it was highly simplified in shape/map). Many, including myself, loved HAVING TO FIGURE OUT these maps and areas, you explored, you took in everything, finding out who the bad guys are by running into them and they attacked you. If you died, you tried again, getting farther each time and finally figuring out where things were, what areas to avoid, and then you get the chance to figure out - on your own - how to get through it all in the best way, or the easiest way (or the way with the most fighting, if you liked that). Today, players don't do this anymore - they don't like exercising their brain for very long - they see the expanse of something and immediately feel tired/overwhelmed/sad/whatever and look things up, look up a map, look up a video, look up a chart with a diagram. Look everything up and then just follow someone else's path through the area. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to see that doing things this way lessens the sens of accomplishment, lessens the ability to even utilize the brain in the future to tackle something like that again, etc. [in workplaces IRL, people are more and more just ASKING someone who works nearby how to do something, instead of figuring it out on their own - something the person who KNOWS how to do something, had to actually do for themselves...] The brain is like a muscle - it must be utilized and challenged once in a while, otherwise it suffers from atrophy. Studies have shown the brain can 're-wire' itself as needed, creating new connections when challenged; just like a muscle. And when the brain is given 'the easy way' (via simple stimulus like KZbin Shorts or TikTok/Bytedance videos), it gets faster and faster success/endorphin type chemicals - BUT THEN creates more receptors for those chemicals and transmitters - which means that if you don't continue doing things 'the easy way' and getting quick brain/endorphin/chemical rewards; this is where you create a fast-easy-stimulus-addicted person who cannot slow down and take the time to figure out a long-duration challenge when given one (like in games). This data is found in multiple studies people, look them up. Now throw in the industry companies, trying to guilt everyone into "please-keep-playing-this-game" PASS mentality... I think eventually this will sour people from playing these games. It's like begging - I guess it is actually exactly like begging, for money - instead of putting it in a cup or hat IRL, they put their money into a PleasePlayGame Pass instead. Permanently lost money for temporary entertainment. Well, that's all games/movies/etc but in this case it is even morer temporarierer, because these companies want you to stop playing single player games that you can play over and over 'for free' or modify and change for fun 'for free' - they want single player games to stop because they don't get any money when you play it over again or modify it on your own! Sad, it all is.

[@HeyRavenousRaven]

Running around back and forth through a Metroidvania trying to progress for 3 days of playing before accidentally talking to an NPC that I needed to revisit, was pretty fun, not gonna lie. Ended up farming unintentionally. But yeah, the problem is the people who need their hands held were raised in a way of not taking risks or their mommy and daddy didn't let them do much and they didn't understand thst they have to do things on their own, even if it means messing up. Now the companies are enabling this because those same people are working for those companies and listening to people just like them. That and time. People just don't have the time to learn things and think for themselves anymore.

[@cantstandya9749]

I agree with most of what you said but disagree about reviews. I’ve reached a point where I trust neither critics nor fans. I’ve played enough games to where I can watch a trailer and immediately I know how I’ll feel about it. Add that with general actual discussion online and I’ve made up my mind on whether to buy it or not. For example, I know that Civ 6 is a great game and I was very interested in it but didn’t know if I’d enjoy something like this and decided not to buy it. They added it to Game Pass, I try it and couldn’t get into it. I already knew I most likely wouldn’t enjoy it but now I have proof that this genre as a whole is just not for me

[@RenegadePandaZ]

Honestly this whole subscription based mindset the world is trying to force us into has facilitated this. Crap like Game Pass isn't helping either, since the second people stop engaging with content, most of these mega companies will deem it unworthy of keeping and ditch it. We should really just go back to a time where you could just buy a damn game, it would be complete, and at worst, would need a day one update to fix a late stage bug. Everyone is now expecting every game to have endless amounts of content, and basically never end. The rise of internet requirements and subscriptions, battle passes, etc, is the main reason this industry is screwed right now.

[@abductedbyfairies]

The fact that games like Devil May Cry or Elden Ring have in average a pretty "low" number of players that remains constant in the span of 10 years speaks volumes about how effective and enjoyable those games are, compared to a CoD that needs a new release every year to "freshen" things in order to ride that hype train made in the first couple of months of people emptying their wallet more for nostalgia than anything else, just to drop the game completely until the next release. Plus, games like the first ones I've mentioned keep getting new players and sales. DMC still sells after years, same with Elden Ring and they still keep people talking despite no new content. Live Services are dooming the gaming industry, I'm so glad developers are slowly approaching the idea of dropping them completely. We will see if they'll take the Ubisoft approach of putting damn ads in the game you needed to unload 70$ for or simply get rid of them completely and go back to DLCs and expansions, which made a lot more sense before The Sims 4 put its hands on them.

[@EliteMeatsMusic]

stryxo why didn't you mention AC6 in your list of games that came out this year :(

[@kingani]

that'll be $1 mil to my paypal for the cameo

[@KanekoIA]

These comments are giving me brain damage, one said you were defending Starfield when you said it deserved a mixed review score or complaining about the youtube title and thumbnail that are just normal youtube thumbnail and title. I learnt I fucking hate live service games they just take up so much of your time and as long as the servers are running there's stuff to do so eventually it becomes bloated but then it could also be shut down and your skins and shit are pointless and you've just thrown away money. If I like a game enough I'll replay it I don't need contenr fed to me for a decade straight every week, I preferd Overwatch when it was dead just before OW2 cause as bad as loot boxes are at least OW had free unlockable ones but now most is locked behind a pay wall or battlepass. The only one I somewhat enjoy is Fall Guys because I unlocked the battlepass without spending anything and I loved Total Wipeout as a kid and No Man's Sky but big survival games have a reason to be updated constantly. I'd rather replay Portal 2 a million times before thinking of going back to OW2 because Portal 2 is fucking amazing + way CHEAPER than a FREE live service game and I feel something other than anger and annoyance playing it. Reading 80 hour long Visual Novels is also more worth my time. I want games with endings and goals (Battlepasses don't count) so I can consume it like a Show or Book - I complete it, if I really love it I'll come back but it's out of want not feeling like I need to keep up with the game.

[@doomspud6302]

This is what happens when everyone starts thinking like corporate bean counters. Big numbers good! Small numbers bad! That's all that ever matters, right? I have found that a much more accurate way to judge the quality of single player games is to look at achievement percentages. For example: If 90% of players have the "beat the game" achievement, that means the game is keeping the majority of players attention for long enough for them to finish it. If 80% of players have the "beat the first level" achievement, but everything after that is less than 5%, there is clearly a big problem right after the first level. And if every achievement is sub 5%, then there is probably something wrong with the whole game. This still doesn't mean you can tell if the game is 100% objectively good or bad, of course. But it definitely tells a much more reliable story than just looking at player numbers. Plus, even if a "live service" has a million concurrent players over ten years, that doesn't mean any of them are actually having fun. I played Warframe for over 2,500 hours, and regret most of that time. I played Armored Core 6 for about 75 hours, and loved every second of it. So which is the better game?

[@Tucher97]

As kids we are often told not to follow the crowd, a stupid idea (especially early in life) but later in life its a note to understand, I mean, lets say a lot of people say "hey yea, pointless amputation is great", does it mean its automatically good?

[@grussser]

The video is solid and I agree with it. I only wish the title gave a little more information instead of being a total clickbait

[@Lunam_D._Roger]

Agreed

[@0008loser]

Cry harder

[@AHungryHunky]

The gaming sphere has gotten, weirdly coorperate. And I mean the hobbiests and players, not the corporate entities that run the industry side of things. I expect them to behave like soulless number crunching husks that can't appreciate a good story or understand why i might just want to stand on the mountain and watch the digital world go by. Player retention is a metric a corporation would use to gauge the success of a game because it's easy to quantify and feed into programs and algorithms. It's not a measure of enjoyment. It can corrolate with it, but not measure it. Many games intentionally add in addicting (but not rewarding/fun) systems to keep players hooked due to the use of retention as a metric for success. The other weird corporate thing I see is using the word "content" to refer to activities, quests, dungeons, missions, etc. To me, it's always one of those weirdly gross words that sort of acts like a red flag when suits use it. "Oh yeah, our game has 'content.' Hours of it, actually." Usually, it sounds like im about to spend the next three hours doing some menial unrewarding task in exchange for a minimal amount of exuberantly inflated currency. But its become somehow this common jargon in discourse surrounding games, as if it's okay that the activities aren't dignified enough to be called out individually.

[@KlausWulfenbach]

The idea of more players equaling a better game experience makes sense in competitive multiplayer games. It makes absolutely no sense in any other context, including co-operative games and live service games where players don't actually fight each other directly. It makes less than no sense in the context of single player games.

[@TheSussiest]

I agree with most of this but cmon skyrim shouldnt be beating starfields playcount so soon. It's over ten years old while starfield is like a few months. the modding scene for skyrim is ancient and its still retiained players

[@grimdolo918]

"Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter." ~ Homer Simpson Great video. Looking forward to seeing more.

[@derantorkiarig4592]

I mean, there is validity in looking at player numbers, especially with games like Starfield. Bethesda games are known for their longevity. Todd outright said that they paid attention to designing Starfield in a way where it would still be played 10 years down the line. Of course there's always a huge drop in players, usually to 10% of the initial peak over time. But if a brand new game like Starfield, Bethesda's first big single player release since FO4 has less players than their older games, it says something about the success of the game. It means that the audience went back to playing the older games, instead of playing the new one. Sure, the modding scene plays a role, but it's not like Skyrim had a thriving modding scene right on or shortly after release, either; and after 10 years, no matter how good your mods are, a lot of people have moved on. So context matters.

[@kenmck7802]

Now a days I let youtubers, bless your hearts, SHOW ME the game before even buying. Thank goodness for helping me to avoid the disaster that is Slopfield.

[@paulszki]

I'm convinced that the majority of people with strong opinions like "the game is dead" or "haha cope sony fanboy" are just kids. A lot of the toxicity, I think, comes from younger gamers who have "only" have one gaming device to play on (e.g. they only have a switch, or they only have a playstation etc.) and there is a need to put others experiences down in order to validate what you have. -> the keyword would be Cognitive Dissoance and people's unrefined coping mechanisms. E.g. Starfield isn't as good as most people wanted it to be, including me, but a lot of those who couldn't play it in the first place seemed to be especially happy to call it Midfield etc. That doesn't mean the hate is exclusively from players that can't play it. People also incessantly hate on multiplatform games like Farcry, Call of Duty or Fifa and dance in the streets if the newest release is a "failure" or even just middling, simply because it's not their own favourite franchise and everything binary so if it's not AWESOME then it SUCKS. There is no middle ground or nuance. But I think that just comes with growing up. At over 40 and currently being a more or less active gamer who can afford basically whatever I want on whatever platform I'm really just interested in games simply being good instead of cheering with foam at the mouth, that this or that game didn't live up to expectations.

[@itsragegg]

Starfield was dogshit though, so it’s not a surprise it’s losing players.

[@Hardcrafter2807]

They said the same thing about Hogwarts Legacy. "The game is bombing a couple months after release!", no it wasn't bombing, it's just that the people who bought the game on release have probably already finished all the content the game has to offer. The same can be said for Starfield, though Starfield is rather interesting where it recommends you to play NG+ as many times as you want because things actually change after each playthrough of the game. Though to be fair, I personally haven't reached NG+ because I keep scrapping characters after a couple hours of gameplay.

[@moses6621]

I love how red dead 2 has a battlepass but the stable glitch still exists

[@SL4PSH0CK]

Even this 8min essay is longer than the latest cod campaign

[@dransnake]

This is why i mostly play indie games at this rate. They're way easier on my wallet, usually higher quality, and there's a lot of em! Single player games absolutely rule, and if the game is good enough I'll probably return eventually. Tbh the only online service type game I actually only play is Splatoon 3, and that's only $20 a year with no microtransactions. I mean, I guess you could count amiibo, but that's not really necessary to play the game. All it does is give you some neat exclusive gear.

[@97SEMTEX]

The game me and the boys are playing together atm? Bloons TD 6, Red Dead Online, Rising Storm 2 Vietnam. None of these are in the top most player ranking games. But you can bet your ass we will be on these within the week!

[@iamLI3]

hyenas isn't just allegedly sucks , volund has made several videos of his communications with ppl from the dev team going public with how shit it is

[@NgaMarsters]

Most of these games I end up playing years after they come out and all the hype has gone. (I usually can't afford games on release day). I'm also gonna follow your advice and still want to get Tarkov despite the Jab you just gave it :/

[@piemonstereater]

The Return of the King, missed these videos man, haven't gotten one recommended to me in awhile

[@stephenfwadsworth9565]

It's called churn, and it is so easy to do, for the big players. In the meantime, we the customers are the ones actually getting ripped off at every angle now. What happens when Millions, become billions, whilst everyone wants to be paid in millions or billions. I have been involved in this industry, since space invaders, just the numbers got bigger the problems the same. You are so right and saying that player numbers should not be used for Single player experiences. Sort of an Oxymoron. Like loot crates I guess, just another way to re-badge and find ways to monetise, when we the consumer have said no. Keep on voting with your wallets, but don't ever not listen to yourself. Their are properties I like, that no one else goes near.