Maybe, just maybe, players want more new ideas rather than live services.
  • Codex@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    5 months ago

    It’s a ridiculous metric anyway. There are dozens of ancient MMOS that still manage to crawl along because a few hundred subscribers is enough to fund one or two developers in maintenance mode effectively forever. See also indie studios like Spiderweb Software who’ve been sustainably selling games to their fans for decades. See also indie roguelike devs who manage to make their one game a job by having a patreon and a few hundred fans. See also retrogaming. See also the boomer shooter renaissance.

    Games on the whole have never been less dead, unless their studio intentionally smothers them by shutting down servers and locking off access.

  • thejoker954@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    5 months ago

    Wut? It literally just got a major update a month or 2 ago. And it’s got great reviews.

    How the hell would it be considered “dead” by any metric?

    Stupid clickbate ‘journalism’

    • Xatolos@reddthat.comOPEnglish
      1·
      5 months ago

      The article points out how other sites and articles are calling it a dead game due to the fact it doesn’t have the 1.5 million concurrent players now (it did in Feb). Not that’s it’s been abandoned by the developer, but that is not getting the daily player counts that games as a services expect and how this game is bucking that trend and it’s a good thing.

      Its not clickbait journalism.