After Initial Success, Helldiver’s 2 Has Lost 90% Of Its Players With No Signs Of Recovery
After Initial Success, Helldiver’s 2 Has Lost 90% Of Its Players With No Signs Of Recovery
Helldivers 2 was meant to be Sony's big push into live gaming, but after initial success, has lost a significant amount of players.
Like every PvE game which does not have hundreds of people working to churn out content, its playerbase will dwindle until only those who do not get bored by its gameplay stick around. Whether it's Left 4 Dead, Payday, Deep Rock Galactic or Vermintide, those types of games follow this pattern...
And I for one, see no fucking issue with that. It's a great game, people play it until they have had their fill and then move on. Helldivers 2 is only an outlier because of how hard it hit at launch. It absolutely does not have the content pipeline to keep a large playerbase engaged, so yeah it will not keep printing a lot of money, just a little bit every now and then.
Now excuse me as I go and spread some managed democracy.
210This message was approved by your local democracy officer.
28Basically this. Anyone who is surprised by this has been paying literally zero attention to how these things usually go. The majority of the time when a game explodes that much, this happens. Sometimes to a lesser extent, sometimes to a greater one. A good chunk of the people who buy the game in the first place buy it to play with their friends, and when their friends move on to another game, they will too.
While you will have games that are the exception, such as PUBG which has had massive a player count for forever. they are indeed the exception.
22Yeah, most players will play a game for a bit and then move on. It's rare to get attached to a game and play it forever, and if you do, you likely only have one game like that. There'll be people who play Helldivers 2 for years, but it doesn't seem set up like an MMO so is unlikely to get the same long term traction.
5That's a good point. An online game can be successful while having a limited shelf life. Make your money and shut it down (or just ramp it down for the smaller audience if it's worth the effort)
4Yeah but that's the problem isn't it? Why are more toxic games like the PvP centric ones some much more successful with sometimes even less content?
2Chess has been played for ages with no dlc. Competition against another person is engaging on its own. And chess is a good deep game on its own.
Combine competition with a good game and you get a successful infinite live service game in theory.
Only one or the other and you get a flash in the pan.
8They're not. This same curve happens with PvP games. The ones that don't follow this trend are the exception, not the rule.
1
The player base was always going to decline significantly.
It doesn't have the same kind of slow grind and wide open maps with tonnes of things to interact with that kept up the populations of a game like WoW or Overwatch, so it was going to naturally decline anyway as most people got their fill of the game play and move on to the next game. Anything that is comparable either had a ton of content that was drip fed or has random loot boxes to keep people playing. This game lets you earn enough to play even the highest levels of play fairly quickly, with getting everything taking a bit longer.
The remaining population is actually pretty high for this kind of game, and it is far from dying. I play randoms when friends aren't on even though I have unlocked all the upgrades to earn myself medals, but also to help out the other players because the game does promote team play even with all the accidental team kills. I never have to wait when there are more than 1,000 players on a planet, and the there are often several planets with several thousand even when people aren't grouped up for major orders.
The community is engaged and while there will certainly be more of a decline as time passes, I wouldn't be surprised if the game gets a significant bump in player activity (old players coming back) when they introduce the next faction. Probably not double whatever population is there when it hits, but maybe 50% increase as people come to check out the new content. I think the rapid release was their original plan to keep the player base going and I'm happy they slowed down to address bugs and do quality of life improvements for a bit.
This game also has the most friendly, or at least least antagonistic, player base I have ever experienced in an online game. Although most random games don't have anyone speak up unless I do first, people help each other out, attempt to get everyone out, and there is often hugs on the ship after extraction. I have only had one player grief in dozens of random games and one match had someone who was rude. Far, far fewer negative experiences than any other game I've played.
It may get down to 3% of the highest number of players and will still be alive and kicking for those that do enjoy the game play.
70I really enjoy the game, but now me and my friends are maxed out. Max samples, max medals, max upgrades. With nothing to progress to there is far less incentive to play.
The way my friend group works, and I imagine many others work, when I see one of my friends online playing a game, I join their game. And hell divers was great for that, they made joining games effortless. So it was very social.
But without any of my friends actually progressing towards something in the game, it's far rarer for us to just join on each other cuz we're not playing it alone. So now Helldivers is a an option, when we're already together online, trying to figure out something to do, we will hell dive and have fun no problem. But it's far less likely now
If they want to maintain a larger user base, they need to have something for people to constantly progress towards. It could just be donating samples to a new research project, that could be infinite grind
68And yet they need to also be fixing bugs en masse since they create tons of them every update.
6They should create a third enemy that they ask the community to keep mostly hidden, only accessible to the best (progressed above a certain point) Helldiver. This is a bad, if fun, idea though.
So I guess what would everyone like to see?
5Its weird, but the game felt like it was going to be adding maps and combat zones with relative frequency. But I agree, the game got stale fairly quickly. It was fun, but not meaningfully more fun than Counterstrike or DOTA
3I think they ended up slowing their release pace, which was sort of absurdly fast. Which I think is great? I'd rather see more meaningful, occasional updates. The kind that would bring folks back to play it until they complete said content.
3
When the initial player base numbers are fucking unsustainable, this is a necessary and expected correction.
Panicked headline aside, there are still tens of thousands of players online at any given time and the game is doing extremely well at for not having had a proper expansion or new faction, and just the steady drip feed of new gear and equipment.
57It’s clickbait more so than panicked headline but yeah I agree
8
So?
I hate how every game want to compete for current playtime.
I got way more than money's worth out of this game, but I haven't played in over a month. I hope that when I go back to it, there's still a playerbase.
But like, the developers planned for at best to get 10% of what they did....
If they dropped that extra 90%, I don't see why that should spell the end of the game. It's the playerbase the game was designed for.
There's just this weird "first or worst" mentality with a lot of studios. I hope this game is just given the room to stretch it legs over a decade or so. Something people might not always keep installed on their console, but still download once or twice a year to get some games in.
Games like that can be a success. Just because a lot of people burnt out doesn't mean they'll never play again.
It's just games like that don't maximize investor returns. They want to churn out hits that people play exclusively for 3 months then drop, only to buy the new one next year.
53The game has lot of shitty online only mechanics, so while it would make a solid co-op game, it has the live service model and live service games need to keep a playerbase or they get shutdown. These types of games exist for one reason: microtransactions. They want to sell you bullshit.
That's why they need to compete for playtime. Their next game might not go viral, so losing a massive chunk of your playerbase like this is a problem.
But honestly fuck live service games and people shouldn't expect anything from them. They are made to milk your wallet.
-1Yeah, but their battle passes never expire, and you don't have to spend real money to get one.
They never expected it to go viral, they budget to go at least a year of story driven campaign and they probably made enough to pay for that times 10 already.
They don't need to nickel and dime the user base, if anything they can sell less premium shit.
12
Why would it sustain those numbers? It's fine to play a cool game, be satisfied with it, and then move on.
51I gotta say. Props to Lemmy users here. This thread is just post after post of generally reasonable take on how enjoyment and entertainment work in reality.
And really just a perfect argument for why infinite growth live service games are a fucking cancer dreamed up by humans who are fucking parasites.
Helldivers is great and the devs should be proud of their success. A+ .
34Because in the minds of suits live service games are meant to be played forever.
14Because it's a live service game. The disconnect is that this doesn't make players want to stay as much as the developer/publisher would like.
8Yup I had fun with it, now it doesn't sound as much fun anymore. I played it until it got boring due to repetitiveness.
4They don’t have any kind of single player option which turns off a lot of players. It looked really cool, but as soon as I found out to really experience the game you have to play with others, became immediately uninterested.
2
Naturally there is always going to be a certain amount of player decline over time, but I have to wonder how much of this could have been saved had Sony not created a PR nightmare for the game with the required PSN account linking.
That said, I'm sure there's going to be a sharp spike in players very soon, as Arrowhead should be releasing a new enemy faction into the game very shortly, which is going to bring a lot of players back again for a while. Hopefully they'll find a way to keep those players interested again.
50All games like this have massive daily player drop offs a few months after release.
To be honest despite the publicity, most players don't actually give a shit. Most players don't read gaming news. And many players don't care, either because they already have a PSN account, or they just don't care about making another account to play the game.
I wouldn't be surprised if over half the players had never even heard of the PSN controversy at all. The SteamDB player chart actually indicates when those shenanigans were compared to player numbers, and the daily player numbers had already been declining at that same pace for a month up to that point and continued at about the same rate after.
11Well they lost me with their ridiculous price hike for PSN. I won’t be buying any more multiplayer games for my PS5.
2
And the Sony account requirement will be reimplemented in 3... 2... 1...
22More accurate to say that the initial success surge has calmed down to their core audience.
That 10% or fewer depending on if it's still shrinking will be the rock and stoners that keep this game running well into the future.
You'll probably see a similar spike then fall off then consolidation when The Forever Winter releases. That core community revenue is probably going to be what FunDog is planning on using for future projects and to cover the maintenance costs of TFW. I mean either that or they'll power the servers by kidnapping the playerbase and harvesting their organs and bioelectricity but it was really their own fault for not being able to get out of sight before nightfall.
20I'll put my two cents in. I never bought the game because of the invasive anti cheat. I was still tempted until they required PlayStation account linking.
I didn't get it initially because it looked very repetitive and cheesy (in a bad way). Some of my friends played it which made me look into it and by the time I may have gave in and tried it they introduced account linking and I full noped out of it.
19Sony didn't go through with account linking in the end. However you cannot purchase the game in the (numerous) countries where PSN isn't allowed. If you had already bought it (and didn't refund), you can keep it.
Your other points still stand, though
12Sony didn't go through with account linking in the end.
Yet
9
Never touched it again after the psn fiasco. I am not deluded enough to think the devs were on the players side. If you saw there early messages about it and still think they are with you, you are completely lost.
17That's like saying breaking bad has lost 99% of its viewers with no sign of recovery. L take
17The point made in the article is that this isn't supposed to some content that is released and over, like a TV episode. It's a live service game that's expected to be continuously played and generate income. This a huge drop is a mark against that model.
I do love helldivers, but I'm not exactly sad if live service games end up being not attractive to devs anymore.
8
How to be successful long term:
-
Make a good game
-
Don't ship your game with a rootkit
-
Don't ban entire regions from your game
16If they drop they root kit I'll play it
8Me too
2
-
And other major expansions for elden ring and FFXIV released recently. There's potential overlap in the player base. 90% is a big dip though.
15That is just the natural lifecycle of every multiplayer game
13As someone who loves Helldivers 2 but has not played in about a month and a half, it's summer Forbes. People are also playing less games than normal.
11It’s down 90% because of summer?? Come on now, that’s ridiculous. You think all the kids home for the summer refuse to play games?
Maybe you should take a look at the steam numbers for the other big games, they are absolutely not down 90%
20
Oh no, anyway.
10Without any real sense of progression, I just couldn't find a reason to play unless I had a friend who was already online and playing. Unlocking new weapons and whatnot is fun until its not, and when I don't have the minutia that comes with an MMO or the randomness that comes with a rogue-like, I don't have anything to look forward to from the next run. There was no surprise to the game, and the initial luster faded pretty quickly when I realised what the treadmill was going to be. If there had been a more single player focused bit to it, I may have lasted longer, but being so heavily reliant on a party meant it was a group of friends, or some randos that are going to waste my time.
10This is essentially it.
The core gameplay is great. Pulled us all in.
The core gameloop is missing. I figured they would expand the game more and quicker.
Like are we still only on Terminids and Automatons only?
3
It has gotten more fun grinding at extreme for samples, and helping out lower level players, since the buffing patch. The endgame is just kind of flat.
(edit): The article doesn’t go into how and why there was a decline, how Sony and Arrowhead kinda shot themselves in the foot with account linking. I think this would still be a fast moving train had they not tried to do that, and had the man power to focus on bugs, balance and battles at the same time.
9how Sony and Arrowhead kinda shot themselves in the foot with account linking.
The graph from the article literally proves the opposite.
Account linking happened May 6th. It is on the graph as point "A."
There is a small increase in the decline of the player count, but you had already lost almost 200,000 players since the last peak on April 1st!
So between April 1st and May 6th the game went from around 370,000 players to around 170,000 players, and the current player count literally can't drop the same level because that would be less than zero.
So, the bigger drop came way before account linking, friend. The game was already dying, and the account linking just firmly put it out of its misery.
5You make mostly good points but its stupid to call the game dead or dying. They don't currently have a bunch of players they never expected to have in the first place. They still sold their product to those people which makes it a huge net win for them. It's a wildly successful game by any reasonable metric you can choose to evaluate it against.
14Yea this is pretty much it. I meet online weekly to play something with some friends, after the third or fourth session I was just completely done with the game. It doesn't feel like there's a whole lot to do after you've tried every mission type.
3
To be honest, the nerfs killed it and the buffs didn't go to the things we enjoyed playing with like the quasar. It went to a lot of other things, but we came back and it still felt awful
7Wait, was this heralded as some live service forever game?
5There Will be a bump when the release the new faction and the mystery 4th faction. But as someone with everything maxed out I just drop in twice or thrice a week now. Just nothing to aim for. Some kind of prestige system could be good.
5The endgame is sadly pretty flat and repetitive
5I've been waiting for a sale to buy it... hopefully there are still players but if not shrug
5There's still players, don't worry.
Everyone seems to want to jump on the neg train but reality is that even games with tiny players numbers can still support multilayer matchmaking
It's still the 35th most played game on steam.
9The article says there's 35k players - I'd get it if you like what you see
2
Looked like that kind of game. And with all the hype. Could never have lasted.
3I'll play again at some point but for now, Iceborne.
3The Elden Lord needs to kill some more dragons.
2
Happens with all unestablished games
2Not suprising, it was a game that sold on hype and memes.
1If they want new players they should put it on xbox.
1Do you think those four people make a noticeable difference?
2
Not to criticize something people enjoy but I bought it and hated the hell out of it. I genuinely consider even its temporary popularity a sign of the decline of shooter gaming as a whole (that or I'm just bored of the genre after playing entirely too much Destiny)
I also learned that the PS Store doesn't let you do returns anymore, even if you've only played about twenty minutes, so fuck off forever Sony, I guess.
Point is, I wonder how many of these players were actually that active in the first place? I bought it because it was basically going viral, and simply could not return it, unlike Palworld.
-1Maybe this will get lost as Just Another Comment but...
I feel like subscription services should actually serve as a true platform for those kinds of games. Something like joining a party playing Game X, and while you play your round(s), Game Y, or a slice of Game Y is downloading. When you finish your round of Game X you get switched to Game Y and it goes on and on, with some kind of voting on the next game.
There is a whole infrastructure dedicated for this required, and nevermind the multiplatform issues.
It just feels like the interactive nature of gaming would deliver one the one issue of streaming services where "there's nothing to watch". The cynic in me sees this as just another place to cram ads.
-7Great core gameplay, multiple boring or just bad patches; devs who care more about their imaginary milsim being close to their imaginary reality than about player fun; slow content rollout (still no new race despite them being leaked many months ago)
In the end I had my fair share of fun but I see no real reason to come back.
-9