Past population trends of Halo – an analysis

MAX2107 wrote:

tsassi wrote:

MAX2107 wrote:

These are very informative. Any explanations for spikes and drop offs?

It depends what you mean. The great drop offs for Halo 2 and 3 at the end coincide with the releases of Halo 3 and Reach respectively. The huge spike of Halo 3 between 700 and 800 days is the release of ODST. The initial drop offs for Halo 3, Reach, and 4 just seem to be how the industry works these days (though the continued nose dive of Halo 4 probably isn't). There are others, and I've discussed all the anomalous events that I noticed in the full analysis.

I assumed it was related to other game releases. Any reason for the investigation and analysis or just for fun?

UnheardCARNAGE wrote:

What an excllent read.

There are probably numerous hypotheses for why newer Halo games don't hold populations as well as their predecessors. I wonder if the saturation of the FPS genre has change how Shooters hold population.

UnheardCARNAGE wrote:

x Silver cRoW x wrote:

Nice job! Although I disagree with your opinion on the summation that the PvP experience will always have an edge on the PvE experience. Only because very few games have put the effort into the PvE side versus the time and effort put into the PvP side of the games. I can't exactly quote because I don't remember the article I read but it was an interview about Halo 2 and the person had said the campaign was basically thrown together in a very short amount of time, and in my opinion it shows considering it's my least favorite campaign of all the Halo games. Not to mention until Halo 3 it was only 2 player co-op which drastically limits a group of friends choices when there are 3 or more players in a group. Now if we were to look at Destiny that is a great example of a game that has a PvE experience far richer than it's PvP experience, many players who like the games PvE will actually play other games for a PvP experience. Yet still bungie is constantly balancing weapons and creating events trying their best to support their multiplayer. In fact in the beginning the way the game was designed almost forced players to play the PvP to accomplish certain quests or to aquire certain weapons and armor. But in the end for those players lucky enough to get a group of friends together to raid with I am willing to bet that those experiences far exceeded what the crucible offered them.

Basically my point is that once games put the same effort into providing a PvE experience that has been given the same or even more time and dedication as the PvP then perhaps PvE will have that edge?

There are games that put more effort into PvE as opposed to PvP. You don't typically see them being played as eSports, and I personally don't play them very long.

Halo 3: ODST vs Halo 3 is a rare example of pure PvP populations comparable to pure PvE populations. The numbers then show that PvP holds better then PvE, and it would be a sound prediction of the hypotheses that PvP games are more popular then PvE games today. Although the line gets blurry when games like gears of war and destiny include both.

tsassi wrote:

UnheardCARNAGE wrote:

x Silver cRoW x wrote:

Nice job! Although I disagree with your opinion on the summation that the PvP experience will always have an edge on the PvE experience. Only because very few games have put the effort into the PvE side versus the time and effort put into the PvP side of the games. I can't exactly quote because I don't remember the article I read but it was an interview about Halo 2 and the person had said the campaign was basically thrown together in a very short amount of time, and in my opinion it shows considering it's my least favorite campaign of all the Halo games. Not to mention until Halo 3 it was only 2 player co-op which drastically limits a group of friends choices when there are 3 or more players in a group. Now if we were to look at Destiny that is a great example of a game that has a PvE experience far richer than it's PvP experience, many players who like the games PvE will actually play other games for a PvP experience. Yet still bungie is constantly balancing weapons and creating events trying their best to support their multiplayer. In fact in the beginning the way the game was designed almost forced players to play the PvP to accomplish certain quests or to aquire certain weapons and armor. But in the end for those players lucky enough to get a group of friends together to raid with I am willing to bet that those experiences far exceeded what the crucible offered them.

Basically my point is that once games put the same effort into providing a PvE experience that has been given the same or even more time and dedication as the PvP then perhaps PvE will have that edge?

There are games that put more effort into PvE as opposed to PvP. You don't typically see them being played as eSports, and I personally don't play them very long.

Halo 3: ODST vs Halo 3 is a rare example of pure PvP populations comparable to pure PvE populations. The numbers then show that PvP holds better then PvE, and it would be a sound prediction of the hypotheses that PvP games are more popular then PvE games today. Although the line gets blurry when games like gears of war and destiny include both.

The original remark was kind of a "by the way", and not something I thought about deeply. But I have thought about the differences between PvP and PvE games many times. I'd say that PvP games are generally more popular in the long term because it's just easier to build replay value into a PvP game than a PvE game. From purely a combat perspective: fighting against other people just is more interesting and engaging than fighting against bots. I don't believe anyone could disagree with that. PvE games always compensate this with something else, like world exploration, or complex character building.

I feel like PvE games largely have to rely on quantity of content to maintain player interest. Playing with old content, like playing through an old mission, just can't hold interest, because the experience is the same every time. In a PvP game, on the other hand, even playing the same game type on the same map over and over again is still engaging after many times, because the opponents always react differently. The extreme example is CS where De Dust 2, for example, just gets played over and over again all these years. You could never expect a single level in a PvE game to hold interest for such a long time.

There are definitely PvE games that remain popular better than some PvP games, but I doubt that it's possible for the average PvE game to ever retain players better than the average PvP game. I also doubt we will ever see a situation when the market is dominated by PvE games, rather than PvP games. It's solely because a PvP experience is easier to make engaging, and in this sense, I think, PvP will always have an edge over PvE.