For Honor base down 93% in only 3 months

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Hey, remember For Honor?

Yeah, apparently no one else does either!
http://www.githyp.com/for-honor-has-now-lost-95-of-its-playerbase-worse-than-the-division-1-year-ago

I gotta say I really enjoy this fact. A game designed solely around competitive pvp, with no real single player, aimed primarily at the Twitch crowd? Yeah I'm glad it crashed and burned. Good riddance to bad ideas I say!

For Honor really does just epitomize everything wrong the AAA cycle: Super hype, pre-order, season passes, launch day, server crashes, no lasting value after 3 matches, forgotten in only a few short months.
I mean fuck, the Division had a longer shelf life. And as much as I want a healthy games market, I'm happy when poorly conceived concepts fail.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
This is one of the reasons I don't like multiplayer-centric games. No matter how good the gameplay is; without other players, the game sucks. Still, I don't share your schadenfreude, and I hope those 2 or 3 thousands of players keep enjoying their game as long as they want.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,316
1,492
118
That sucks.

I was interested in the game as it sounded really cool but with how many problems it had with launch, I didn't look at it (I kind of forgot it existed).

So now it has the issues of convincing people to join but no one will join because no one is playing and because no one is joining, no one will join because no one is playing (and so on and so on and so on)
 
Jan 19, 2016
692
0
0
It sold really well, iirc, so I doubt Ubisoft cares; same with The Division. If the game launches big, it will still make them plenty of money even if it dies in a few months. In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that Ubisoft expects it, given how they always design their games with minimal supporting server infrastructure, so they don't have to spend much money to upkeep the game long term.
 

Ugicywapih

New member
May 15, 2014
179
0
0
The game wouldn't have run on my PC anyway but from what I've heard of it, it was a lot like Mount and Blade with upgraded graphics, at the expense of pretty much everything else. No idea why anyone bought it in the first place, but, as has been mentioned directly above my post, tons of people did, so Ubisoft will make more games like that. Now would be a good moment to say something about preorder culture, giving in to hype and perhaps insert a biting remark or two about impulse control or lack thereof among gamers as a culture, but that dead horse is so thoroughly beaten that, verbose as I may be, I simply see no point in reiterating the obvious.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,228
7,007
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
I'm not gonna say this makes me happy, mostly because I have no interest in MP-centric games to begin with. If people enjoy it, more power to them. However, buying a MP only game inherently means that once the playerbase goes away(and it will, sooner or later), that game is effectively gone.
 

pookie101

New member
Jul 5, 2015
1,162
0
0
yeah you are taking a big risk with multiplayer game longevity especially with competitive ones. people move on to the next big one really quickly
 

Ironman126

Dark DM Overlord
Apr 7, 2010
658
0
0
The issue is obvious: There is no reason to stick around. Sure, there's the chance for DLC and add-ons, but really, once the initial few hours are done, what point is there to continue?

As much as I hate to admit it, games like World of Tanks and Planetside 2 - despite the constant and unremitting allegations of Pay-To-Win marketing - are simply the better model for these sorts of multiplayer-only games. At least with a lot of free-to-play games, there's a reason to keep playing. And it's risk free, since there's no barrier to entry. Say what you like about World of Tanks and its ilk, but 50,000 people play WoT daily and it's been out for six years.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
Peer to Peer hosting does not help at all. Staying in match was unstable as fuck. I wasn't sold on it in the first place, when I found out I was going to be looking at the same kind of horrible ass unstable mess as was used by EA in Dragon Age Inquisition or Mass Effect 3, I was like, "nope, nope, big motherfucking nope."

That was before I found out how badly balanced it was. You could basically pay to curb stomp newbies through buying items with real money.

I think Ubisoft got their money so the joke's on us. I didn't want the game to fail, but with their pre-order sales covering their costs I was really hoping the game would not be the steaming pile of ass it turned out to be. Shame on all those critics who glossed over the terrible ass design for the sake of "Vikings and knights and samurai beating the shit out of each other? Awesome!" There might have been some brown envelopes stuffed with cash too, but it was mostly the former that drove the high reviews.

I'm not that easy to hype to these days. This game stank of fail from nearly conception to me.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
So glad I didn't buy this. It was amusing for about 20 minutes in the beta, so I got what I wanted to out of it.

I am however glad I bought Wildlands, which is at least still fun and fully playable in offline mode. FH may be too, but its design doesn't lend itself to nearly as much longevity imho like Wildlands. It's like a combination of Far Cry and GTA so I've definitely gotten my money's worth online or off. I probably won't be getting another Ubisoft game anytime soon though, because it's taking long enough to get through that one and I have a few other games that need some gettin through as well.
 

Wrex Brogan

New member
Jan 28, 2016
803
0
0
The real frustrating thing about it is that it's actually a fun game and the period-accurate armour gets my history nerd excited, it's just... everything surrounding the gameplay is fucking awful. I have played all of 2 PvP matches since it came out, and the connectivity is so bad that I can't even do the campaign with my buddy.

Oh well. 'Cool Concept, shitty execution' is kinda the standard Ubisoft thing at this point. 'S kinda why I stopped buying their games to begin with, now that I think about it...

Bilious Green said:
It sold really well, iirc, so I doubt Ubisoft cares; same with The Division. If the game launches big, it will still make them plenty of money even if it dies in a few months. In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that Ubisoft expects it, given how they always design their games with minimal supporting server infrastructure, so they don't have to spend much money to upkeep the game long term.
Worst part is, from what I've heard of the 3000ish people left playing a decent amount are still spending money on the hideously-overpriced microtransactions, so if anything Ubisoft has realized they can completely and utterly mishandle a game at launch and it'll still somehow be making them money months after launch. Can't wait to see how much their next batch of microtransactions will be...
 
Aug 31, 2012
1,774
0
0
I really liked the look of the game and character design and enjoyed watching edited team replays. If it had had a good single player mode I probably would have bought it, but something that's basically online multiplayer only? Nope. Even for people who do like it I remember a lot of complaints about servers, matchmaking etc being shit and the main game mode being nowhere near as fun as the duelling.
 

sageoftruth

New member
Jan 29, 2010
3,417
0
0
I have mixed feelings about it.

On one end, I saw it as a game with quite a bit of potential for a fairly rare brand of multiplayer fun. Even though I don't do online multiplayer, it seemed like a fine addition for those who do.

Then there was the other stuff that came bundled with it. Things many of the posters have already mentioned. Bad connectivity, preorders, unlockable equipment that got in the way of player balance, crashes, season passes etc. that made it hard to sympathize with the people behind the game, and potentially ruined the game itself.

Shame.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
That's about normal. 3 months is the lifecycle for this kind of game. It sells on release, people play it, experience all the unique elements, enjoy their favourite parts a bit more and move on. Part of the issue now I expect is the expectation that these games keep charging players for more things to "level up", upgrade, perks and other bullshit like that. In older multiplayer games, you just played them. You had all the maps, all the weapons, a few game types (CTF, DM, TDM, Dom, KotH, etc) and that was that. No private servers, microtransactions, all crap.
 

Zydrate

New member
Apr 1, 2009
1,914
0
0
Well I dumped a ton of hours into it. Got my money's worth as far as I'm concerned.

If it can hold onto a few thousand people then I shouldn't have too much trouble finding games, assuming people like going against bots a lot.
 

CritialGaming

New member
Mar 25, 2015
2,170
0
0
I saw this coming from a mile away. After playing in the Beta, I pretty much saw everything the game had to offer and none of it was very good. A team/hero based capture the node mode that had poor balancing and tactics, a 1v1 fighter that was mediocre at best. There just wasn't enough here, and I think the game would have been much better served as a F2P game rather than a full 60 dollar release.
 

Paragon Fury

The Loud Shadow
Jan 23, 2009
5,161
0
0
Unsurprising. The game had a really cool concept and was interesting at first, but it was ruined by two things.

1: It had Peer-to-Peer servers when it desperately needed to be dedicated servers like Rainbow Six: Siege. Any kind of lag or delay absolutely fucks a down-to-the-wire game like FH.

2: Terrible balance. Light Characters were/are absolute gods over everyone else, and there were no viable Heavy characters except the Shugoki and he was still weak. Medium characters could at least have some fun, but Light characters were the really competitive characters.

Revenge builds also were (and may still be) the only viable builds in the game; to the point where beating someone with a Revenge build could only be done by throwing them off the map or having your own Revenge build. The ability to have Revenge basically every single fight AND buff your Revenge Mode to the point where you can instantly merc someone, sometimes even 2-3 people was just dumb.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Paragon Fury said:
Revenge builds also were (and may still be) the only viable builds in the game; to the point where beating someone with a Revenge build could only be done by throwing them off the map or having your own Revenge build. The ability to have Revenge basically every single fight AND buff your Revenge Mode to the point where you can instantly merc someone, sometimes even 2-3 people was just dumb.
This is what killed the game for me and my friends. Creating a mechanic that rewards poor playing by making people that take damage become stronger and harder to kill is stupid to begin with. Adding "equipment" that then makes that mechanic more reliable, stronger and more easily accessed can best be described as the entire design team having a collective stroke. Making said mechanic the single most powerful mechanic in the game is something I can't describe without too many cuss words for these forums.

For Honor without Revenge Mode would still be a game full of problems, the poor longevity of the design being one of the bigger ones, but at least it wouldn't be a game that actively encouraged the players to fight sloppily so they could activate the OP "comeback" ability.
 

Zydrate

New member
Apr 1, 2009
1,914
0
0
demoman_chaos said:
Wrex Brogan said:
The real frustrating thing about it is that it's actually a fun game and the period-accurate armour gets my history nerd excited.
What the holy fuck are you talking about? NOTHING about the the game's arms or armor are even remotely close to accurate. The weapons are tremendously too think, the armor pieces are comically oversized (particularly the pauldrons) and not even loosely based on anything historical (If you think that actual Dark Age warriors looked anything like the "viking" faction you are quite bluntly a moron), and it tries to mix and match armor pieces from very different periods into one set.

I really hope for the love of Talos that you aren't being serious lad.
I read somewhere that the armor is accurate, but they're all from different centuries.
Also settle down with the "You're a moron" talk.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
Zydrate said:
I read somewhere that the armor is accurate, but they're all from different centuries.
Also settle down with the "You're a moron" talk.
Let me guess, "mattpatt" lied to you and you fell for it? I really wanna deck that dork in the dick. So many obvious lies and misinformation have been spewed from his channel that it has set the world back quite a bit. A week of knife training won't overcome the IMMENSE disadvantage the knife has against every other weapon that we in the business call "Reach" (Only a very damn good knife fighter can hope to close on someone with a sword, and if they have a spear they just win). There is also a very good reason why literally every weapon minus 2-3 very limited use ones were held like a lightsaber, and it is because it works a fuck of a lot better than things gripped like the Halo sword. You know you goofed bad when every major youtuber in the sword community did debunking videos (just look up "mattpatt for honor debunk" and you'll see all the major ones like Metatron, Shad, Skallagrimm, ThegnThrand, and many more going over just how badly mattpatt lied). But let's do some examination here:


Literally everything that "viking" is wearing is 100% made up, and those axes are wood-chopping axes and not war axes (the thickness/taper gives it away, real war axes were quite thin).


Note the mail armor, nasal helmet, and shield. That is what a "viking" would look like.



Notice how the real sword is quite flat while the For Honor bar is several inches thick. How much more do I have to go over before this nonsense about For Honor being anything beyond pure fantasy is dropped?