The console release is a fiasco ?

Playstation:

Only 12 players listed in 1v1 US leaderboard.


https://leaderboards.companyofheroes.com/playstation?leaderboard=1v1American


Only 17 players in Wher 1v1

https://leaderboards.companyofheroes.com/playstation?leaderboard=1v1German




Xbox are worse:

https://leaderboards.companyofheroes.com/xbox?leaderboard=1v1American
https://leaderboards.companyofheroes.com/xbox?leaderboard=1v1German

Playstation:

Only 12 players listed in 1v1 US leaderboard.


https://leaderboards.companyofheroes.com/playstation?leaderboard=1v1American


Only 17 players in Wher 1v1

https://leaderboards.companyofheroes.com/playstation?leaderboard=1v1German




Xbox are worse:

https://leaderboards.companyofheroes.com/xbox?leaderboard=1v1American
https://leaderboards.companyofheroes.com/xbox?leaderboard=1v1German

You do know that multiplayer on console costs like $10 per month worldwide on both XBOX and PS, it's like a subscription... right? MP scene will never be that big on console

Your links only tell us who purchased CoH3, plays a lot automatch AND is subscribed to XBOX Live/ PS network. That's a pretty shit tool for measure if you ask me

You do know that multiplayer on console costs like $10 per month worldwide on both XBOX and PS, it's like a subscription... right? MP scene will never be that big on console

Your links only tell us who purchased CoH3, plays a lot automatch AND is subscribed to XBOX Live/ PS network. That's a pretty shit tool for measure if you ask me

https://www.statista.com/statistics/531063/xbox-live-mau-number/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272639/number-of-registered-accounts-of-playstation-network/

Ok, step bro. I would've argued with counter arguments, but I really don't want to, because its a copium overdose.

It would have been smarter to just say something like idk "they are playing comp-stomps".

But for a game which supposed be live service, its a bummer, because if your customers just bought the game, finished the campaign or something and dropped the game, its bad.

On top of that, even if 99% of them are are comp-stompers, with no access to modding they will also drop the game.

And we are not even touching on the fact that PS5\Xbox barely have any proper RTSes, and non like CoH besides Iron Harvest.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/531063/xbox-live-mau-number/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272639/number-of-registered-accounts-of-playstation-network/

Ok, step bro. I would've argued with counter arguments, but I really don't want to, because its a copium overdose.

Wow amazing, now we know the approximate total amount of people who are subscribed to these services. Still doesn't tell us how many CoH3 consoler players are.
The leaderboards are simply not a valid source of information if we want to determine the success of something that launched 5 days ago, when you need to have played at least 10 games with a faction on top of the mentioned online-service subscription, and that is just a fact.

Why would I be on copium when I haven't touched CoH3 in a month myself?

Wow amazing, now we know the approximate total amount of people who are subscribed to these services. Still doesn't tell us how many CoH3 consoler players are.
The leaderboards are simply not a valid source of information if we want to determine the success of something that launched 5 days ago, when you need to have played at least 10 games with a faction on top of the mentioned online-service subscription, and that is just a fact.

Why would I be on copium when I haven't touched CoH3 in a month myself?

Because this is stupid. You can safely disregard subscription, because unless owner of PS5\Xbox is exclusively SP player, you can be almost 100% sure that he\she have sub, since you wont have a quad of features without it.

As for 10 games, its valid point, but again, considering the fact that there are almost no RTSes on consoles, the fact that games are fastly passed, 5 days passed and only around 100 players played 10 games across all gamemodes? I mean, maybe its not valid, but still tells something. But as I was saying, they might as well be playing skirmishes.

Just saying that console market is small or that MP scene is somehow obscured because of subs, is just plain wrong.

Why would player retention be an objective for Relic if they don't implement retention assets? Coh3 has been sold as a single player game with an ersatz of multiplayer and you guys are gauging the game popularity based on multiplayer KPIs.

Why would player retention be an objective for Relic if they don't implement retention assets? Coh3 has been sold as a single player game with an ersatz of multiplayer and you guys are gauging the game popularity based on multiplayer KPIs.

That's not wrong.

To us, CoH is all about multiplayer, but it is not multiplayer only game, nor it is heavily monetized life service.

Multiplayer retention is of little relevance for Relic, we paid for the game and they got the money, they are not getting anymore out of us if we keep playing or not.

Retention is needed for healthy multiplayer matchmaking, not for profit.

You do know that multiplayer on console costs like $10 per month worldwide on both XBOX and PS, it's like a subscription... right? MP scene will never be that big on console

Your links only tell us who purchased CoH3, plays a lot automatch AND is subscribed to XBOX Live/ PS network. That's a pretty shit tool for measure if you ask me

The console subscriptions are mostly a non-issue. There's plenty of people that have some premium subscription. We can assume as a given that there should be tons of players players that at least have access to multiplayer.

The first weekend is over. If people were that interested, they'd be able to finish a couple of games per day, and judging from normal human mentality, most will stick to 1-2 factions for the beginning: Whichever one they find the "coolest". I haven't checked after the PC launch, but I bet that every faction had a top100 after the first weekend.
Let's see what happens in the next days. But overall I'd say that this is quite disappointing, unless there is a massive surge of players transitioning from SP into MP in the next week. Nevertheless, the campaigns are not good enough to keep you hooked, so if people don't transition into MP, there will be a lot of lost revenue for Relic.
I guess reading the bad reviews on Steam didn't exactly help selling the console version either.

That's not wrong.

To us, CoH is all about multiplayer, but it is not multiplayer only game, nor it is heavily monetized life service.

Multiplayer retention is of little relevance for Relic, we paid for the game and they got the money, they are not getting anymore out of us if we keep playing or not.

Retention is needed for healthy multiplayer matchmaking, not for profit.

I disagree with this.

First of all, there are a lot of people on the edge, also recommending against. Having a stinker game (low popularity, negative reviews) greatly reduces the amount of sales you make after the first day. Being evergreen or continuing having successful monthly numbers is just as important as day one sales.

Secondly, Expansions/DLC/MTX relies on the volume of people. If you don't have people left playing the game, you are going to make items nobody buys.

What is more, there is value in having satisfied customers. Sure Fifa and Pokemon get to fuck people in the ass every year, but everybody that isn't top 10 franchises have to deliver good installments if they want to keep the revenue rolling.

Finally, huge layoffs that happened overnight are an indication that something terrible happened with COH3 numbers. When you are suddenly planning and "scounting" an Expansion, your boss just fired the audio team and many designers with no plans to re-hire the workforce. This, to me, is the biggest indication of how much of the fiasco CoH3 is.

So, I would say Sega cares deeply, because being able to transition from ok Day-1 PC sales revenue model into long-legs sales + service monetization is probably the only way to justify another large-budget RTS game.

For using console-pvp-data as the indication of just how much of the fiasco this game is... I would say hold on. Skeletons will tumble out of the closet in a month. (Retail Sales, PSN Charts, good picture on console pvp population)

That's not wrong.

To us, CoH is all about multiplayer, but it is not multiplayer only game, nor it is heavily monetized life service.

Multiplayer retention is of little relevance for Relic, we paid for the game and they got the money, they are not getting anymore out of us if we keep playing or not.

Retention is needed for healthy multiplayer matchmaking, not for profit.

This is not true. Yes, coh2.org has a strong bias towards multiplayer aspects of the game. Doesn't mean that player retention didn't matter. No people playing the game gives the company no incentive to further develop expansions or microtransactions for it. On the MP side these will be commanders, some face plates and what not, on the SP side new campaigns and scenarios. And new factions releases for both groups.

Having no players is also a red flag for new buyers, because apparently the game is not good and has no content. Which means no further income from the base game sale and potential other DLCs later on for the developer.

The times when the game's release and 1-2 expansions a year down the line were the only sources of income have passed long ago. The main money in gaming comes from smaller transactions. It's unclear how much focus Relic puts on those, put it is VERY clear that they deem it to be a major source of income, hence the first patch introducing the store.

SNIP - Interesting points!

There is a lot you write here with which I agree.

Years ago, in an article for PC Gamer, a Russian Dev from War Thunder stated how much he liked Relic's ability to retain a core audience.

I think Katitof and Esxile are describing a state of mind which Relic maybe had when they launched COH1. When I joined the COH1 community in 2009, there was a lot of bellyaching about the lack of patches and people complaining they had paid a premium price and expected better support. But ofc, there was no DLC to support the cost of patching, unless Relic released another Expansion, which they never did after TOV.

I know for a fact that one of the Relic aims for COH2 was to make the game more user-friendly for new players with a view to expanding the player base. The DLC was introduced to finance the patching costs. Eventually, COH2 became a popular game, but almost inevitably it lost a lot of the better players from COH1, who had rejected COHO and did not like the COH2 new format.

So in a sense, Relic cannot win, because if they satisfy the strategists, they annoy the CPM micro afficionados. As Von Ivan has noted in his Twitch stream, COH3 is effectively COH1 lite with enhanced graphics, but there are a lot of sharp edges which should not be there.

As you observe, Nigo has jumped the gun on the stats for consoles. It will be interesting to revisit those numbers a month from launch.

I know for a fact that one of the Relic aims for COH2 was to make the game more user-friendly for new players with a view to expanding the player base. The DLC was introduced to finance the patching costs. Eventually, COH2 became a popular game, but almost inevitably it lost a lot of the better players from COH1, who had rejected COHO and did not like the COH2 new format.

So in a sense, Relic cannot win, because if they satisfy the strategists, they annoy the CPM micro afficionados. As Von Ivan has noted in his Twitch stream, COH3 is effectively COH1 lite with enhanced graphics, but there are a lot of sharp edges which should not be there.

I disagree. I think good games (8/10 rated by plebs) succeed and find the audience.

What you are describing are minor mechanics and direction changes. People will roll over and adapt as long as your game is an objective upgrade. Whether it is more micro-management focused, or more casual, or more strategical - it would have been fine either way as long as it is fun.

(Upgrade conditions would include: better visuals, optimization, pathfinding, AI, netcode, new QoL features, content, mechanics, major rebalance, better backend for content delivery, playbase moderation tools, new and more beneficial business model) I can accept some V1 launch drawbacks but the overall upgrade package has to be an undeniable progress. Otherwise why are you releasing it, this is SF6 and Diablo 4 are taking over all the gaming buzz this month.

And to prove my point, freaking fighting game has 60k concurrent players this week. You tell me that the primary a console, fighting 1vs1 pvp game, is enjoying this kind of success on PC? It is absolutely the decade of variety: anything goes as long as the quality is good. I bet most of you are playing random crap, from HOI4/WW2 simulators to fantasy MMOs, Cards and Gachas.

People bitched about Diablo III changes (I say this in a positive context where some bickering on social media is absolutely healthy for any game), people now bitching about Diablo 4 mechanics that returned to some Diablo 2 style. Good execution will become a new norm, it is actually healthy for every game to go through these refreshes and wiggles in direction. You can take bad direction, the weather in COH2: admit mistake, learn from it, adapt.

I read the same things about Paradox games streamlining/simplifying themselves. Total Warhammers were panned for magic and other deviations from historical TWs.

The problem with COH3 is, that it isn't just some sharp corners that need brushing. It is the trainwreck that ends up going backwards. Take tank-balance for example: AT superblobs, mines triggered by sound, AT shots clipping on fences, superskillplanes, weird pathing, what are tank destroyers, only heavy destroyer in the game files somewhere never tested. The game is so broken you have multiple direction, technical and design failures all at the same time - sure it functions as a program, but it is a literal mess, don't even know how to start unraveling it.

Saying that Relic was in some kind of design-checkmate is questionable. COH3 was supposed to be a slam-dunk, it had so many design lessons learned (only by community and ex-Relic), and many low-hanging QoL/Mechanics people asked for years. Couple that with 10 years of modern online gaming trends, visual progress, service monetization - and you have a formula that only needs that 8/10 execution. Nobody even gives a fuck about campaign, it reviewed to some absurd scores (I played COH1 campaigns while in school, rarely do I play SP in RTS).

There might be some elitists who prefer that old version. People still play COH1, Starcraft 1, HOI3, older Counter Strikes, previous SF - the minority, and even they will rollover once the upgrade is undeniable despite not being to their ideal mechanics/details preference.

I wish everybody here would have gotten that 8/10 sequel to enjoy COH, including gdot, unified + revitalized community and bright future ahead. Instead of talking how Relic is going bankrupt and DOW3'ing it, we could shitposting what kind of these small mechanics and direction changes were the best, what OP units need to be toned down, what could be the patch/content iteration to score 9-10, and wait for the next COH3 showmatches.

The problem with COH3 is, that it isn't just some sharp corners that need brushing. It is the trainwreck that ends up going backwards. Take tank-balance for example: AT superblobs, mines triggered by sound, AT shots clipping on fences, superskillplanes, weird pathing, what are tank destroyers, only heavy destroyer in the game files somewhere never tested. The game is so broken you have multiple direction, technical and design failures all at the same time - sure it functions as a program, but it is a literal mess, don't even know how to start unraveling it.

Saying that Relic was in some kind of design-checkmate is questionable. COH3 was supposed to be a slam-dunk, it had so many design lessons learned (only by community and ex-Relic), and many low-hanging QoL/Mechanics people asked for years. Couple that with 10 years of modern online gaming trends, visual progress, service monetization - and you have a formula that only needs that 8/10 execution. Nobody even gives a fuck about campaign, it reviewed to some absurd scores (I played COH1 campaigns while in school, rarely do I play SP in RTS).

We're not playing the same game then. It's true that actual meta doesn't involve tank destroyer but they are more than capable to deliver what there for in the game.

The game balance is ok at the moment and it's kind of sign of a good game design since it took 3 patches to come here. Yes some factions are more powerful, yes some units are more powerful, but that will be always the case, COH serie isn't a game you can perfectly balance out of the multitude aspects of it. It's a game that need regular balance patches to shake the meta at best.

What piss people here is the lack of strong multiplayer ranking system and variety of map in it. I wouldn't even say lack of multiplayer since it exists in it's purest form, you can create a lobby and invite people to play with you and maps are available by the 100 in the workshop.

And the first new map coming is sheldt copy no one asked for lol.

We're not playing the same game then. It's true that actual meta doesn't involve tank destroyer but they are more than capable to deliver what there for in the game.

The game balance is ok at the moment and it's kind of sign of a good game design since it took 3 patches to come here. Yes some factions are more powerful, yes some units are more powerful, but that will be always the case, COH serie isn't a game you can perfectly balance out of the multitude aspects of it. It's a game that need regular balance patches to shake the meta at best.

What piss people here is the lack of strong multiplayer ranking system and variety of map in it. I wouldn't even say lack of multiplayer since it exists in it's purest form, you can create a lobby and invite people to play with you and maps are available by the 100 in the workshop.

Meta was born out of broken technical state Nobody shaped it like a game design exercise, because half components weren't working correctly. This is why the blobs took over the game instantly: because they were the functional overtuned component.

I am not playing the game, I played the Beta and tracking the updates. I am the MG spammer and since MGs were barely functional for beta/first two months - how could I even play the game. I want the heavy tank destroyers and firework-tanks (AVRE/Sturmtiger) to be present when I join. These "hero" units, when playing in an evenly matched 4vs4 game, become the game-within-the-game components and this is what made COH2 so fun. The minigame was usually taking down that Elefant or JT, or dodging enemy Sturmtiger shots.

I will join someday. I still believe the game will be salvaged to the level that is that "objective" upgrade over COH2, but it was due for late Autumn before layoffs, now I think it will get there is 2024. 50/50 whether it redeems itself next year, or Sega scuttles everything.

My fun tanks, more 4vs4 maps, people actually in matchmaking playing 4vs4, and general progress of balance/technical growing pains. If the general balance shifts to more lethality/micro, I would prefer that, but no real objections with beefier tanks/units compared to COH2.

+ the leaver punishment, the game is not worth my time when one out of 7 players can decide to ruin it, every single round, 10 rounds in a row, if they want.

And the first new map coming is sheldt copy no one asked for lol.

There is no valid COH iteration without Scheldt being maped day1.

Meta was born out of broken technical state Nobody shaped it like a game design exercise, because half components weren't working correctly. This is why the blobs took over the game instantly: because they were the functional overtuned component.

I am not playing the game, I played the Beta and tracking the updates. I am the MG spammer and since MGs were barely functional for beta/first two months - how could I even play the game. I want the heavy tank destroyers and firework-tanks (AVRE/Sturmtiger) to be present when I join. These "hero" units, when playing in an evenly matched 4vs4 game, become the game-within-the-game components and this is what made COH2 so fun. The minigame was usually taking down that Elefant or JT, or dodging enemy Sturmtiger shots.

I will join someday. I still believe the game will be salvaged to the level that is that "objective" upgrade over COH2, but it was due for late Autumn before layoffs, now I think it will get there is 2024. 50/50 whether it redeems itself next year, or Sega scuttles everything.

My fun tanks, more 4vs4 maps, people actually in matchmaking playing 4vs4, and general progress of balance/technical growing pains. If the general balance shifts to more lethality/micro, I would prefer that, but no real objections with beefier tanks/units compared to COH2.

+ the leaver punishment, the game is not worth my time when one out of 7 players can decide to ruin it, every single round, 10 rounds in a row, if they want.

They buy it now, HMGs are kind of king of the battlefield at the moment although for the rest of your wish list you might be disappointed.

I disagree. I think good games (8/10 rated by plebs) succeed and find the audience.

What you are describing are minor mechanics and direction changes. People will roll over and adapt as long as your game is an objective upgrade. Whether it is more micro-management focused, or more casual, or more strategical - it would have been fine either way as long as it is fun.

I don't think you have understood the nuances in the various COH audiences, if you dismiss such differences so lightly.

(Upgrade conditions would include: better visuals, optimization, pathfinding, AI, netcode, new QoL features, content, mechanics, major rebalance, better backend for content delivery, playbase moderation tools, new and more beneficial business model) I can accept some V1 launch drawbacks but the overall upgrade package has to be an undeniable progress. Otherwise why are you releasing it, this is SF6 and Diablo 4 are taking over all the gaming buzz this month.

Rant noted.

And to prove my point, freaking fighting game has 60k concurrent players this week. You tell me that the primary a console, fighting 1vs1 pvp game, is enjoying this kind of success on PC? It is absolutely the decade of variety: anything goes as long as the quality is good. I bet most of you are playing random crap, from HOI4/WW2 simulators to fantasy MMOs, Cards and Gachas.

People bitched about Diablo III changes (I say this in a positive context where some bickering on social media is absolutely healthy for any game), people now bitching about Diablo 4 mechanics that returned to some Diablo 2 style. Good execution will become a new norm, it is actually healthy for every game to go through these refreshes and wiggles in direction. You can take bad direction, the weather in COH2: admit mistake, learn from it, adapt.

I read the same things about Paradox games streamlining/simplifying themselves. Total Warhammers were panned for magic and other deviations from historical TWs.

More rant. I have never suggested a console player will enjoy COH3. At this stage, I have no idea how it will trend.

The problem with COH3 is, that it isn't just some sharp corners that need brushing. It is the trainwreck that ends up going backwards. Take tank-balance for example: AT superblobs, mines triggered by sound, AT shots clipping on fences, superskillplanes, weird pathing, what are tank destroyers, only heavy destroyer in the game files somewhere never tested. The game is so broken you have multiple direction, technical and design failures all at the same time - sure it functions as a program, but it is a literal mess, don't even know how to start unraveling it.

From your subsequent posts, I deduce that you are primarily interested in team games? Nothing at all wrong with that, but what you describe in team games is not necessarily what is wrong in 1v1. In fact, albeit innocently, you are highlighting the problem with COH1 v COH2. It's the old, old problem do you balance the game from 1v1, or from a team game perspective? FWIW, I think these two POV are irreconcilable and that in fact you should run team games on a different perspective. Here I do agree with you that in 2023, it should be possible to distinguish between 1v1 and team games without too much problem. Team games do not need a wealth of light vehicles with multiple options. e.g. how long will a bike or Weasel last, when players in AT are pumping out fuel and heading for 'heavies' and durable infantry?

Saying that Relic was in some kind of design-checkmate is questionable. COH3 was supposed to be a slam-dunk, it had so many design lessons learned (only by community and ex-Relic), and many low-hanging QoL/Mechanics people asked for years. Couple that with 10 years of modern online gaming trends, visual progress, service monetization - and you have a formula that only needs that 8/10 execution. Nobody even gives a fuck about campaign, it reviewed to some absurd scores (I played COH1 campaigns while in school, rarely do I play SP in RTS).

You have patently ignored what I wrote previously. As a team player, you are entitled to ignore the basics of 1v1 where it changes from COH1 to COh2, but I can assure you those changes were fundamental to the mechanics of 1v1 and explains why so many COH1 1v1 players did not adapt to COHO or COH2. Do you want me to spell these out for you? It involves inter alia light vehicles, ticker timing, capture points and values for capture points.

There might be some elitists who prefer that old version. People still play COH1, Starcraft 1, HOI3, older Counter Strikes, previous SF - the minority, and even they will rollover once the upgrade is undeniable despite not being to their ideal mechanics/details preference.

Experience of the COH franchise suggests that what you have just written is totally incorrect. COHO and COH2 saw off a lot of top COH1 players. Some of those would have gone due to life changes, but many did not like and did not accept the COH2 1v1 changes. Team games are different and the pertinent point here is why Relic did not see fit to try to provide for 2 different modes in COH3. It must be possible to balance the 1v1 game differently from team games, and the lack of maps for team games simply flies in the face of current trends.

I wish everybody here would have gotten that 8/10 sequel to enjoy COH, including gdot, unified + revitalized community and bright future ahead. Instead of talking how Relic is going bankrupt and DOW3'ing it, we could shitposting what kind of these small mechanics and direction changes were the best, what OP units need to be toned down, what could be the patch/content iteration to score 9-10, and wait for the next COH3 showmatches.

Posters on .org have been through the mill with Relic whether the start of COH2, the lack of patches in COH1 or the Dawn of War fiasco. They can be forgiven for a certain amount of cynicism at the launch of a game in COH3 which appears to ignore the mistakes of COH1 and COH2.

And the first new map coming is sheldt copy no one asked for lol.

Esxile made the fundamental point that there is no excuse for launching COH3 without providing a 'Scheldt' from the get-go. I have never played Scheldt but I do know (and I am reasonably certain that you do also), that SP was the majority of the base for COH1 - people that were never seen in MP and probably never even signed up to gameplays.org or this site.

Esxile made the fundamental point that there is no excuse for launching COH3 without providing a 'Scheldt' from the get-go. I have never played Scheldt but I do know (and I am reasonably certain that you do also), that SP was the majority of the base for COH1 - people that were never seen in MP and probably never even signed up to gameplays.org or this site.

I fully realize how much AI casuals love this map, its their blood and bones.

But it also can not be denied how small multiplayer map pool is, especially since all the maps are exclusive and there is no map overlap between the modes, which made CoH2 look like it had much more maps on release.

I fully realize how much AI casuals love this map, its their blood and bones.

But it also can not be denied how small multiplayer map pool is, especially since all the maps are exclusive and there is no map overlap between the modes, which made CoH2 look like it had much more maps on release.

Good point!