Why Dead Games Are A Good Thing
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- It feels like every month a new game is being labeled dead. Games live and die nowadays by how relevant they can stay after launch. Which is why it’s weird that the creators of Palworld are actively encouraging players to play other games. Do they know something we don't?
🟥 100% of Patreon is gifted to up-and-coming indie studios
/ goingindie
Huge thanks to Rob for helping out with this video
pr...
🔵 Join the Going Indie Discord
/ discord
🐦 Follow me on Twitter
/ goingindieyt
📃 Research Links
Actman Palworld hype clip
• Why Is Palworld SO POP...
Asmongold Palworld dead reaction video
• Palworld GIGACHAD Devs...
Bucky from Pocketpair's Tweet
/ 1757796446739558795
"Customer Acquisition vs. Retention Costs"
www.optimove.c...
"Customer journey stages"
www.growthloop...
Peak Steam charts
steamdb.info/c...
Palworld Steam charts
steamdb.info/a...
"Larian Studios Won't Make Baldur's Gate 3 DLC, Expansions, or Baldur's Gate 4"
www.ign.com/ar...
Blizzard FOMO posts
us.forums.bliz...
us.forums.bliz...
"343 Pitched '20-30' Halo Ideas, Including New ODST Games"
gamerant.com/n...
What's your favorite "dead game"?
🟥 100% of Patreon is gifted to up-and-coming indie studios
www.patreon.com/GoingIndie
The only "Dead" games are those completely inaccessible. A falling playerbase I could describe as "fallen off".
Of course, my definition makes 'retro' games impossible to render "dead".
Dead Rising 🤷♂️
(Yes, I took it literally, but is it still dead? Yes.)
battlefield vietnam (2004)
My library is full of dead games Man. Modern games usually fell off, why should i buy from them beside a good game usually pretty optimized so i don't need upgrade my setup to much.
Dungeon Defenders (PC, 2011)
I remember some people tried to slander Elden Ring as a bad game because most of its player base dropped as after a couple of months as if it was meant to be a live service game and not a primarily single player game
it's a cookie cutter strafe roller
I remember getting Elden Ring at launch, playing it to death for a few weeks, and then leaving. Now I'm playing it again and having even more fun than before!
Even if I'm the only player left playing Elden Ring I can still enjoy it because I don't need hundreds of other players playing it at the same time.
It's like laughing at Sega because only a few people still play Sonic 2. As if that makes it a bad game.
exactly its mainly a single player experience not a PVP game. thou most games really do peak in popularity then dip.
Elden Boring
70000 people played Palworld on Steam last night - not sure if the devs would call that a failure.
They were expecting 50k AT MOST before they launched, and said that they would've been content with that.
The fact that the numbers stayed above what they considered at the time to be the highest their game would ever reach says a lot
and that while still being early access
@@Signupking HOW much games have fallen that a ALPHA has better numbers then """"FULL"""" games.
It's more than that. Remember that Steam charts numbers are CCUs - Concurrent players. The total number of players over a period (even 1 hour) is larger than the concurrent number. If they're hitting 70k CCU at peak, that's probably 200k-500k over a 'night'.
that's probably like triple what they expected
it's better to die in glory, rather than having your corpse dragged along for eternity
true
You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain
Poor Halo
@@Subject-639Wdym johns still floating in that ship as far as I’m concerned… 😂
@@munchythetf2fan Pretty much
I think a dead game should apply to online based games only as if there's no players, you cannot play the game
or if the servers are down
While that's true, I've heard people cry dead game over games that had literally thousands of concurrent players. Of course numbers like that pale in comparison to the most popular games in the world, but that's still plenty viable!
@@AZaqZaqProduction So, correction: a dead game only applies to live services like Fortnite if they suddenly lose most of their player base. Suicide Squad could be considered a dead game cause it's a live service with less than 500 players. What game with thousands of players are you talking about? Does it get major updates every month, like a battle pass? If not, then calling it a dead game is not entirely accurate.
It could also apply to games that have mandatory online connectivity as a requirement such that when the publishers or the developers pulled the plug, you cant play it anymore. Like the majority of AAA games.
You can say life support games in online like moon breaker basically
"Game is dead" -live service brainrot
The only things that are dead are Nintendo and Ps5' library 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@marikishtarNintendo is alive wdym
@@luccaassis2148 the wii and wii u shop
Genshin is only alive because its a live service game.
@@justoneweek6983Congrats on not understanding how games work. Genshin is a Gacha game. It needs to be live service for the gachs thing to work. But if the entire game was shit (unexciting story, boring characters, BS gameplay), it would be dead as well.
When I hear a game is dead I immediately think that it's no longer available to be played.
That's what it used to mean, these days it simply means the game has fewer players then it used to.
When I hear it is dead, that's when I go to buy it because it's likely on sale
@@LuisSierra42 this is the way!
People are trend chasers, they care more about being part of the crowd than having fun for themselves. Just jumping from recent game to recent game to have something to talk about with friends. It's less about the game for them and more about the social aspect.
I consider a dead game to be something that no one cares about anymore, and even the company that made the game doesn't even have interest in making sequels. not something no one plays anymore. I'm a huge fan of Ratchet & Clank, but I haven't touched a game in years. does that mean the franchise is dead? no, I would actually be pretty upset in all future installments were cancelled. I just play whenever I'm in the mood. but I'm not in the mood right now.
Heck, Bionicle has been cancelled for years, but still has a huge following that makes indie games and animated videos. same with Dino Crisis. there was an indie game a few years ago that had a lot of excited fans and some dev teams even take some inspiration from it when they are making a dinosaur game. heck, Capcom themselves teased fans with ExoPrimal, tricking people into thinking they were making a new DC game.
I would give examples to what I consider to be dead games, but then again, I can't even remember their names. but... I think *is* the example. if you can't even remember the name of that game and know it never got a sequel or even good reviews, that is what I consider a dead game. abandoned by both customers and its own creators. but, this is all just my opinion.
When it comes to single player games, I've always found the term "dead game" strange. Like what do you mean by "dead game"? I can open it whenever I want and play it. As far as multiplayer games go, I get it. Because if I'm the only one who decides to open it and play it. Then playing doesn't really work.
Maybe they count as "dead" if they were never "live" to begin with? Weird term, not how I'd phrase it but makes a tiny semantic sense upon further thought.
Yeah with multiplayer games, if your playerbase has declined so much that you can't even fill lobbies, that's an existential problem.
@@aquapendulum not really, it's no better than contemplating your own naval
i only consider a single player game dead when its last update was a year ago. the questions is well is thing still worth playing?
I consider single player games as "dead" only if DLC/updates/servers are impossible to use.
How to enjoy games
1: Don't blindly jump into the bandwagon of popular games/opinions about them, consider what you want to play.
2: Don't always rush playing new titles. Usually taking it a bit slower will make you have more fun with the game longer. Also, don't google everything about the game beforehand.
3: Give different games a chance. Try to avoid swiping games away after just a few minutes, let the game show what it has to offer, unless you know it doesn't have much more to offer.
I don't get rushing into new titles. I usually wait a year after release since pretty much every AAA game has a GOTY edition. That, and the fact that I have 200+ games in my backlog means I don't even notice when a new game comes out.
@@eneco3965 I think rushing games is mainly a thing among MMO players. People who rush games think of it like a puzzle to be solved, how to get to A to B the fastest, and they likely do it to compete with other players to be the first. MMos with player-driven economies, you're even given an in-game advantage for being the first. The more scarce a resource is, the more valuable they are, so if you can be the first to uncover an item, or farm for an item more efficiently than others, you can potentially profit off it greatly. Once you have a surplus of gold, you may even be able to turn your gold into even more gold and live out the fantasy of being in the elite class ruling over the commoners.
@@w1mark275 Asmongold is now a millionaire and a successful CZcamsr doing the above and trading in game, he got the 'golden ticket' hahahahaha
Games as Service (GAS), Live Service Games (LSG), 1) Dangle the carrot for minimal reward, 2) Convince you you're on a journey, but really you're on a treadmill with no real destination, 3) The better the GAS, LSG the more of a "Gilded Cage" you're in, you're actually a prisoner, but you think you're free and on a journey, but in reality you're in a workhouse on a treadmill. 4) GAS and LSGs are very similar to Plato's Cave, when you're on the inside you think that it's all good, the greatest thing since Deus Ex (lol), but really you're trapped in an illusion, when you get out and touch grass, play other games, go for a walk with a friend, paint your house, clean your house (lol), cook good food, and then you go back and tell those that are still stuck in the GAS/LSG you played with that they're really in an illusory nightmare, they will turn all toxic on you, they don't want to hear that "game bad" life outside of game good.
5) I saw in Asmon's reaction to this video something interesting, he put Plato's Cave in a simple diagram and I call it 'Asmon's Box Theory of FOMO,' it explains how FOMO traps you in a game, but also if you leave the game, then how FOMO also makes it hard to get back into the game, looking at you Destiny 2. How does it make it hard to get back in to the game? Well, you know you have missed out on a lot of stuff and others in the game have well and truly progressed beyond where you're at, so you know the grind to get to where they are now is going to be daunting, so you decide not to play the game. lol.
Anyway, these are my rough thought on it all. Plus, I see a major problem with GAS/LSG games going forward as more people leave them, touch grass, feel the wind in their hair and wake up to how these games are full of traps the devs are maliciously laying for you to stay in the game.
Also give the game 1-2 years of Grace period before bashing them,
because you're biased toward change or different stuff, but your stance will soften over time,
i'm tired of seeing good game being misunderstood and bashed to the bone by some "walmart Gordon Ramsay of gaming" ,
only for it to become one of the best game ever created 10 years from now, because some people suddenly able to appreciate the hidden gem
but those companies that got persecuted for no reason, they have to face permanent bankrupcy or discontinue their IP,
for being passionate about their creation.
for gaming bros out there, just shut up dude, let people enjoy their game, let them decide for themself whether they like it or not.
It reminds me of the whole "Two Week Minecraft Phase" thing... People act as if only playing a game for a few weeks before playing something else is a bad thing. You aren't _supposed_ to play the same game for months on end!
Some people have 'Their Game', the main game they always play (usually a live service game or multiplayer game or a functionally singleplayer game with a leaderboard). Some people also end up not having much time to play, and so it looks like they are sticking to the same game for longer when, in regard to in-game playtime, they aren't.
But yeah, it is good to be reminded that short sprints are totally fine. Both in that it's the average way to play and also in that it's up to you how you want to play.
That didn't stop us during the pandemic with Doom and Animal Crossing lol
Playing for a few weeks isn’t bad but saying playing for longer isn’t how you are “supposed” to play is also wrong.
There isn’t anything bad with either way that’s not what the Palworld devs were getting at.
@@SoggySoup My point was that its good to have some variety in the games you play.
i agree but osu hits too hard sorry
I find it stupid when people say games are "dead" and discourage people from playing them because of that. It does not matter if the game doesn't get dev support or if people dont play it much anymore. If you can play it and have still have fun with friends or by yourself then play it and dont let anyone discourage you from playing it because its "dead"
I still play games I would class as “Dead”
The exception is when game has queue system. If you're sitting in a queue for 15 minutes for an unranked match, then you aren't really playing.
To be fair, sometimes it's early access games that basically never got finished on their "release".
That's where "dead" would be applicable.
yaa. the only games that can truly die are live service that get shut down and made unplayable. anything else is alive as long as someone cares about playing it. i regularly hop around between 3-5 multiple games that i like replaying
I know, a game that launches with a million players only to have tens of thousands 3 months later shouldn’t be considered “dead”, we should collectively start using a new term like “Filtered” or say the game has a dedicated fan base
We should call big blockbuster movies that people aren't watching en mass anymore as dead movies.
Peter Jacksons Lord of the Rings trilogy. Dead movies. No one going to the cinema to watch them anymore, dead, yeah, big failure.
Thanks God.
Even at the release of the movie Oppenheimer was dead.
Everyone sometimes forgets that you can play Palworld without the internet and that a real game should be like that. Almost all games nowadays require an internet connection even though it's single-player gameplay. Also, I really support the way Developer Palworld explained to their player that we should not stay for only one Palword, there are a lot of games we can have fun with, and we don't need to force ourselves to wait for the updates. It's just incredible to me when I compare it to modern games nowadays when they captive players to stay with them aka "Live Service"
This ^
Back then, like really ancient time, games can be played as offline single player but by using LAN connection it can be played multiplayer mode. No need internet connection or to be live service but could be played multiplayer if people wants it.
@@ReigoVassal Also a bit later, even if games had to be played online, people could run their own servers. So, 25 years later, you can still find active servers. Or boot one up and play with your friends.
@@ReigoVassal I think it was Diablo 3 that has started this trend of "Online-only even in single player". At the time I has been sure that was because of piracy, but now I see how it was clearly the first buds of the modern live service model.
Most SP games do not require an online connection. Just the ones you've been looking at; there are other spheres of gaming where this is not the norm. But you're right that almost every -major- publisher has gone that way.
what still amazes me is that left for dead 2 still has a consistent 30k players on steam. amazing for how old that game is. and of course this is similar for other games as well
because its a fun experience in general. its simple to play the formula is simple u can give it to anyone and they could learn how to play it quick. plus not to mention mod and the PVP is also simple in fun. in Most games that have long life spans there is always something in common cheap, simple mechanics, easy to run, and Players are rewarded based on their skill and performance. This meritocratic system ensures that players feel a sense of accomplishment as they improve. The competitive nature of the game, with ranked matches and global tournaments, adds an extra layer of motivation for players to hone their skills. The game's team-based nature encourages communication and teamwork. Many players form long-term friendships and teams, which enhances the social experience and makes the game more enjoyable.
TLDR: Its affordable to play and easy mechanics but high skill ceiling with different experience per rounds/games
@@jmgonzales7701 Also mods and a casual, friendly community.
@@jmgonzales7701oddly enough L4D2 is one of the games I truly don't like, even when I wish I did.
But I am glad people enjoy it and I'm glad the game is still kicking, seems like people have a blast playing it and that's the point of it
I loved left for dead until the race faster than zombies spawn meta happened.
amazing how l4d2 also outlived payday 2 that now has 15-23k players
"Palword is dead!"
Since when is that game a live service? The only games that can "die" are those that you can't play anymore (the crew).
But you see if it dose not have battle pas and pvp its dead acordung to many.
It is an early access game and regularly updated like a live service until it's finished so I could see someone seeing Palworld as a live service mistakenly even if it is designed as a regular survival full game.
The devs literally said that it’s okay to play something else when you had your fun with Palworld and they hoped to see us again come round 2.
the crew is being restored to it's glory by the fans! One of the devs of the offline patch has posted a video and they have their own discord.
@@piens51I’m probably misunderstanding something. Are you talking about Palworld? Only PvP it has is a new feature that requires everyone to be playing in the same world.
The mentality brought to our industry via GaaS has been terrible. As a primarily singleplayer-focused gamer, it feels like the vast majority of publisher budgets are going towards multiplayer treadmill games and live service slop. You could have made a few really great singleplayer games with the budget that went into just one of the many live service flops we've seen, such as Suicide Squad or Concord. Thankfully the indie scene is still filled with devs making singleplayer experiences and I'll always have great games to play.
The funny part is that publishers must also understand that most of newly released GaaS are doomed from start, because most of their potential target auditory is already locked in by some older GaaS.
@@Whatever100500
Very true. It's the "WoW killer" phenomenon all over again. Back in the day everybody wanted to be the next WoW, but you just can't beat an entrenched giant like that. Now everybody wants to be the next Fortnite, and we see the same result: flop after flop, already outdated on launch day.
Tomorrow's successes won't just be retreads of what is already popular, they'll be something new.
Game of thrones game with nemesis system
Justice league game with nemesis system
Here's few ideas that could have been great, but WB gave us SSKTJL
tbf youre not the target demographic. im looking for something i can play with my friends. so far its valorant. marvel rivals might be another one. single player is easy. endless library of games there. online multiplayer? its still a search. we still looking for something that will be what dragon quest was to my single player library.
@@johnmarkson1998have you tried Deep Rock Galactic?
The moment you hear someone say that a game with tens of thousands of daily players is dead you know the kind of crippling brainrot they suffer from.
It's honestly annoying at this point
a game isn't dead until it only has like 30~ players (assuming online game only) IMO, what playercount do you think a game has to have to die?
@@obsidianflight8065 to the point where it's nearly impossible to find a match.
So yeah, even 10k is not close to death
AAA studios are making the same mistake Anakin made. By trying to force games to stay alive they are killing the spirit and soul of gaming.
@@obsidianflight8065 It's literally not dead until it has 0 players. Even then players can still come back as long as servers stay up.
@@cattysplat in some aspect, yes. A game isn't actually dead until the servers are shut down. But having 30 players of stagnant water to face off against doesn't sound much better, no new player is going to survive and even the ones that *could* make it in that type of environment would probably be better off finding a different game to play.
I actually used to play a game that is now dead, servers closed and everything which is very unfortunate, so I guess the situation I described above is more of a "requires life support" than dead.
Palworld still has 30k players at average. For a single player game that's not bad. Of course the 2 million it had weren't going to stay.
Doesn't include Game Pass on PC and console.
Dead games are 99.99% of what I play. I love dead games!
Same, publishers probably don't like that
@@kusog3 Yeah, publishers aren't happy about Zombies.
We should only apply the term "dying" to live service games. Because if it's a live service then it needs to keep the thing going with steady growth or at least by maintaining player counts. If it's a single player game, then it doesn't matter how many other people are playing it. Pal World for all intents and purposes is a single player game. It has online, but that's not it's primary way to play. The primary way most people play is single player. Maybe with some buddies, but in a private game with only up to four players. Servers are not the primary way people play Pal World.
It makes no sense to say it is dead, because it doesn't require a huge numbers of players to be enjoyed. Unlike say, World of Warcraft that absolutely does need a player base of at least a certain size to actually be enjoyed by the individual.
So true. Sick of people overusing the term 'dead game' - for a single player game, you will get the same experience regardless of its popularity.
Granted, I think people want to complain about palworld being a "Dead game" because we all had such high hopes that Palworld would be the game that would force Game Freak to put effort into the gen 10 games, and that it would end up being in the public consciousness long enough to seriously put a dent into Game Freak's market share and, again, force their hands.
But with the hype around palworld dying down so much, it seems to many that GF will just sweep its existence under the rug and continue their current course of not giving a shit because they'll sell like hotcakes regardless of how broken the games are.
@@aquamarinerose5405 They got a decent bump from the Sakurajima update. I'm thinking they'll do some smaller updates, there probably have one or two more major ones before they launch. And that's just how it will be for them, They do a big update, get a decent bump, then fall off again. Once they fully release, they'll get a final bump.
But even with live service games, just games in general lose somewhere between like 75% and 95% of their player base within two months. That's just the reality of it unless your name is Fortnite or League of Legends or World of Warcraft.
I think the most annoying version of when people say a game is dead is when it hits a stupidly high peak and can't maintain that. The Asmondgold clip (who doesn't think before he speaks) talking about Palword losing 2/3rds of it's player base yet that is still a very sizable player base that other games would be very happy to have (this exact thing happens anytime Fortnite goes down in players yet their low is still a million).
To be fair... Zack is a streamer and more like a parrot that has learned how to respond in a way that most people in chat agree. For the "average gamer" that plays online low playernumbers mean that the game is going down. Me? I didnt even play Palworld with others, because I played solo on the gameboy and i dont see why i should play with more people.... so I dont even understand the logic behind "Palworld is dead" because for me it's a singleplayer game anyway.
@@DreaMeRHoLic Well that only makes him worse if anything
@@xyphoon5013 yea, but hey it makes people talk about him, keeps him in relevancy which for what he does for living is quite good.
Doesn't Asmon usually use overexaggerated words for comical or sarcrastic effect?
Asmon clearly said it in a sarcastic way, what's wrong with you
Pocketpair is kind of COOL not gonna lie... They make an insanely popular "Pokemon ripoff" that pushes the limits of copyright restrictions, say that they just want to make fun games (which for some reason isn't the industry standard), and then when people say Palworld is dying they just shrug it off and say "go play other games." These guys are LEGENDS!
Agreed. This is the attitude that game devs used to have, and it's what made the industry great to begin with. Now almost everything is run by businessmen, and while you do need to know how to sell your game, a lot of the soul bleeds out of game design when it's being done by someone who doesn't put making good, enjoyable games as priority #1.
Palword were once called a pokemon rip off tho
Consumer habits have changed. We have similar consumer habits in the music industry. Artists now put out more singles than full albums.
And in the television/movie industry, many works are just pointless remakes or side character spinoffs; studios constantly trying to capitalize off of viewers familiarity with previous well known titles rather than trying something new.
"Oh no! There's only 10 thousand players instead of 50 thousand! DEAD GAME!"
Ye imagine u play a game which requires to play with others and then only have 1/5 of the players it is indeed dead
I'll never understand when people call mostly singleplayer games like Palworld dead
They don't really. Its more the braindead people who use terminology wrong. What they mean is "i no longer play this game right now" and shorten it to "dead" coz they are mentally deficient. I know the second Palworld adds more stuff or releases my friends and i will be playing the crap out of it again.
With hell divers in particular i really hate people calling it dead because when the game launched if i remember correctly they estmated getting around 20-30k players
And after losing 90% of players they are at that 20-30k mark on average today
Their low point is around what they thought their high point was going to be
I might change my tune if they drop under 10k but still as it stands now most live service devs would go nuts for 20k players
A big studio like WB couldn't get their game with cost 100-200 million a higher playerbase of 20k. Their peak was 12k or so I think.
Sony's new live service game peak count is 1200 😂
Not even daily count, it's the peak ever
Well playerbase would probably be higher if sony didn't self sabotage themself.
Sometimes I still see 80k max on weekends, been happing less and less tho.
The devs expected about 50k players on launch mostly because only 7k played the first game.
Kinda annoying how people are over exaggerating Helldivers 2 current low player count despite almost every live service game being able to experience that.
i think most of the "helldivers 2 is dead" comes from the fact that they fucked it up with their balance patches making it continously less fun
For me as a player, the only reason when high player numbers would be necessary, is when them game is multiplayer and grouping up with other people is required for gameplay. I could go play League on Thursday night 3AM and the queue will find me somebody in 2 minutes, compare it with game that have 7min queues during day, or they (not so) secretly put bots into supposed pvp matches.
If the game doesn't have some queue or grouping system, then the the huge graph drop in player numbers is just no biggie.
dying vs hybernation
This.....
This speech is what everyone must change their mentality to!
👍🏆
I think Pocketpair was actually glad when people dropped off, they were in a real panic mode and their intern had one hell of a time trying to keep the servers up for 2 million people. I bet it costs more to mantain a huge playerbase over time than to make it huge initially and then mantain much lower but still respectable playerbase as I bet those servers are expensive to run.
With the game just being a one-time purchase and server costs being ongoing, bad retention is the most profitable thing that could happen to the studio.
Like games like Starbound, Valheim or Ark. If you're going to be playing multiplayer with friends or groups it's best to have a dedicated server. Which Palworld supports.
@erikafurudo9960 Insert battlepass, cosmetics shop etc
It's like 20 years later and I am still 'discovering' my old games like Harvest Moon, Rune Factory, and Advance Wars on the GBA.
By most definition, I'm sure they are all dead. But as long as I can still keep a copy and open it to play whenever I want, they are not dead at all.
In contrast, games that are singleplayer but somehow require a constant wifi connection and an account (along with the risk of exposing my data) and has meagre daily rewards (plus 1 bigger at the end of the month or something) are all super dead to me.
In my opinion Palworld is no where near to dead aswell, just because a game isent anyone close to its peak doesent mean its dead, it has a consistant and good sized fanbase which is all a game needs. and I also think long term updates arent a bad thing when done well. excluding MMOs like OsRs and WoW, I think the best example of a game getting long term updates is ark:SE (no not stupid ass Ark:SA) the reason why is because the content was meaningful, even if it wasent a new story island, it was still important, usally bringing new and amazing dinos to the game.
Granted, I... As I've said in a few threads, I think that people are so upset about Palworld because they wanted it to be the Pokemon Killer that forces Game Freak to step up their games or die. But as it fades into the relative background going from 2 and a half million players down to just 70k, we see that no, it is NOT going to become the kind of household name that it would need to be in order to seriously threaten Pokemon's market share.
My favorite dead game is Redout. It is a single player racing game never has more than 5 players online unless the community manages to organize an online multiplayer tournament
Game is never dead, just hibernate. I still have a bunch of “dead” games from 00s that I sometimes replay when nothing new I want to play.
Unless it's a live service game reliant on a central server like Darkspore or The Crew, then the publisher can just pull the plug on it whenever and leave you with no more game.
@@limetime9045 Man, I remember playing darkspore. Barely, but still. It was way more fun than spore, damn shame what happened to it.
There is a simple fact that is very obvious but most players and media outlets refuse to acknowledge:
*_The only objective metric for success in a non-F2P game is sales numbers._*
Once a company has your money, it doesn't really matter if you play the game for 1 hour or 1,000 hours.
Money earned from microtransactions in non-F2P games is just an addition, not the main source of revenue.
I dunno why a game being "dead" is all of a sudden an "issue", this has always happened, back on the SNES people weren't playing Super Metroid every single day and not playing something else, you'd play different games. Times haven't changed. It is a good thing because it means people are going off to buy another game so that company gets some success so they can live another day and put out another game after.
Live service games are really the only games where being "dead" is bad, because it's whole point of existence is to keep you in it and so you don't go and spend your money on the competition.
And it's lame as hell. It stagnates the medium, holds devs hostage, and most games are frankly better the old fashioned way. MMOs are the only genre I can think of where that model makes sense, because it's a necessity for server maintenance. And MMOs are also the most expensive and risky genre for a dev to actually make as a direct result.
In the old days you literally couldn't play old games. They would go out of print and they wouldn't make more. Everyone would tell you to just buy the sequel. Then they brought out best sellers and platinum hits reprints for discounted price and that changed everything. Now we have digital that stays around mostly forever.
people are sheep always trying to be in the herd. Thats where this "dead game" mentality comes from.
As a fighting game player, my definition of "dead" has stretched so much that its literally when 0 people are playing it.
I think a good metaphor for this is with flowers.
Real flowers are valuable because you know they’ll die, while fake flowers are less valuable because you know they’ll never die.
The fact that something won’t exist forever, is what makes things valuable.
WTF is dying game? Palworld is an open world game that happens to have multiplayer, sometimes people just have goals they want to achieve and then be one and gone. Some wants to wait for more updates because they speedran the game and got to endgame content, some still play because they wanna hang out with friends and find something fun to do, of course players will drop
It feels... absolutely insane that I have to cheer for a video that "finally" echoes thoughts that once were just the default/standard expectation... but here we are. I really hope things can return to the way they were. Live service gaming has absolutely wreaked havoc on the entire games industry and DESTROYED players' relationships with games.
It's crazy that such a video has to exist. It's basically a video telling you that water is wet, but for some reason people nowadays don't believe it
Hello stranger, it's because we're in 2024, where the lunacy has reached its peak.
"dead" should only be applied in games where the multiplayer is the core of the gameplay. If you try to play an old battlefield or call of duty, you will struggle to find a lobby because the people that play these games are playing the newer versions.
But for a game that is single player with multiplayer functionalities, like PalWorld or Dark Souls, it doesn't matter if there are less players because you can still play it well. These games will have a big launch and two weeks later the playerbase drops under half because those are the people that get the dopamine rush and now need something new
Even most of those multiplayer games are only like that because online is the ONLY way to play them. They'd still be perfectly playable if they had a split screen mode. If you go back to an old enough CoD or Battlefield, you can just get a few friends in the same room to play it on one tv, and it won't matter what everyone else is playing
uhm achkshually, the issue with dead games nowadays is that theyre dead forever due to the "always online" BS that the big corpos mentioned in the video are pushing. battle front 2, wind waker, etc. were games that once you moved on, you could always come back and play them. in contrast, if the devs moved on from, say helldivers 2, and pull the plug on the servers, that game is dead FOREVER. that is why a game being dead is a bad thing nowadays
I beat the game and moved on. "Game is dead" is a term used by people who only play multiplayer live service garbage for 1000 hours and hate most of the time they spend playing it. They always complain about every update because it can't bring back the feeling they had when they first started playing.
So true
Rule zero: have fun
Interesting, but this concept is out of control too. I found people saying the (not so large) game "MarZ" is dead. Well, it is not dead, it is a game with start, middle and end. People did not realise that, they are telling the game is dead because it was finished and did not receive extra content.
I only care if a game is "dead" if it's multiplayer, otherwise I don't care about player count or updates as long as its fun and has enough existing content.
I don’t even like Palworld but I gotta respect that mindset from the devs
Pocketpair's goal is just to make the most fun game imaginable. I respect that so much.
Palworld?
It's not fair to compare to "The Finals" as a bad AAA game or live service game. Remember Embark is still a small company ( the same people who made Battlefield back then ), and well sure is there a game publisher is it AAA Studio and their game is live service.
The Finals is still a struggling game that just released a year ago, that had over 1 million people, the game lost over like 80% of its player base.
Despite all that Embark kind of acts like an indie gamd developer, even though they're publisher is a AAA studio in The Game of Life service.
if gta 6 dont have 500M players on release its dead
If everyone in the world isn't playing gta6, Its a dead game
@@mr_ceiling7231 its definitely gonna break the steam market
If people from both the past AND future aren't playing gta 6 at every point in time it's dead
Ppl like asmongold and others say how palworld is dead are stuck with that online live service brainrot
I play Palworld when I feel like grinding. I have this same mentality with Pokemon, Minecraft, Animal Crossing, etc. The feeling of grinding comes and goes
that's my attitude towards MMOs too
The game is still early access. Many people(like me) probably left in order to return when the game was more fleshed out
that's another trend that scares me. " early access" they cash out and leave the game unfinished. Still waiting to see if Enshrouded will ever see it's full release, because ok, is nice to have new furniture with updates, but the story is just left there hanging, the combat system still awfully unbalanced, the map is HUGE, but is empty, traversial still a huge PITA... You get the idea.
Live service is not games, it's a service.
A game is like a book, you read it and you put it down. Maybe someday in the future you dust it off and read it again.
Gamers forgot what games are.
Larian doesn't want to work on Baldurs Gate anymore because of Wizards of the coast and how they behave
What’s funny to me is how people complain that they don’t like playing the same thing over and over and would rather play something new, and when something does do that they just play it for a bit leave and call it dead even though it has a player base actively fettering companies from making different games.
Everything must come to an end
Momento mori, Unnus Annus
back in my day, "2007-2016" games falling off was just a natural thing, it's VERY rare for a game to keep a similar player count for more than a couple years let alone a whole decade
I still play games labeled "dead game" like:
NFS Heat & Rivals
Yu-Gi-Oh! Legacy of the duelist
DBZ Burst Limit, Xenoverse 2 & Kakarot
Assassin's Creed Origins & III
& Finally my guilty pleasure classic games: ATV off-road fury 2 & MX Unleashed
✨
I have my own cult classic, but the timeframe is getting thinner year on year...
We got spectacular indie releases that is close to our favorite genre, but it's almost impossible to play them without rewiring our brain over & over.
I played Outer Wilds, Cocoon, Subnautica at a cost of not being able to replay "dead game" such as BotW, Dishonored, Deep Rock Galactic.
you literally will live in the past fantasy, or chasing the trend...
@@nickochioneantony9288 "Rewiring your brain", do you have to re-learn every new game you play? Most people I know just...memorize that shit. Can play any number of different games effectively whenever they want
@@izzyj.1079 okay, so I play God of War 2018 again before finally can play ragnarok in September later... I gotta say, all the movement is so stiff, I get rekt even by brutes. I had to rewire my brain to the movement I know before.
Or Skyrim, I go to Blackreach, but get overwhelmed, so I stopped playing for 2 weeks, later I found I got no idea how I get immersed in that place and just want to get out, a bummer really.
Don't even get me start about doing Tekken combo, had to put my brain to concentrate mode just to get that 52 damage combo that I can do flawlessly a week before.
I don't know if you're a savant or something, but not all people can memorize that shit on the first go without hitting some kind of discomfort.
@@nickochioneantony9288 Not the first time, but its kinda like a bike. Once I know how to play a game, any game, I never forget. Maybe I get a bit rusty after long enough, but it takes me very little time to get back into it
@@izzyj.1079 yes, exactly as you said, just like riding a bike... you know forever once you get the grip of it. But often time when you don't ride it, you will flinch left & right as you ride the bike. That cause some kind of discomfort.
And what I mean by "discomfort" in the context of gaming, is when you have to re-remember (rewire) how to get the grip efficiently, and that takes quite an effort.
That's also why people appreciate cozy & simple game like Stardew Valley or A Short Hike, they don't have to rewire their brain after being exhausted of playing a completely different genre such as Doom. Or people who religiously only play Sport or Racing games because they can't be asked to play another genre even if it only takes 4 buttons and a movement analog to play it, shits just doesn't worth the brain fatique.
As an achievement hunter, playing a game, 100%'ing it and moving on is part of this endless cycle. Does it mean that I hate the game or that it's dead? no. Just means that I completed it, got my money's worth and fun in it and I move on.
So people who bought every new FIFA game each year was being healthy?
I didn't want to give Palworld a chance at first, but after my boyfriend convinced me, it is genuinely one of my favorite games ever. It holds a very special place in my heart and means so much more to me than any live service game, and is genuinely one of my most favorite games ever. I play whenever I can!
Ultimately it is a problem with a kind of herd mentality that some have now a days, that they need outside confirmation before they think they can enjoy themselves. "What only four other people are playing that game then I can't like that game", instead forming their own opinion on the matter.
Fun fact, every classic game is a dead game.
The problem is, everyone's trying to be the next Apex or Fortnite, so they put insane amounts of money into these games and try to make them as grand as humanly possible. Everyone is trying to make a one-fits-all forever game with no sequels (aside from CoD). This is why when they fail, their death is a huge deal and people talk about it for weeks.
It's impossible for every multiplayer title to last years and garner a playerbase of 100 million people. They should start making these games smaller in scope and expect a much smaller playerbase in the long run.
I don't know it's live service games that always make me feel like they are not worth my time. Especially since the The Crew thing. I pour bucket loads of money and time in a game and when it becomes unpopular the publisher pulls the plug and it's nothing. When Counter Strike went F2P I lost all interest and went back to play CS:S instead. I have a shelf just right from me at an arms length full of games, roughly 200, that are mostly 15-30 years old. I can play them any time I want, it doesn't matter if my internet is down.
Live serveice games tries to take advantage of your FOMO thus you have to grind or invest on it too much that it ends up becoming similar to work/chore. What live service games managed to lost is respecting your time, and those type of games aim to grind not to relax.
Yeah, FOMO is a big thing for a lot of them. It's what drives me away whenever I get an interest in a MP game, look under the surface and find out that I don't really want to play it.
Something to add about live service games: not all of them, but a good amount of them (or at least the big ones) have a competitive element in them, and you can spend time getting better at them. The "simple to learn, hard to master" element.
"Games are meant to be like paintings, taking a long time to create, only to be glanced at and stored on shelves for ages to come. Some are lucky enough to fit in a gallery, but that's just it."
🤷
9:55 Gave me a warm feeling inside. Love to see this mentality in a studio
This is only really an issue for multiplayer-centric games like Battlefield and COD franchises. If you need 64 people to fill a server and get a really huge map feeling not depressingly empty then it's a really big problem if you only have 200 concurrent players. Games where you can have a great single player experience why would anyone care if you're the only one playing at the time?
An example of a game where being "dead" didn't stop it is a house of many doors. After release there was the usual drop off and dev support ended quickly because the dev broke himself making it. Several year later there is discord with hundreds of members and fairly regular posts and a huge damn close to official mod that added dozens of more hours to the game and several updates to the base game and a slow steam of new sales.
I want to make my own indie game, and I do want a little bit of live service formula, but I absolutely DON'T want to just have a crap live service game.
Like, every game will have a dip in popularity, a "death", per say, but I would want to try to keep my game around, not in the case of Fortnite trying to cram a new season every 3 months and refresh the whole game every year, but I want to be able to regularly add some stuff and change stuff, not relying on FOMO for anything. Almost like Overwatch 1, where there was little-no Fomo, the game was updated, but not vomit-inducingly quick that it feels like speeding in a Ferrari on the Autobahn.
I really hope I don't sound like a madman and have some logic to me. This video did really make me think about if my ideas were really gonna stick or not.
most games to some extent were live service, constant updates.
Overwatch 1 having little to no FOMO. Did we play the same game? The one that, aside from the default line-up on new heroes, basically only ever released new cosmetics in limited-time seasonal lootboxes, even when they weren't actually holiday skins?
played palworld when it came out, played the game for a month, captured every pal and unlocked everything else that I could and then left. I don't want to keep coming back every small update and burn myself out. I'm just waiting for it to come out of early access before coming back.
Remember when we used to get a full game for one price… play it for 10-30 hours and then be happy with the experience. a full narrative story.
i remember the days when games were 40-60 hours worth of content ( hidden maps, hidden storylines, etc). Now you pay 70$ for 10-30 hours gameplay. Let this sink.
Games are never truly dead. They live on as inspiration for future generations and an experience to be remembered long after it’s “death”.
People also throw dead around way too easily these days. To me a dead game is a game that isn't finished that is no longer getting updates, or a multiplayer game with excessively long wait times. Single player games in a finished state don't really die, they just become completed.
The devs of Palworld are just gamers at heart. The game was made by gamers for gamers. And that’s the best thing you could ever ask for.
"Live service" is a dead game. Finished product never dies. You can pick up the disc that was sitting on your shelf for twenty years, put it in and play = it's not dead. Corporation decides when you can't access the game anymore = it's dead.
Also for me personally "game as service" is dead as a concept, because I got fed up with it and not touching it again anymore.
I dunno who expected Palsworld to be constant millions of players... Of course it's peak. It's stable population which counts.
In my personal definition the game is *'dead'* when the majority of people stop playing it, the game is *'finished'* when the development cycle is concluded and the game is *'abandoned'* when development is dropped before its conclusion. The professional scene is completely irrelevant for the average casual player.
When the game is niche (Automation games, Coop PvE, etc) with online gameplay loops the community wishes for and strives to enhance the ammount of new players comming in to their "dead" games. They support newcomers by teaching tricks and strategies to enhance their experience so they may stay and integrate themselves as part of the community.
When the game is mainstream (Moba, Competitive FPS, MMO, etc) with online gameplay loops the community is toxic af and despises newcomers who show up uninformed and inexperienced in their matches. They behave agressively turning down, shunning and shaming new players in order to push them away from the game.
In the end playing a 'dead game' ends up being much better than most ppl may think, since there is a smaller community for those games the average player ends ends up being nicer, when playing in low effort mode its best to enter later in a games life cycle to avoid the extreme toxicity of mainstream audience, to have every meta strategy, most efficient critical pathing, all hidden secrets figured out and posted online or just to enjoy mods built after development cycle have been concluded. There are several ups to playing a dead game.
Tbh thats the ideal. Playing a "finished game" like Lol, dota, Cs, tf2 etc or games that in general have very long life span but have a solid cult like community that plays it forever. I prefer that than live service games that pumps out update after update inflating the storage space and being stuck in development hell. There is a reason why those old "finished games have solid player base without new updates because it relies on its cult community and replability to keep itself alive.
Also its the reason most of the games i play is still the games of old. Left 4 dead 2, Half life, csgo etc because the player base arent going away.
Dead game to me is a game that depends on populated lobbys and enough people in the lobby for everyone to achieve the objectives. Un doable as a starter in gta online, battlefield 1 (used to be a glorious game but now half the team wait in the r3spawn screen) mgs online(no one plays on line but single player obviously still functions well and is %80 of the content.
i honestly completely forgot palworld
Booted it up last week and was thrilled to hug my little birthday candle girl again (flamebelle). I was also thrilled to see Max level is now 55. Now I have new things to earn
That's what every brain rotted twittering clown say.
Dementia
True. Concord went from 697 players to 140 in just 3 days.
It is actually impressive how a AAA 8 year 100 million dollar game goes from such atrocious numbers, to even more pitiful number during its launch window.
And there sun wukong
One mistake here. SAAS don't focus getting majority of market that never works. SAAS focus on retention and growth and vertical pay.
Getting 90% of market is never intention of the Investor nor the company. It's misleading
What is SaaS supposed to stand for?
Software as a Service
@@dsshocktrooper7523 SaaS means SoftwareAsService
Yep. In fact losing customers and attracting new ones isn't that important, if you can increase the earnings from those who stay. Whaling anyone?
I think another factor is that games in general have become less profitable than they used to, so updating games instead of making new ones is the most cost effective way to stay afloat. However, as the rainforest and savanna have the same amount of net nutrients and energy but maintain different ecosystems, the gaming industry may be maintained entirely as undying games only, or as making games that have a short life. Short life games result in people buying multiple $40+ dollar games a year, and undying games result in people spending the same amount on a smaller selection of games.
Wait until Palworld add seggs update and the player count will rise again.
There is no law against Pal Batman
This is a huge issue in fighting games where almost everyone hops to the new ones, which cost a lot, are missing characters, charge you for DLC, etc. For me the most appealing time to get into a fighting game is when you can get it with all its DLC for like $10, now when you have to pay over $100 to get the full game. Another advantage to waiting years to play a game is that games with DRM will often remove it after a few years. Soulcalibur VI had Denuvo when it came out but no longer does, so you can avoid getting it until the DRM is gone, and save money at the same time. The only issue is that these are practically multiplayer-only games with little to no singleplayer stuff. Some fighting games have a story or arcade mode, but the bulk of the game is gonna be fighting your friends or strangers. The most common thing you'll do by yourself is lab in training mode, most likely.
It's especially sad because we're entering what feels like a new golden era of fighting games at the same time, where a bunch of them finally have rollback netcode, making them actually fun to play at home so you don't need to go to locals or big tournaments to have a proper match. BlazBlue Centralfiction regularly goes on sale for $10, only has one paid DLC character which will go on sale for like $2, and it had rollback netcode added to it in 2022 (it released in 2017). Mechanically and financially this feels like the best bang for your buck you can get from a fighting game now. However if you look at steam-charts there are under 300 people playing on any given day, and if you try to play online, people will refuse to play you or refuse to rematch, on top of being ridiculously good, so the best strategy is to convince your friends to play with you. Easier said than done...
As you touched on with developers cutting support for a game, this is particularly bad if they push a bad update and leave things in a bad state. This happened recently with Them's Fightin' Herds. The company is running out of money and already said they won't be able to finish the singleplayer and a lot of other stuff they had initially promised to add, but to make matters worse they rush out some DLC characters and break a bunch of things and leave the game in an unbalanced state, honestly worse than before. In some cases a loyal community can mod a game into working well again. I recently ran into this with Eternal Fighter Zero, an old Japanese doujin fighter that came out in 2000 for Windows. The community has patched it with translations and improved netplay, and have a wiki and IRC channel for finding matches. I've also seen a similar situation with Melty Blood, not Type Lumina, but Actress Again Current Code. There's a community website and mods and stuff to improve netplay and documentation on learning the game, keeping it alive even as newer games even in the same series have come out. This can't and won't happen for every game, there are only so many people skilled and passionate enough that would bother, so chances are Herds will not be saved.
If a game reaches a proper finished state, I think it's fine to stop adding content, though I really think they should keep some devs on-hand to fix bugs or support new technologies. The original Hammerwatch was a very good game but has a lot of bugs around its controller support. Sadly the devs have pumped out several more Hammerwatch games since then and have kind of left the original to die in the state it was in. They remade it recently as an Anniversary Edition, but changing the game mechanically to the point that it just doesn't feel the same at all. I think Minecraft and Terraria are good examples of games getting updated beyond their initial release in a mostly-positive way. They also both have healthy modding scenes, so whenever the devs finally do call it quits, I don't see the games having major issues. One similar game in a much worse situation is Starbound, which was left in a hollow and depressing state that not even mods can really properly fix. It will never be what it was promised to be.
I've also noticed more in recent years that everyone is trying to play the same new popular games instead of playing what they already have or finding good old games. I don't wanna buy new games every month, I want to finish the ones I already have that I enjoy, and I wanna pick up games on sale.
the only thing that doesn't change, is that things will always change
i hate the "dead game" label so fucking much i cannot explain my hate for it with words. just because a game has dropped out of the spotlight, and isn't talked about 24/7 doesnt mean its "dead" it just means its a little less popular. most "dead games" have an active and healthy playerbase, and many updates. biggest example is helldivers now. people keep labeling it a "dead game" just because its playerbase is significantly lower than at launch. why? its fucking summer. who wants to be cooped up in their house, boiling to death, when they can just go outside? the trends always show that playercounts are at an all time low during the summer. considering the new update the game will jump back bigger than ever when summer ends and updates will be more common because the devs are currently on vacation!
Normies can enjoy the sun, we're inside gaming staying cool and cancer free.
"Before Palworld there was only one digital pet game."
That is complete hogwash. There were plenty of alternative monster collecting games before Palworld, and anyone who didn't like Pokemon have only themselves to blame for not exploring them.
Ah yeah the brainded arguments that usually came from online/modern gamer. Isn't game supposed like that? release game reach good number of sales support a bit until gamer lose taste, then move into making another game. Lmfao if you hate live service game you know it's good things so the dev can't milk the game and getting lazy ah. Like many companies these days Valve,Rockstar,Epic Games, etc.
The thing is the fact that gaming nowadays revolves around having a social media "community" than an actual gaming community inside the game. (See any hoyoverse game e.g. Genshin, ZZZ.) Despite the fact that these game have no content to do, repetitive, bad story telling and just a degenerate bait. It's considered "peak" just because their social media player base have small brains to flock on to the most low quality games.
i wouldn't consider it dead but dying instead: i really love age of empires 2 especially comp
Difference between completed and "dead by abandoned half-way".
Having your players finish or complete your game all the way and end up dead afterwards is actually great because it shows that most if not all of the hard work/content that the devs did got consumed by the players. Content of the game got players interested until the end which you can see via Achievement numbers.
Replayability should always not be a priority since games with actual endings are good because they respect that players might be interested in doing other stuff afterwards and it' s very satisfying to a player that before they move to the next game they've completed their previous game.
Contrary to other bigger games that barely half of the content is played then abandoned by players half-way through because of how boring it is. Or even worse only 1/4 of the content was played even though the game has like 3/4 more to show because the other content are disgustingly awful uninteresting and the devs eventually abandon it like *cough* *cough* OW2 *cough* *cough*.
pocketpair, larian studios, and Fromsoft are the real savior of gaming industries
There is also a fallen hero the ones who made hifi rush (I forgot their name)
@@raunakgujralsongs9135tango game works
@raunakgujralsongs9135 I only remember they are called Tango
@@raunakgujralsongs9135tango studios
These are the big ones, but do not forget the heroes without capes: indie devs and intentionally small studios. (Shoutout to Project Moon)
The biggest problem for live service for me is the lack of a EOL plan. Digimon ReArise is a good example of this. It had 4 years of story content just gone. The game was greedy with its monetization and grind that ultimately made a good story die with it.
games dying is a good thing because I can play them for cheap
When a live service game loses too many players, it will likely disappear completely, and become unplayable in any form ever again. Everyone involved loses everything. When an offline single player game loses players, nothing actually changes. Even if literally no one else is playing the game, you can still start it up, and have just as much fun as you ever did before.
This is why people have such a reflexive panic response to hearing about a game "dying". The live service model has become so standardized, that many younger gamers don't even realize that not every game works that way. They don't know that it was once normal for games to have a satisfying ending that left you happy, instead of dying and leaving you with nothing but disappointment.
The sooner we can move away from this completely unsustainable "forever game" concept, the better off we will all be.
Hell with these games. Wasted time and money. Only games with a to b progression system no more live service for me. Problem is people like and love the social factor hence all them flock to these
Thank you so much for talking about this. This is exactly why I've invested over 1000 hours into palworld. I've never felt more respected and appreciated as a gamer. They actually listen to the community and implement new changes all the time. I can't wait to see where this game is in the next year or so.