114
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
114 points (96.7% liked)
PC Gaming
8818 readers
206 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's neat and all, but I will be incredibly surprised if even a tiny fraction of those players are still playing it in 6 years (which is how long DRG has been around). I haven't played Survivor, but the reviews don't really paint it in a super good light, compared to other similar games... claims that the upgrades are uninteresting and there's not much to differentiate the characters and the balance feels off... Early access problems, hopefully, but we're talking about player counts for an early access game, so that's what we've got to work with. It seems like it's just riding on the coattails of the DRG name, for the most part. If you compare it to the player counts for other similar games, it's doing surprisingly well out of the gate, yet reviews ~10-15% poorer than those other entries did at the same point in their life cycle, which suggests maybe it's being bought for the name, not the gameplay.
It's funny that they call out the lower price as being what's drawing people, because $10 is actually on the high end for 'bullet heaven' games. Most drop in the $3-$8 range.
Anyway, point I'm trying to make is that they're comparing apples to oranges, these oranges just happen to have been marketed very well to apple fans.
Can confirm the balancing is whack. Permanent upgrades are also basically useless (very miniscule difference for a high price)
There's no point where you're overpowered which is the most fun part in these types of games
I've done some runs, unlocked all four classes, and right now I'd agree. All the characters feel pretty weak to me, even though I'm just playing on the lowest difficulty, where you'd usually expect to cruise through, depending on your experience.
Same opinion from time with the demo. It seems to be a GSG design philosophy to keep players from the power fantasy aspect of games, which was a big part of why DRG never clicked for me. I still was willing to give this a try when I expected the price to be in line with other titles at around $5. But they came in at the premium survivor price with much less innovation than others at that price point. Let them keep getting that bag tho. Their loyals can help fund something I really want to play like Dark Swarm.
Idk, when i got super mario 2 on the nintendo, i never wondered if i'd still play super mario 2 in 6 years.
Super Mario 2 wasn't relying on players making additional purchases for a portion of their revenue, though. They didn't care if you bought it and quit playing it the same day.
Are you implying this game has microtransactions or something?
No, not yet; I'm pointing out that Deep Rock Galactic does, and that continued revenue from them is a (probably) not insignificant part of their revenue from the game (based on the fact that they keep adding more). In order for them to be a valuable source of income, players have to stick around.
I have never played the original DRG, but I really enjoyed the free beta or whatever that they had for Survivor last year, and having even more fun now with the early access build! I have not had this much fun with this type of game since Brotato.