Killer's retirement

There's a limit to how much a playerbase can grow. And I think dbd has the max playerbase it can have atm. - At this point it is about getting the most out of people showing a (short lived) interest in a game. Long time players bring in relatively little money, at least when it's OG stuff; everyone has more than enough shards to buy a new surv or cosmetic, the seasonal cosmetics will be there the next year and if you're a veteran you'll probably be around then as well and can just wait (or spend the occasional ten bucks if there's something you really like). It's the new players that buy a lot of DLCs and and stuff simply to be able to fully play the game. I bet the most DLCs are bought by players that have between 50 and 500 hours in the game.

If that's a good thing, I don't know. It's a business model - and since dbd is carrying Bhvr to the point where they can experiment with a number of games that by the looks of it absolutely tank, it seems to be a quite successful business model. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The game is 8 years old. You can't really expect that it would keep growing at this point. The fact that it keeps a stable playerbase is already impressive.

We can ever only know Steam player numbers so it's a guess for the consoles, which are by far the majority of the playerbase. And as others have pointed out, DBD is eight years old now.

I think making a DBD 2 would be supremely difficult due to the licenses being a nightmare to make new contracts for across all the platforms.

I also seem to remember them saying they don't have plans for a DBD 2 either. Too bad, as is would allow them to drastically clean up the coding, maybe add in cool stuff like a match replay system, scoreboards, etc.

No it isn't, never will be.

There's no guarantee a sequel would be a success, not to mention the potential risk if the game ends up being worse one way or another, especially if the gameplay isn't the same or better than the existing dbd.

There's also the fact that people who already play DBD would have no reason to migrate over to the sequel since all the content is on the existing game and there is no guarantee that it'll transfer over to the sequel, same with people's progress.

If the experience is better, I believe plenty of people would move over.

I very, very much doubt so. It's no different from moving onto a new asym game altogether and the same reasons why majority of people in DBD haven't migrated onto any other existing asym games also applies to any potential sequels for DBD as well. (Despite how other people have claimed other games would kill dbd and have waves of DBD player move over.)

Not everyone cares about rewards earned or even time invested.

No, but alot, and i mean ALOT of people do.

Between Sunk-Cost-Fallacy, gameplay being different and potentially worse than what we have now, people having to give up on their progress for a new game and so much more. There's plenty of reasons why people wouldn't make the switch.

DBD was not only one of a kind back in the day when the asym market was much smaller, but it had the right momentum back then to get to where it is now. If you create what is essentially a new asym game with DBD in the current asym space, it's way more likely to end up like so many other asym games that had their 15 minutes of fame before the playercount dwindled significantly or just died out entirely. (especially since both games would be competiting with each other.)

Realistically, DBD 2 would more likely join DeathGarden in the grave.

Thats the nature of modern life service games. They add and add and add and at some point its not sustainable anymore and the game dies. We aren't near this point yet, but thats just the nature of games like these

This isn’t true at all.

I've read it, and my conclusion is the same. Did you read your post before posting it? Because retiring a killer so they wouldn't be a balance concern, either because they are strong/weak means you wouldn't be able to play them. And that's definitely not the way to go.

No, we don't own our digital games, but in a sense of not owning the ip, or the ability to sell our digitally owned games to others. However, the license to play that game is usually available forever. Mostly multiplayer games are at the risk of you losing access to majority/all of it's content, since they usually close down when the server costs outweigh the money they're earning from that game.

Im one of those who quit, they kept killing the chars i liked to play, killed Myers, wich wasnt even near strong, killed Adriana solely because survs kept crying even after many nerfs she suffered, she's unplayable rn; changed the way knight was played, wich i didnt enjoyed, and now killed chucky, hes zero fun now… Not mentiong the new killer went live so weak it was a pain to play with, and now she cant play in the event…
Im logging on just to collect the daily rewards but i played only 3 matches on this event, wich is terrible btw, including the rewards…

The survivor bonus doesn't mean much given the game needs 4 times the number of survivors then killers. The bonus should generally be on the survivor side as the game should always need more survivors to queue up when both sides are in a good spot.

the game is fine. steam shows a tiny snippet of the playerbase given theres what… four or five platforms other than steam? on top of that, retiring killers? really? which would you like to axe?

because all of those killers have dedicated playerbases, paid cosmetics, and plenty of other things that would make doing that feel awful and be a terrible look for the devs.