H1Z1 - King of the Kill Has Lost 91% of Its Players Since July - MMORPG.com News

SBFord

H1Z1 - King of the Kill Has Lost 91% of Its Players Since July - MMORPG.com News

According to Githyp, Daybreak's H1Z1: King of the Kill has lost 91% of its player base since it hit its peak in July 2017. The first precipitous loss of players was revealed in December when even a Steam Free Weekend and a Humble Bundle sale were not enough to revive the falling numbers. Two months later, the numbers continue to tumble.

Read the full story here

SBFord

Sorry about the weird redirect. For now, I've removed the Games List association.

Bloodaxes

No new content isn't certainly helping.

Elsabolts

I'm calling this well deserved by daybreak games.

CrazKanuk

Well the game is like 2 years old now, plus PUBG is out, which basically replaces it as a relevant arena shooter, never mind the fact that Fortnite picks up whatever hold overs didn't move off to play PUBG. I think it's probably just natural attrition. PUBG is the new shiny. At least until the next shiny comes along. That shiny won't be H1Z1 though. 

Scot

Gamers do have big eyes it seems.

Albatroes

Now it makes more sense. Explains why they are trying to finally shove it out of Early Access sometime this year. The true-ist example of trying to get blood from a stone in modern times.

Panther2103

I've played all of the Battle Royale games quire a bit and I think I understand why this happened.

First let me say, I consider H1Z1 to be a bit better than PUBG for a few reasons, namely the game itself actually plays well and doesn't feel bad to play. It's engine runs a hell of a lot nicer, and has infinitely less bugs. I remember when PUBG was coming out and a majority of my friends who played H1Z1 with me refused to switch because of how buggy it was.

PUBG has had constant updates, adding new content and optimization to the engine (although it's still not as smooth and still doesn't feel as good as H1Z1 to play IMO) while H1Z1 has had almost 0 updates other than bug fixes and occasional small things.

H1Z1 hit the market just as it was ramping up, not when it took off. It had a giant playerbase, but because the genre was taking off PUBG hit at the perfect time and it had 20 times the players in a couple months and that killed off the population of the other BR games, because why wouldn't people to go the new hotness that all of their friends are playing.

It's literally the same situation as MOBA games when Dota 1 was still the main MOBA, and two games came out trying to make it into their own games League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth. League came out first, but Heroes of Newerth was the more hardcore of the two, and we know which one hit the boom and the other got left behind then DOTA 2 came out and basically killed off Heroes of Newerths population as the more hardcore MOBA.

It's weird. People will flock to the bigger game no matter what.

Panther2103

DMKano said:

Panther2103 said:

I've played all of the Battle Royale games quire a bit and I think I understand why this happened.

First let me say, I consider H1Z1 to be a bit better than PUBG for a few reasons, namely the game itself actually plays well and doesn't feel bad to play. It's engine runs a hell of a lot nicer, and has infinitely less bugs. I remember when PUBG was coming out and a majority of my friends who played H1Z1 with me refused to switch because of how buggy it was.

PUBG has had constant updates, adding new content and optimization to the engine (although it's still not as smooth and still doesn't feel as good as H1Z1 to play IMO) while H1Z1 has had almost 0 updates other than bug fixes and occasional small things.

H1Z1 hit the market just as it was ramping up, not when it took off. It had a giant playerbase, but because the genre was taking off PUBG hit at the perfect time and it had 20 times the players in a couple months and that killed off the population of the other BR games, because why wouldn't people to go the new hotness that all of their friends are playing.

It's literally the same situation as MOBA games when Dota 1 was still the main MOBA, and two games came out trying to make it into their own games League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth. League came out first, but Heroes of Newerth was the more hardcore of the two, and we know which one hit the boom and the other got left behind then DOTA 2 came out and basically killed off Heroes of Newerths population as the more hardcore MOBA.

It's weird. People will flock to the bigger game no matter what.

PUBG looks a lot nicer than H1Z1 - on that alone people have flocked to it.

My friends who play PUBG - I showed them H1Z1 - and they were all like - "looks like ass" 

Yeah but I guess to me graphics aren't everything especially in a competitive environment. I want fluid movement, an engine that doesn't run like garbage and no bugs personally. 

ry7737

Maybe because all the folks over at daybreak games are getting what they deserved. whether that be because of failed communications or strait just lied to us. there were several things about h1z1 that went against everything they said on pod casts and live streams when they released their game. heres what i gathered.
first the game h1z1 was supposed to be ftp. next the loot boxs were supposed to be a thing we got lucky getting and there was rarely a gun in there. seemed like there was always a gun in there tho. then they started charging for those loot boxs. you could pay RL money for a box to fall then watch other folks come up and steal it right out form under ya. quite literally robbing your wallet in front of your very eyes. i blame their SUPER FAIL communications. and their illegitimate claims constantly made throughout their streams. when your this bad you disappear from the market of gaming. so thats what were seeing here. a company slowly die for all the right karmic reasons.

MadFrenchie

Yea, the way they pulled the bait and switch on developing King of the Hill instead of the original title they were selling people on...  Karma's a bitch.

Maybe, just maybe, chasing every hot new FOTM genre isn't the best long-term business plan.

Tokken

shut it down!

Panther2103

MadFrenchie said:

Yea, the way they pulled the bait and switch on developing King of the Hill instead of the original title they were selling people on...  Karma's a bitch.

Maybe, just maybe, chasing every hot new FOTM genre isn't the best long-term business plan.

Well the original game wasn't doing all that well. They had changed it up quite a bit over and over and KOTK brought in ALOT of players for them and brought ALOT of money. 

It's the same thing as Fortnite, the original game is basically on the burner while the Battle Royale mode is getting all the attention. 

MadFrenchie

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Yea, the way they pulled the bait and switch on developing King of the Hill instead of the original title they were selling people on...  Karma's a bitch.

Maybe, just maybe, chasing every hot new FOTM genre isn't the best long-term business plan.

Well the original game wasn't doing all that well. They had changed it up quite a bit over and over and KOTK brought in ALOT of players for them and brought ALOT of money. 

It's the same thing as Fortnite, the original game is basically on the burner while the Battle Royale mode is getting all the attention. 

Which, again, doesn't absolve them of the bait and switch.

An analogy, to explain the point:

If you book a restaurant for an event, pay them a sum for catering you with steak, show up to find it's merely some grilled chicken, it's not acceptable for the restaurant to shrug and go "well, we found we could make a lot more money by catering the chicken instead."

Seelinnikoi

They Broke Game!

Panther2103

MadFrenchie said:

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Yea, the way they pulled the bait and switch on developing King of the Hill instead of the original title they were selling people on...  Karma's a bitch.

Maybe, just maybe, chasing every hot new FOTM genre isn't the best long-term business plan.

Well the original game wasn't doing all that well. They had changed it up quite a bit over and over and KOTK brought in ALOT of players for them and brought ALOT of money. 

It's the same thing as Fortnite, the original game is basically on the burner while the Battle Royale mode is getting all the attention. 

Which, again, doesn't absolve them of the bait and switch.

An analogy, to explain the point:

If you book a restaurant for an event, pay them a sum for catering you with steak, show up to find it's merely some grilled chicken, it's not acceptable for the restaurant to shrug and go "well, we found we could make a lot more money by catering the chicken instead."

Using that Restaurant analogy lets get a little more accurate. It's like going to a Restaurant before they officially open and getting some pretty bad food, while the company that owns that Restaurant opened another one for early customers across the street that has great food for the same price. 

Both products have existed for a while, it isn't something new. KOTK has been way more popular since it came out. They have no reason to push out updates on something that isn't doing well, and they are both completely separate products at this point. 

Plus my copy of KOTK was free because I bought into the original product.

I'm just not seeing how it's a bait and switch when the original idea didn't work.  

lahnmir

Awesome, now they can put it out of its misery and continue developing Everquest: Next. Ohh, wait.....

Yes, still salty.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

MadFrenchie

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Yea, the way they pulled the bait and switch on developing King of the Hill instead of the original title they were selling people on...  Karma's a bitch.

Maybe, just maybe, chasing every hot new FOTM genre isn't the best long-term business plan.

Well the original game wasn't doing all that well. They had changed it up quite a bit over and over and KOTK brought in ALOT of players for them and brought ALOT of money. 

It's the same thing as Fortnite, the original game is basically on the burner while the Battle Royale mode is getting all the attention. 

Which, again, doesn't absolve them of the bait and switch.

An analogy, to explain the point:

If you book a restaurant for an event, pay them a sum for catering you with steak, show up to find it's merely some grilled chicken, it's not acceptable for the restaurant to shrug and go "well, we found we could make a lot more money by catering the chicken instead."

Using that Restaurant analogy lets get a little more accurate. It's like going to a Restaurant before they officially open and getting some pretty bad food, while the company that owns that Restaurant opened another one for early customers across the street that has great food for the same price. 

Both products have existed for a while, it isn't something new. KOTK has been way more popular since it came out. They have no reason to push out updates on something that isn't doing well, and they are both completely separate products at this point. 

Plus my copy of KOTK was free because I bought into the original product.

I'm just not seeing how it's a bait and switch when the original idea didn't work.  

Your restaurant analogy isn't applicable, because you neglected to denote that the 2nd restaurant was built by the folks who paid for their food at the first but never got the meal fully prepared because the chef was too busy using the dough to build the restaurant across the street.

Daybreak abandoned the project they had already taken money from consumers for to pursue a completely different game, using the money made from folks paying for the first project to support the development of the second.  It's about as clear a bait and switch as possible.

I don't care if his original idea wasn't successful, it doesn't give him any slack to utilize funds on about as unrelated a project as you can get without moving into a whole new IP.  Not with the funds of those who wanted him to pursue the zombie survival sandbox they originally pitched and took money for.

gervaise1

MadFrenchie said:

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Yea, the way they pulled the bait and switch on developing King of the Hill instead of the original title they were selling people on...  Karma's a bitch.

Maybe, just maybe, chasing every hot new FOTM genre isn't the best long-term business plan.

Well the original game wasn't doing all that well. They had changed it up quite a bit over and over and KOTK brought in ALOT of players for them and brought ALOT of money. 

It's the same thing as Fortnite, the original game is basically on the burner while the Battle Royale mode is getting all the attention. 

Which, again, doesn't absolve them of the bait and switch.

An analogy, to explain the point:

If you book a restaurant for an event, pay them a sum for catering you with steak, show up to find it's merely some grilled chicken, it's not acceptable for the restaurant to shrug and go "well, we found we could make a lot more money by catering the chicken instead."

Using that Restaurant analogy lets get a little more accurate. It's like going to a Restaurant before they officially open and getting some pretty bad food, while the company that owns that Restaurant opened another one for early customers across the street that has great food for the same price. 

Both products have existed for a while, it isn't something new. KOTK has been way more popular since it came out. They have no reason to push out updates on something that isn't doing well, and they are both completely separate products at this point. 

Plus my copy of KOTK was free because I bought into the original product.

I'm just not seeing how it's a bait and switch when the original idea didn't work.  

<snip>

Daybreak abandoned the project they had already taken money from consumers for to pursue a completely different game, using the money made from folks paying for the first project to support the development of the second.  It's about as clear a bait and switch as possible.

<snip>

There is a wrinkle. The original game, H1Z1, was released in January 2015 by SoE not DBG.

Typically the distinction doesn't matter but in this case it does. The sale of SoE to CN was finalised post-launch and what usually happens in these cases is that the price that CN paid will have been adjusted up or down based on how well H1Z1 sold.

Prior to the sale Sony, in their formal results, wrote off tens of millions of dollars on game development. CN did not buy SoE to lose tens of millions of dollars - if proof was needed one only needs to look at EQN. 

After the take over reports suggested that more than half the staff were let go leaving low 200s. With the EQN team being the biggest. Many of the H1Z1 developers probably got cut. Those left were probably told: make money or costs will be cut i.e. jobs. So essentially H1Z1 was tweaked and (re-)launched under different names. And whilst we don't know how many are left on the game now the lack of any updates suggests not many. And when it no longer brings in money: closure.

So it may feel like a bait and switch - and for original buyers is no different - the reality is a little more complex. Basically its part of the fallout of SoE - pre DBG - losing money on failed developments like Landmark / EQN.

MadFrenchie

gervaise1 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Yea, the way they pulled the bait and switch on developing King of the Hill instead of the original title they were selling people on...  Karma's a bitch.

Maybe, just maybe, chasing every hot new FOTM genre isn't the best long-term business plan.

Well the original game wasn't doing all that well. They had changed it up quite a bit over and over and KOTK brought in ALOT of players for them and brought ALOT of money. 

It's the same thing as Fortnite, the original game is basically on the burner while the Battle Royale mode is getting all the attention. 

Which, again, doesn't absolve them of the bait and switch.

An analogy, to explain the point:

If you book a restaurant for an event, pay them a sum for catering you with steak, show up to find it's merely some grilled chicken, it's not acceptable for the restaurant to shrug and go "well, we found we could make a lot more money by catering the chicken instead."

Using that Restaurant analogy lets get a little more accurate. It's like going to a Restaurant before they officially open and getting some pretty bad food, while the company that owns that Restaurant opened another one for early customers across the street that has great food for the same price. 

Both products have existed for a while, it isn't something new. KOTK has been way more popular since it came out. They have no reason to push out updates on something that isn't doing well, and they are both completely separate products at this point. 

Plus my copy of KOTK was free because I bought into the original product.

I'm just not seeing how it's a bait and switch when the original idea didn't work.  

<snip>

Daybreak abandoned the project they had already taken money from consumers for to pursue a completely different game, using the money made from folks paying for the first project to support the development of the second.  It's about as clear a bait and switch as possible.

<snip>

There is a wrinkle. The original game, H1Z1, was released in January 2015 by SoE not DBG.

Typically the distinction doesn't matter but in this case it does. The sale of SoE to CN was finalised post-launch and what usually happens in these cases is that the price that CN paid will have been adjusted up or down based on how well H1Z1 sold.

Prior to the sale Sony, in their formal results, wrote off tens of millions of dollars on game development. CN did not buy SoE to lose tens of millions of dollars - if proof was needed one only needs to look at EQN. 

After the take over reports suggested that more than half the staff were let go leaving low 200s. With the EQN team being the biggest. Many of the H1Z1 developers probably got cut. Those left were probably told: make money or costs will be cut i.e. jobs. So essentially the same game was launched under different names. And whilst we don't know how many are left on the game the lack of any updates suggests not many. And when it no longer brings in money: closure.

So it may feel like a bait and switch - and for original buyers is no different - the reality is a little more complex. Basically its part of the fallout of SoE - pre DBG - losing money on failed developments like Landmark / EQN.

Which wouldn't be a consumer issue....  If only they hadn't utilized crowdfunding to even build the game in the first place.  This is the exposure that crowdfunding puts on the dev; you're not being funded by folks who just wanna see dollar signs, how be damned.  You're being funded by folks who want a certain experience.

Panther2103

MadFrenchie said:

gervaise1 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Yea, the way they pulled the bait and switch on developing King of the Hill instead of the original title they were selling people on...  Karma's a bitch.

Maybe, just maybe, chasing every hot new FOTM genre isn't the best long-term business plan.

Well the original game wasn't doing all that well. They had changed it up quite a bit over and over and KOTK brought in ALOT of players for them and brought ALOT of money. 

It's the same thing as Fortnite, the original game is basically on the burner while the Battle Royale mode is getting all the attention. 

Which, again, doesn't absolve them of the bait and switch.

An analogy, to explain the point:

If you book a restaurant for an event, pay them a sum for catering you with steak, show up to find it's merely some grilled chicken, it's not acceptable for the restaurant to shrug and go "well, we found we could make a lot more money by catering the chicken instead."

Using that Restaurant analogy lets get a little more accurate. It's like going to a Restaurant before they officially open and getting some pretty bad food, while the company that owns that Restaurant opened another one for early customers across the street that has great food for the same price. 

Both products have existed for a while, it isn't something new. KOTK has been way more popular since it came out. They have no reason to push out updates on something that isn't doing well, and they are both completely separate products at this point. 

Plus my copy of KOTK was free because I bought into the original product.

I'm just not seeing how it's a bait and switch when the original idea didn't work.  

<snip>

Daybreak abandoned the project they had already taken money from consumers for to pursue a completely different game, using the money made from folks paying for the first project to support the development of the second.  It's about as clear a bait and switch as possible.

<snip>

There is a wrinkle. The original game, H1Z1, was released in January 2015 by SoE not DBG.

Typically the distinction doesn't matter but in this case it does. The sale of SoE to CN was finalised post-launch and what usually happens in these cases is that the price that CN paid will have been adjusted up or down based on how well H1Z1 sold.

Prior to the sale Sony, in their formal results, wrote off tens of millions of dollars on game development. CN did not buy SoE to lose tens of millions of dollars - if proof was needed one only needs to look at EQN. 

After the take over reports suggested that more than half the staff were let go leaving low 200s. With the EQN team being the biggest. Many of the H1Z1 developers probably got cut. Those left were probably told: make money or costs will be cut i.e. jobs. So essentially the same game was launched under different names. And whilst we don't know how many are left on the game the lack of any updates suggests not many. And when it no longer brings in money: closure.

So it may feel like a bait and switch - and for original buyers is no different - the reality is a little more complex. Basically its part of the fallout of SoE - pre DBG - losing money on failed developments like Landmark / EQN.

Which wouldn't be a consumer issue....  If only they hadn't utilized crowdfunding to even build the game in the first place.  This is the exposure that crowdfunding puts on the dev; you're not being funded by folks who just wanna see dollar signs, how be damned.  You're being funded by folks who want a certain experience.

But are still not held to developing that experience. You are paying money for a product that is subject to change into whatever they want it to be. That's the downside of buying into any form of early access or crowdfunding and as a consumer you should be prepared for the game to either not come out or be drastically different than the original idea. 

MadFrenchie

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

gervaise1 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Yea, the way they pulled the bait and switch on developing King of the Hill instead of the original title they were selling people on...  Karma's a bitch.

Maybe, just maybe, chasing every hot new FOTM genre isn't the best long-term business plan.

Well the original game wasn't doing all that well. They had changed it up quite a bit over and over and KOTK brought in ALOT of players for them and brought ALOT of money. 

It's the same thing as Fortnite, the original game is basically on the burner while the Battle Royale mode is getting all the attention. 

Which, again, doesn't absolve them of the bait and switch.

An analogy, to explain the point:

If you book a restaurant for an event, pay them a sum for catering you with steak, show up to find it's merely some grilled chicken, it's not acceptable for the restaurant to shrug and go "well, we found we could make a lot more money by catering the chicken instead."

Using that Restaurant analogy lets get a little more accurate. It's like going to a Restaurant before they officially open and getting some pretty bad food, while the company that owns that Restaurant opened another one for early customers across the street that has great food for the same price. 

Both products have existed for a while, it isn't something new. KOTK has been way more popular since it came out. They have no reason to push out updates on something that isn't doing well, and they are both completely separate products at this point. 

Plus my copy of KOTK was free because I bought into the original product.

I'm just not seeing how it's a bait and switch when the original idea didn't work.  

<snip>

Daybreak abandoned the project they had already taken money from consumers for to pursue a completely different game, using the money made from folks paying for the first project to support the development of the second.  It's about as clear a bait and switch as possible.

<snip>

There is a wrinkle. The original game, H1Z1, was released in January 2015 by SoE not DBG.

Typically the distinction doesn't matter but in this case it does. The sale of SoE to CN was finalised post-launch and what usually happens in these cases is that the price that CN paid will have been adjusted up or down based on how well H1Z1 sold.

Prior to the sale Sony, in their formal results, wrote off tens of millions of dollars on game development. CN did not buy SoE to lose tens of millions of dollars - if proof was needed one only needs to look at EQN. 

After the take over reports suggested that more than half the staff were let go leaving low 200s. With the EQN team being the biggest. Many of the H1Z1 developers probably got cut. Those left were probably told: make money or costs will be cut i.e. jobs. So essentially the same game was launched under different names. And whilst we don't know how many are left on the game the lack of any updates suggests not many. And when it no longer brings in money: closure.

So it may feel like a bait and switch - and for original buyers is no different - the reality is a little more complex. Basically its part of the fallout of SoE - pre DBG - losing money on failed developments like Landmark / EQN.

Which wouldn't be a consumer issue....  If only they hadn't utilized crowdfunding to even build the game in the first place.  This is the exposure that crowdfunding puts on the dev; you're not being funded by folks who just wanna see dollar signs, how be damned.  You're being funded by folks who want a certain experience.

But are still not held to developing that experience. You are paying money for a product that is subject to change into whatever they want it to be. That's the downside of buying into any form of early access or crowdfunding and as a consumer you should be prepared for the game to either not come out or be drastically different than the original idea. 

I would challenge the notion that a crowdfunding dev can take money based on a described experience, then completely discard that project in its entirety to use the funds for something completely different.  That's incredibly misleading and takes advantage of the consumer who purchased the product under the impression that the project would remain a project to create a zombie survival game.  This isn't a case of technical limitations cutting back players per instance.  It's a completely different project that merely reuses the original art assets.

mikeb0817

MadFrenchie said:

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Panther2103 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Yea, the way they pulled the bait and switch on developing King of the Hill instead of the original title they were selling people on...  Karma's a bitch.

Maybe, just maybe, chasing every hot new FOTM genre isn't the best long-term business plan.

Well the original game wasn't doing all that well. They had changed it up quite a bit over and over and KOTK brought in ALOT of players for them and brought ALOT of money. 

It's the same thing as Fortnite, the original game is basically on the burner while the Battle Royale mode is getting all the attention. 

Which, again, doesn't absolve them of the bait and switch.

An analogy, to explain the point:

If you book a restaurant for an event, pay them a sum for catering you with steak, show up to find it's merely some grilled chicken, it's not acceptable for the restaurant to shrug and go "well, we found we could make a lot more money by catering the chicken instead."

Using that Restaurant analogy lets get a little more accurate. It's like going to a Restaurant before they officially open and getting some pretty bad food, while the company that owns that Restaurant opened another one for early customers across the street that has great food for the same price. 

Both products have existed for a while, it isn't something new. KOTK has been way more popular since it came out. They have no reason to push out updates on something that isn't doing well, and they are both completely separate products at this point. 

Plus my copy of KOTK was free because I bought into the original product.

I'm just not seeing how it's a bait and switch when the original idea didn't work.  

Your restaurant analogy isn't applicable, because you neglected to denote that the 2nd restaurant was built by the folks who paid for their food at the first but never got the meal fully prepared because the chef was too busy using the dough to build the restaurant across the street.

Daybreak abandoned the project they had already taken money from consumers for to pursue a completely different game, using the money made from folks paying for the first project to support the development of the second.  It's about as clear a bait and switch as possible.

I don't care if his original idea wasn't successful, it doesn't give him any slack to utilize funds on about as unrelated a project as you can get without moving into a whole new IP.  Not with the funds of those who wanted him to pursue the zombie survival sandbox they originally pitched and took money for.

It's called a Ponzi

vladko92

I have decided to not touch any game made of H1z1 or whatever is called. Simply, because of their bully video when they banned so many players. I understand the bans, and I am not part of their player base, but that bullying went way overboard and I decided to never touch any game made by them.

kinkyJalepeno

Daybreak need to disappear, they are a totally useless studio. Now that's not aimed at the coders, they are only doing what they are briefed to do, it's the money men and management that haven't got a clue. Eveer since the EQ:Next - Landmark total crap-fest starting with SOE, they are not worth the steam off my p*ss.

Konfess

The real news here, paying customers are leaving PvP gaming in droves.  Paying customers are being chased away from one PvP game to another by the Play4Free (P4F) crowd.  The life of a PvP game is nowhere near what publishers expect, and the Return On Investment (ROI) is not lasting.  Every PvP game is being P4F to death.  The industry is learning and the death of PvP is coming.  Long live PvE.

Don’t believe me?  Just read any other post in this thread.  They say death to Daybreak, but what they are really saying is death and good riddance to PvP.