After the release of the console and the game this time, the response on the Internet was mediocre, and although it was seen that sales were increasing, no one said anything about feedback online.

There are also very few player comments in the game's comment area, and compared with the thousands of pages of message boards in previous games, these hundreds of pages of messages seem a bit deserted.

EA is also looking at two games from Sprout Studios.

Three days after the game's release, Battlefield One's online population decreased visibly.

Although it didn't hurt the fundamental vitality of the game, it was also a big part worse than the previous number of daily active users.

As we all know, the number of daily active users and the proportion of new players in a game are both crucial aspects of determining the longevity of a game.

Even if there is a good daily activity, but new players quit the game for various reasons, it will lead to the consumption of the game's life.

Before Sprout Studios released the game, EA also had a bit of luck in mind.

That is the game that Blackstar sold to himself, whether he has the ability to touch the porcelain game that was used by the budding studio to escort the handheld.

But as soon as the game of Sprout Studios was released, EA once again felt the fan appeal of the old thief, and just by releasing a new game, it brought back a large number of old players.

They looked at the data of players who weren't online, and before the release of a new game from Sprout Studios, it was all daily active players who spent hours on the battlefield every day.

Now these players are actually not online?

Seeing these data, EA couldn't breathe in heartache.

But he also understands the popularity of the release of the new game, and what he wants to see is whether these players will return to Battlefield One after the release of the new game for a period of time.

These veteran game manufacturers have witnessed the growth of the budding studio, and when the handheld monopoly words come out, it is enough to represent that this game can lead the handheld to a bloody road.

It's like when Dark Souls was released, it divided an era of souls in the game circle!

When Dark Souls was released, these game manufacturers didn't understand why a game that kept players dying could stimulate the players' spirits so much.

Do they simply like to be masochistic?

The truth is that as they spend more time playing, they realize that the sense of accomplishment that comes from the personal growth of players in the game is truly unparalleled.

In reality, you may not get any reward for your hard work, and you can only get a meager salary for a year of hard work.

But in the game, you can really beat the boss who you can't beat after working hard for a long time, just like a boy who has no talent, and after practicing the basic skills day after day, you can really become the number one swordsman in the world.

No. 1 in the world, what a distant word.

But in the game, after trying to overcome one difficulty after another, it is also possible to reach the top,

In the end, the ashes without fire can really cut off one after another salary kings to take charge of the last flames.

The results of everything are visible.

At first, some game companies questioned, aren't these games all backboards?

Skills, Forward Swing, Hand Raise Movement...... As long as you memorize all of this, fighting the boss will become a very simple thing.

In the face of the game company's question, the player did not shy away from it and generously admitted, "Yes, even if he is the backboard, I like it!" ”

Who in life doesn't work hard day in and day out?

So now, these game manufacturers don't understand either.

Will there really be a market for the two games released by Sprout Studios now?

Both games have weakened combat skills, and they couldn't be simpler than the previous series.

Seeing the battle mode of the two games, especially Zelda, it is completely possible to kill monsters remotely without confronting them head-on.

They had just followed the old thief to experience the joy of growth brought by the attack mode of the backboard, and now they had to try to understand this extremely free and unskilled way of fighting.

Even in this game, none of the monsters in the wild are forced to kill you.

When you see a giant monster, you can choose to walk around the road or go to their rear.

Some monster-guarded chests may require a monster to be killed, but most chests can be sneaked in and taken away.

Or the one who will open the box in front of the monster.

Would players really like this kind of thing that doesn't have the nature of combat skills?

The liver seems to have become the goal of both games.

They are not players after all, and it is difficult to get the most out of the game when it is launched with a purpose.

Freedom is the greatest joy of these two games.

They are game companies, although they are a whole, but in the huge player base, they can only be regarded as a small individual individual.

Individuals with a small base number can't get the game experience of most players, so this is the reason why many game manufacturers will conduct questionnaires, from which we can know the game feelings of most players.

Now seeing that the reviews of the two games are only a few hundred pages, many game manufacturers frown.

A few hundred pages is too small for a game, and the comments given are pretty much the same,

It's a good game. ’

'It's worth playing! Everyone, hurry up! ’

"Very ...... Not...... Jane ......"

'I've been playing for 40 hours, and my heart is beating a little fast, and I suspect I'm going to have a gag soon......

……

Yes, it's been three days since the game was released, and there are still a few sporadic player messages in the game's comment area, looking at their game time, most of them are around 30 hours.

Are their comments representative of the majority of players?

No

Because these bases of comments are still a small part compared to the huge group of game downloads, the survivor effect cannot be used to characterize a game.

Thirty hours, is that a lot of time?

It's normal for some crazy student gamers at the time of the release of a new game to play twelve or thirteen hours a day.

In the comments in the comment area, these people who have played for thirty or forty hours will get comments from some gamers.

'it! You've been playing for so long! Crazy! ’

'So diligent? You don't want to die? ’

'Don't play anymore, I'm afraid you won't be able to stand it!' ’

……

EA looked at these comments, they didn't understand, when the battlefield was launched, there were not a few players who rushed fifteen hours a day, and the first three days were in the game except for sleeping and eating.

That's it, and I haven't gotten a reply that 'I've been playing for so long. ’

They know that game streamers in every country will have a situation where liver games are not offline.

But streamers are streamers, and their profession is live games.

It's also normal to play a little more.

Is it hard to play games that are now sprout studios? Why do people say such things?

Does playing for a long time turn into a bad thing?

Isn't this supposed to be a way to evaluate a game as fun, right?

If it is taken locally, the average game time of the players in the first three days of Battlefield 1 is the same as that of these players in the comments, which is 40 hours.

But in the next second, the relevant personnel of EA statistics felt a chill on their backs.

Battlefield One has accumulated more than ten hours of playing every day, but now they play without sleep at one time......

That's pretty damn!

There are two more chapters to follow

(End of chapter)