BHVR has a monopoly on assymetrical horror multiplayer
Comments
-
Kill rate was lower (but still acceptable) during the clown update. The game was way more balanced.
0 -
There are many other factors to take into account besides the average kill rate. You can't look at one stat and say that it determines the entire game's balance.
0 -
Well it does. If DBD was balanced, most of the games should end up being 2K/2E.
1 -
That's not an average, that's a median. It also doesn't take into account nuances like players DCing, giving up, or taking pity on the other side.
1 -
Mind if I go for the assist here?
DbD has stayed alive long enough mainly towards how they advertise the game and well...balance
RE resistance’s failure came from poor balancing and poor advertisement (both mastermind’s and survivor’s were op, the game was stuck behind RE3)
Last Year didn’t get popular enough mainly from poor advertisement, same goes with Hide or Die
Friday the 13th was dbd’s biggest competitor, however its fall was from the lawsuit it got
Also isn’t a monopoly buying out your competitors? And isn’t a monopoly also illegal?
3 -
I dont think any competition is even close to dbd to be real competition.I think competition is healthy for a game but Dbd barely has any.
Post edited by Dzeikor on1 -
DbD has stayed alive long enough mainly towards how they advertise the game and well...balance
DbD had little advertising at the start. Hell, the original publisher believed in the project so little, they gave it a crap budget that forced the devs to cut corners they shouldn't have, which was actually the main source of most of the game's problems.
RE resistance’s failure came from poor balancing and poor advertisement (both mastermind’s and survivor’s were op, the game was stuck behind RE3)
Both sides can't be OP simultaneously. The game was also not poorly advertised, IMO. They made a big show of it in Japan.
Last Year didn’t get popular enough mainly from poor advertisement, same goes with Hide or Die
Really? I heard about those games nonstop up until they launched.
Friday the 13th was dbd’s biggest competitor, however its fall was from the lawsuit it got
As was already pointed out, F13th's lawsuit came after the game had already crashed and burned. You can check the player data yourself.
Also isn’t a monopoly buying out your competitors? And isn’t a monopoly also illegal?
What?
0 -
That's the point, all those other games were/are terrible, which is why they failed. DbD's success has nothing to do with a supposed "lack of competition", it has to do with the fact that the competition sucks. That's like saying Usain Bolt only managed to set world records because he had nobody else running against him. He had plenty of competition, it's just that he was the best out of all of them.
3 -
i agree but i still think if there was serious competition dbd would not be dead beceause it created the trend, but it would be 10 time better than it is now
3 -
I assume you did some statistics at school.
One rule in statistics is that if the number of the population is big enough, all rare occurations (events) are negligible...
As the study is during 1 month, the population is really, really huge, so we can assume that DC/Suicide on hooks and free escape are negligible, especially in red ranks. DC is like 1 game out of 15/20, suicide on hook same.
1 -
Yes, studying physics you need to know statistics.
You don't have any data regarding the number of DCs, suicides, AFK killers, and free escapes/kills, so you can't say whether or not they're negligible. I see at least one DC every 5 trials, for example, but that may or may not be representative of the whole.
1 -
You are right, i don't have any data but i'm playing a lot in SoloQ and i see how players behave. DC and suicide are really rare. I don't say it's 1% but it's between 5/10%, not more.
Killer that give a free escape to the survivors or to the last one are really really rare in red ranks.
Speaking from EU servers.
1 -
Negligible? People DC almost every game I play. There have been so many DC's recently I can basically tell the exact moment the survivor is about to do it sometimes.
And it's an issue. There's plenty of games I don't feel like giving someone the RNG hatch escape, and I want to slug for the 4k. Then hey someone DCs and the survivor gets the free pity escape and is proud of it.
3 -
You have personal anecdotes, just like I do. Data is not as simple as "this is what I see".
I get free escapes quite regularly, much to my SWF teammate's chagrin. I'd wager it's about the same rate as DCing, or a little less.
Also from EU servers.
0 -
There's no monopoly for DbD, but the competitors that are there are very weak, so i don't blame you for disregarding that competition.
Only at one point ever did Friday The 13th record more Steam players than DbD, and that was F13's release date.
And the other 3 Mandy named, Hide Or Die, Resident Evil Resistance & Last year, they don't even come close to the numbers DbD had on release and at DbD's worst times.
And this is only Steam: Idk about mobile, Microsoft Store & Stadia, but PS4 & Xbox One had plenty of time to reel in players as well.
On another note: The game has grown quite a lot in player numbers.
It might seem slow to (just about) triple your player count over 4 years, but as long as it keeps growing, they probably don't see many changes are needed to how they do things.
They keep doing these things, and not just more people come in, but more people keep playing as well.
3 -
The combat system of f13 is really what stood out and shined for me. I'm surprised that even to this day since it was made for free on Xbox last October that's there are people who still don't know you can dodge, block, attack, and power attack in that game. It's a well-designed an effective system that lacked an effective and efficient tutorial to teach its players.
And while I'm probably in the minority for this I really enjoyed the way that the stamina system worked because contrary to what someone said earlier it actually did make things tense as the fear indicator (which was a blatant rip off of battlefield s suppression mechanic) combined with limited stamina actions (unless you had a certain build with Vanessa or bugsy) made it so you couldn't run around for infinity evading and looping the killer without eventually having to go into a showdown.
although It probably will never happen I still think dead by daylight needs to make a killer power to have to deal with skill checks. ( And no pigs helmets don't count) The rock paper scissor system is there so if the killer gets a great skill check and the survivor gets a good they go into the injured state. If the killer gets a great scale check and a survivor Misses, it should be an instant dying state. And if the killer gets a great and the survivor gets a great just reroll and try again. Something like this would be perfect for legion as they still are a killer without any power. Throw in a couple of blood point rewards, for example boosting the survivors chance to score survival points to get that 8k...And obviously the survivor should be benefitted as well if they get a great and the killer misses for example it can have a similar repercussion to that of decisive strike, head on or pallet stun.
A killer like that or finding some way to make something like that base kit for a Mori or hat h showdown would breathe or breath of fresh life into the game that needs it.
Just my two cents
1 -
F13 got cut short with a lawsuit.
Re: Resistance was sent to die by Capcom, they never intended for it to be a longterm thing.
The others were indie games. Sure DBD was too originally but it wasn’t going up against anything else at the time.
The genre is still too niche for bigger publishers to take notice.
So yeah expect it to stay this way for a while.
3 -
Does Among Us count as asymmetrical horror...?
0 -
There has been plenty, but they failed. Whats the point of your pointless post?
0 -
F13th's lawsuit came after the game was already on its last legs. F13th failed because most people did not enjoy it.
5 -
And again I feel this is due to the lack of an effective tutorial combined with a gameplay loop that was more in depth than what the average or casual player is willing to invest in nowadays. My friends/family till this day still have the quality vs quantity debate when it comes to dbd and f13. But to be fair with the proposed and recent graphical updates to dbd they will be closing that gap within a year.
0 -
DbD didn't have a tutorial for years and did quite well. As for the "it's too complicated for casuals" argument, many successful games are complex. Arguably, the most successful games are those that are simple when you first start playing them, but require a lot of understanding to master all its mechanics.
F13th failed because it was a bad game that people did not enjoy playing. Whatever the reason, it all boils down to that one, simple fact.
2 -
No matter how much people hate on the devs, they have updated it religiously since it was released with constant updates, content, DLCs . Not many games have such commitment. I think players for the most part appreciate it.
6 -
I hear your argument and I understand your point. But for some reason it feels like that would be comparing the complexity of checkers with the complexity of chess. Sure dbd may have not had a tutorial for a good while but you could just fire up a YouTube video or just play with it for a few hours and understand the gist of the gameplay loop.
From a survivor perspective what more can you do outside of vault Windows drop pallets hide in lockers and work gen's?
But like I said in my previous posts before, that the combat system in f13 alone was a shining light. Having the option to confront the killer instead of always having to run or hide really added tension. To use your own quote f13 is a simple game very similar to dbd but once you invest in it you learn and begin to understand the complexity behind it, you actually start to enjoy and understand what they were trying to accomplish. But again to riterate most players today want something that's pick up and play not something that's moderately or heavily complex. (Which makes me understand why potatoe survivors are so infuriating. A game this simple shouldn't rest in so many bad plays being made) 🤭
And for what it's worth dbd2 or (insert asymmetrical horror game name) moving forward needs to copy Chris Darrils and stormwind games Remothered: Tormented Fathers. A multi player 5 to 8 vs 1 game using that engine would blow dbd outta the water.
0 -
I'll try and help you understand.
There are many games (the ones you listed) that have TRIED to compete with DbD. Or at least tried to enter the genre.
This is the case Orion brings up, but the game's playerbase died out for various reasons and are no longer in active development.
This means that those games have failed to enter the genre.
The OP's last sentence points out the main issue they're bringing to light.
"This game could be so much better if there was actual competition."
Currently, DbD has no active competition.
Competition drives further innovation and effort to do new things that invigorate the playerbase with passion and urgency.
Complacency breeds contempt.
It would only improve the game if the devs weren't so seemingly complacent in their success.
The OP wishes for a real competitor to come in and stick around long enough to influence the DbD devs to improve themselves and the game.
8 -
you really hate that game are you? Saying it was bad when it really wasn't, it wasn't the best game ever but saying it was bad is being dishonest.
To return to the topic, Dbd was not the bestgame of it's genre, but now it's the only one that has not been left to die and have a good playerbase simple as that and if you add the licensing (wich by the way have make the game what it is, that's why the dev won't stop doing dlc) well they just here to stay.
And while dbd as some quality that most of asymmetrical game can only dream to have, the semi-monopoly they have is hurting the game in the long run, just look at steam before epic game store, almost dead competition and the few competitor that could be serious were far behind (even you gog), so they were staying on what they acquired. But then epic came and boom, big update that the community where asking for years and better policy for costumers and developers (and a new game + big update for l4d). Dbd need a big competition so it can improve, or at least improve at a better rate (if you think the game is ""improving"" since everyone disagree on that).
Right now the dev will stay on what works now, and since they are the only one who work in the genre, well they will do the vicious cycle of questionable decision couple with overprice cosmetics.
And don't get me wrong they do good stuff, but focusing the balance problem they have for years + the ""100"" (exaggerate) of bugs, on a small portion of team just because they have ""more employees now"" is stupid , especially with all that """manpower""" the could do a big health update with ton of cosmetic to celebrate the update everyone wants.
SO in short yes Dbd need better competition, done by a big company to challenge and make them surpass them self, it's better for everyone really and remember, for those who want to see dbd die, the only thing that can kill dbd is behavior no one else. And i don't think they will.
5 -
Couldn't say it better. You are 100% right.
Even during their Q&A we see that they don't really care about the community feedback. At every important questions, their answers is :
- not on our radar
- we are thinking about it
Every small changes they make, they are like "it will change everything, it's awesome" while the community didn't ask for this change or at least when this change was not urgent.
When you do a Q&A, come with concrete elements, answer the questions and give a timeline with a clear roadmap.
I want an ETA for :
- Hit server validation
- Detailed fixes for balance issues
- Optimization updates and what to expect in term of framerates
- Release date for the graphic reworks
Etc... I don't care about waffle crap. I want to know where the game is going and WHEN, clearly.
3 -
I don't care about the game one way or another. That's just what I heard from people who played it and it is supported by the fact that it died almost immediately, long before the lawsuit.
This is the case Orion brings up, but the game's playerbase died out for various reasons and are no longer in active development.
And why do you think DbD's playerbase hasn't died out, if it's not related to the fact that DbD is just the better overall game?
When games started out, they were all "pick up and play" - Pac-Man, Space Invaders, Prince of Persia, and so on - and they were quite successful. Making a complex game for its own sake inevitably results in failure.
Gaming is a hobby, whereas trying to wrap your head around something that's extremely complex from the start feels like work. Nobody wants their hobby to feel like work.
1 -
With F13 and everything after people always say “oh well back to DBD”.
With DBD there wasn’t really anything to go back to.
Anything that comes out now gets compared to DBD but lets not forget this game has had 4 years of balance to get to where it is. If a game came out the all the issues 2016 DBD had now people would not wait around for it to improve they’d just forget about it and go back to DBD.
4 -
They've been getting a lot of better. But they do have a clear vision for things that causes them to still make decisions that we question, but that's OK.
0 -
Exactly, so other developers literally have a list of what to do and not to do with their games by simply looking at DbD's example. It's like getting 4 years of balance and development, but someone else paid for and tested it.
So the question still arises: why did those other games fail, when they could very easily see what players like and don't like by using DbD as a basis?
0 -
Yeah but no game will be perfect right off the bat.
3 -
I never thought i would read that to know if a game is better than other you should rely on it's financial success.
We can only get better from here on... mmm... right?
1 -
True, but they practically have a blueprint for success, yet they fail.
What other metric would you use, then? I prefer to use things like player count (which correlates to financial success in a pay-to-play game) to determine whether people like to play a game because it seems objective. If people like it, they will continue to play it. If they don't, they won't.
0 -
Least understand what the word means before you accuse Behavior of having one. Jeez.
0 -
Then you're getting into your individual opinion. I'm talking about the general opinion of players.
0 -
Anyone can tell if a game is being original in comparison to the history of it's genre. This is not subjective.
2 -
It was more that you value originality. I'm asking you how you would determine what the majority of players consider a better game. You said financial success (backed by the number of owners and players) is not a good metric, so what is? How do you determine if the majority of players prefers game A, B, or C?
0 -
Are you assuming the majority of players don't value originality?
3 -
No, I'm asking you how you would determine what the majority of players prefer. Stay on-topic, please.
0 -
What players prefer?
This was about an objective metric to know if a game was better than other...
3 -
Yes, better in the players' opinions, because "better" is 100% subjective. So, how would you determine that, if not by player numbers?
0 -
Oh please. They do have one. Name one significant competitor. One.
1 -
When i used the word "better" here it has an underlying objective criteria that is quantificable. Again, there's no subjectiveness involved.
With Originiality you can count how many features two games have in comparison to the history of the industry or it's genre. Then you can conclude that one is better than the other by a higher quantity metric.
Determining players' opinions regarding a comparison between two games? Do a survey with common objective metrics between both?
1 -
You don't understand what that word means. Just because other games have had different amounts of success with the genre does not mean BHVR has a monopoly.
But to humor you:
Friday The 13th
Evolve
Last Year
Predator: Hunting Grounds
Left 4 Dead
All the countless mods dedicated to this style of play.
All asymmetrical games. All had varying degrees of success.
2 -
I actually think that Friday the 13th The Game is a better video game than Dead By Daylight. If it weren't for the lawsuit & no new content coming to F13, I would still be playing it over DBD. It was certainly more fun as a party game or playing with friends to me.
And to claim it wasn't a success is ridiculous. The Kickstarter & backer kit alone made over a million dollars. To break the Top 100 list of all-time money raised via crowdfunding at the time. And they sold almost two million copies of the game.
If they could have kept updating it & working on bug fixes & whatnot, the game would have been good for a long time & continue to improve over time. Just like DBD did.
5 -
Left 4 Dead is not assymetrical horror. And all of the games you mention other than Left 4 Dead failed and therefore do not pose any competitive risk to DBD
1 -
I like this question actually.
The other games made the mistake that they thought they could grow an audience the same way DbD did. If we look at DbD when it came out and compared to to other games on their early access builds all of the games might be comparable.
DbD has have 4 years to create and build up the game from it's early days making it more refined than it was.
If a company wants to create a game that can grow to be as successful as DbD it needs to focus on the things they're doing right, make them better, and fix the things they aren't doing as well because like it or not, DbD is the benchmark of the genre.
The quality of the gameplay should be better than DbD while the graphics should be good, but they don't have to be breathtaking because graphics don't make the game. (Anthem)
4 -
"Better" is 100% subjective because different people value different things. Your tastes and opinions are not objective.
Let's try this another way, then. Why do you believe gamers would rather play a worse game if there's a better alternative? Because that is, in fact, what you're implying when you say that the game with the most players and that has withstood the test of time (DbD) is not actually preferred by the majority of players. So, what's your thinking?
This goes for everyone who disagrees with my stance that the game with the most players is the one most people prefer, FYI.
1
