A More Accurate Player Stat Site
Often, when people refer to the DBD, they usually refer to the Steam charts. It's understandable, since it's the easiest to find, but as people probably know it's not accurate of the whole playerbase.
This website link below is inclusive of all platforms, I believe. I'm putting this here as this may allow people to use more accurate statistics when making arguments since (as you'll see in the numbers) Steam's playerbase is not the major player in the overall numbers.
Comments
-
If those numbers are accurate that is truly impressive.
1 -
The issue with that site is that it is too inclusive. As far as I can tell they also include the mobile players. But since that's an entirely different thing (different devs, different mechanics, different player-pool etc.) it should not be included / should be displayed separately.
I do think dbd mobile is doing much better than the other cross-platform enabled version that is for PC/PS. But even with the aggregate data from that site and whatever distortion comes from mobile being included, the big trends are present there as well.
0 -
I think they're as accurate as possible with some margin for error. It illustrates a different picture to the current belief given by Steam charts, although you can see the hit to the playerbase it took from Skull Merchant. Nearly half a million loss! But it's still healthy.
I'd use this as a more relevant chart than Steam.
1 -
That's not a failing though. It shows the popularity of the brand. If people went by Steam alone the figures there are even more distorted of the entire plauerbase since it's so specific. I'd still say the numbers here are a far better representation of the entire playerbase than Steam.
0 -
Just a quick note, while this site is more inclusive, it's not necessarily accurate. Dead by Daylight is on a lot of different platforms, most of which don't have publicly visible player count information, so a lot of what you see there is an estimate (as the page also says).
It's neat and all, but I wouldn't read too far into it. Even Steam player counts aren't too relevant these days since the game was given away for free on the Epic Games Store; many new players will naturally end up playing there instead of Steam because they already have the game on Epic.
0 -
if this is an indication, DbD Mobile is not included in these stats.
0 -
It's still a more inclusive estimate than Steam and although it is estimates, it must be getting data from somewhere and this still offers another set of stats. If anything the estimate is still more accurate of the entire playerbase than Steam is. I'd just say that using Steam as the basis for any stat-based argument isn't reflective on everything overall and people need to start thinking awau from that.
0 -
That suggests they do include mobile in the stats though.
The big point stands tho: there are some trends / impacts that are so universal and/or drastic that they show in the stats (as in: in the stats of different stat sites) even with all the incomplete or inaccurate data.
Might differ depending on how you look at it - but to me DBD mobile is so drastically different that it is essentially a game of its own that happens to share the name of the PC/PS version. It's incomparable.
However, as I said: if a trend shows across stat sites that, to me, reads like something that is universal/significant.
--- Is dbd going to die anytime soon? I doubt it; regardless of how incomplete/distorted the numbers are, you don't have to search long to find the community being active and engaged and you don't run into the ever same people in game. That to me reads: the playerbase may be smaller atm but in a healthy range. However, looking at steam and looking at that site I am also very sure the last chapters & changes were received overall negatively.
1 -
Oh yeah, I agree the last chapter was a dud. That was half a million loss in players, based on that website.
I guess what I'm trying to do here is offer more sites and information to look at when looking at the state of the game. People have often refered to Steam because that was all there was. Then assumptions were made that, if it went up or down there, then it must be the same elsewhere. We have no evidence other than guesswork to declare that. At least this website offers an alternative.
Not saying you're saying this at all - you're giving a good counter-argument - but if people were to dismiss this site completely I'd say that would be a big error of judgement. I'd rather an estimate of the whole (which will still have basis on data) than achart which only analyses one small part of the total playerbase. At least there's somewhere else to look at stats that people can refer to.
1
