Dawn of the Hunt positive Effect on Player Count

Hello,

Because I have read a lot of posts claiming that 0.2 was supposedly responsible for player decrease and thus was a bad patch, here are some numbers that might suggest otherwise:

Month Avg. Players Gain % Gain Peak Players
Last 30 Days 94,235.3 +1,868.0 +2.02% 245,870
April 2025 92,367.3 +62,444.7 +208.69% 245,870
March 2025 29,922.5 -59,012.5 -66.35% 72,573
February 2025 88,935.0 -101,559.2 -53.31% 180,400
January 2025 190,494.2 -113,705.2 -37.38% 353,966
December 2024 304,199.4 - - 578,562
Tweets by @steamcharts

I know it's unsightly, but you can just go to the steamcharts website to see for yourself.

So apparently Dawn of the Hunt brought back around 60k players, an increase of over 200% in comparison to March. Dawn of the Hunt was released in the beginning of April.

Suggested Conclusion: Content Patches and reworks of existing systems are mainly what makes the game better and what keeps the player count up.



Cheers

mods, why are these bait threads allowed, can it be explained to me? is this correct? i want to know.

data analysis and conclusion is egregious and entirely false

This is some big cope. March was also multiple months into .1, .2 had a big spike right at the start for a week but is now significantly below late February's(3 months into .1) daily average player count...and we're not even a month into the patch.

mods, why are these bait threads allowed, can it be explained to me? is this correct? i want to know.

"

Naharez#3496 เขียน:

Hello,

Because I have read a lot of posts claiming that 0.2 was supposedly responsible for player decrease and thus was a bad patch, here are some numbers that might suggest otherwise: Cheers

Your numbers don't suggest otherwise.

In fact, they show exactly the poor performance of "Dawn of the Hunt".

Only 42% (peak) players returned from 0.1 to 0.2, and only 30% (avg) were playing this patch.
Furthermore, patch 0.2 lost 75% of its players in 4 weeks, which took 3 months in 0.1, and has as bad retention as "Lake of Kalandra" and "Archnemesis".

That you compare the 4th month of 0.1 with the release of 0.2 is just your dishonest tactic to present 0.2 in a better light, when it is failing hard.

PoE2 has fallen so far that it is probably below PoE1 numbers, and I only say "probably" because we don't know exactly how many Chinese players use Steam for PoE2, so they appear in these Steam charts for PoE2 and inflate the number in comparison to PoE1.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 เขียน:

"

Naharez#3496 เขียน:

Hello,

Because I have read a lot of posts claiming that 0.2 was supposedly responsible for player decrease and thus was a bad patch, here are some numbers that might suggest otherwise: Cheers

Your numbers don't suggest otherwise.

In fact, they show exactly the poor performance of "Dawn of the Hunt".

Only 42% (peak) players returned from 0.1 to 0.2, and only 30% (avg) were playing this patch.
Furthermore, patch 0.2 lost 75% of its players in 4 weeks, which took 3 months in 0.1, and has as bad retention as "Lake of Kalandra" and "Archnemesis".

That you compare the 4th month of 0.1 with the release of 0.2 is just your dishonest tactic to present 0.2 in a better light, when it is failing hard.

PoE2 has fallen so far that it is probably below PoE1 numbers, and I only say "probably" because we don't know exactly how many Chinese players use Steam for PoE2, so they appear in these Steam charts for PoE2 and inflate the number in comparison to PoE1.

Just wait till china-only-servers poe2 is out (im told its next league) and then we'd have half more people gone.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 เขียน:

"

Naharez#3496 เขียน:

Hello,

Because I have read a lot of posts claiming that 0.2 was supposedly responsible for player decrease and thus was a bad patch, here are some numbers that might suggest otherwise: Cheers

Your numbers don't suggest otherwise.

In fact, they show exactly the poor performance of "Dawn of the Hunt".

Only 42% (peak) players returned from 0.1 to 0.2, and only 30% (avg) were playing this patch.
Furthermore, patch 0.2 lost 75% of its players in 4 weeks, which took 3 months in 0.1, and has as bad retention as "Lake of Kalandra" and "Archnemesis".

That you compare the 4th month of 0.1 with the release of 0.2 is just your dishonest tactic to present 0.2 in a better light, when it is failing hard.

PoE2 has fallen so far that it is probably below PoE1 numbers, and I only say "probably" because we don't know exactly how many Chinese players use Steam for PoE2, so they appear in these Steam charts for PoE2 and inflate the number in comparison to PoE1.

Where do the numbers suggest that 0.2 lost 75% of players in 3 weeks?

"

Naharez#3496 เขียน:

Where do the numbers suggest that 0.2 lost 75% of players in 3 weeks?

I said 4 weeks. Anyway.

Patch 0.2 had in week 1 a peak of 245k and dropped below 65k in 4 weeks.
That's 75% gone.

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 เขียน:

"

Naharez#3496 เขียน:

Where do the numbers suggest that 0.2 lost 75% of players in 3 weeks?

I said 4 weeks. Anyway.

Patch 0.2 had in week 1 a peak of 245k and dropped below 65k in 4 weeks.
That's 75% gone.

Isn't that to be expected in games like this? People come and expect the changes to have made the game better and then realize the game is not that much different. But apparently it was different enough to make the game have 200% more players than in march.

I believe this might be the fate of GGG, having to deliver new content patches every so often in order to repeat the cycle and hope to retain more players every time.

You and I both know that the real reason 1 million players bought the game was the good marketing. There was no way the game would, no matter how good it was, be able to retain even half the players.

But on the other hand, all of this does not mean that the patch did a poor job or that my conclusion was not correct.

The only way for GGG hope to retain more players in the future is by delivering quality changes. I have hopes for them to do so, because marketing alone can get you only so far. But I also see a lot of room for improvement for this game, a lot of which would take real effort. A marketing strategy like was being done with GGG seems to build on psychological effect and presentation mainly. Not to say the game doesn't also look very good or it doesn't have quality elements. But like I said, only quality improvements will be able to compete in a market like this after the marketing strategy lost its momentum.