Context of Steam Charts Data

I still dislike their business practices, and their products, though their funding is too much for GBX to compete with when 2k doesn’t give a ■■■■.

You people have been screaming gloom and doom for Battleborn every since yall saw those charts. But it really doesn’t feel that way on Xbox, atleast not for me. I’d like to see what console statistics for battleborn look like .



Even though I haven’t been “screaming gloom and doom” (I’ve actually been quite positive about BB’s prospects even with a small-ish population), it would be nice to see the console numbers, especially since I believe that GBX games have traditionally been a bigger hit on consoles than on PC (initially; Steam tends to do better over the long run because of sales and not having to keep physical stock).

Did you mean “compared to other mainly solo-play centered Gearbox games”?
Not any Borderlands game really needed multiplayer, except for the very high-end game.
Battleborn need other players for EVERY SINGLE THING since you finish the prologue.
I fail to see how your information is relevant.
Stop saying things are going fine. BB have a very big problem, and you blinding yourself and desperatly trying to blind us is not the way to deal with it.

I have to agree with you.
I made an account to express how dangerous this game is becoming in the population server.

Your graph fails to list any real numbers but how about we start listing real numbers.
According to steam charts which you linked Derch, your player base rarely tops 1k users past couple days.

To me that is pretty bad.

June alone u guys lost 75% of the user base:
June 2016 998.9 -3,275.7 -76.63% 2,317

Now to an investor standpoint, that means it is failing, and failing hard.

It also amazes me that boarderlands 2 has a larger player base compared to BB and that game is old.

Sad to say this game is dead, and its on its last legs unless the Dev’s do something. It sort of reminds me of TF2 back when they charged for the game, and how it was dying until they decided to make it F2P.

Yeah, those numbers are valid if it’s a PvE only game. It’s not. It’s a PvP game, so this feels a little disingenuous because PvP is where Gearbox are putting all of their focus and attention, at the expense of PvE players.

So if we look at Battleborn as a PvP game, then more correct comparisons would be other, similar PvP games. Let’s ignore Overwatch for a moment and take a look instead at Team Fortress 2 and Counterstrike: Go.

TF2 is at 63k players right now, 66k players peak. CS:Go is at 485k players right now, 621k players peak.

Also, the structure of the game is nothing like Borderlands. A more apt comparison would be, say, Left 4 Dead 2. Why? It’s co-op mission based, and structured very similarly to Battleborn, except for character abilities that is. So if we’re really pushing the PvE angle, even though it isn’t Gearbox’s focus? Let’s look at L4D2.

L4D2 has 12k players right now, 18k players peak.

These games are all much older than Battlleborn, so Battleborn should be looking healthier. As ssuch, a more disingenuous post like this really doesn’t help. All it does is help to reveal how much the design direction of Battleborn isn’t working right now.

I think the biggest flaw, honestly, is the push towards eSports and hardcore. I’ve mentioned before how PvE could be made better by doing things like unlinking its balancing and items from PvP, making it so that if you fail a mission you lose a life rather than getting a mission failed, and looking at Normal difficulty so that missions like The Saboteur aren’t so impossible. And PvP could have more of a casual feel to it, too.

Instead, this push for eSports and the hardcore has really cut the playerbase down. It’s just my opinion, but looking at Battleborn’s closest neighbours, it’s not hard to see why I think that.


Did I say things are going fine? I did say the following

I made no statement about the health of the game or player base but I made 2 statements saying im not making statements on that.

After I did this I looked at many AAA PVP games and they also had similar first 3 month paths, not over all numbers but paths. I can update this soon with some of those.

But please read it carefully and don’t accuse me of saying things I didn’t when I carefully avoided making those statements.


Look at the left axis on them, that is the player number. I listed the numbers.

The point is yes the players dropped off, but they do that in pretty much all AAA games in the first 3 months. The question is will the bleeding stop and turn into growth? We don’t know and I’m not making that statement, just putting the drop in context.


Maybe you should start to make a statement.
Everybody sees the actual state of the game, but you still refuse to call it as it is.
You still make so there was just a small issue, a minor problem with your playerbase that will solv eitself in time. Well, spoiler for you: It is not a minor problem. You lost 75-80% of your PC playerbase, nobody is replacing them and the reviews, by players or professionnals, cannot go worst even if we dicover your game could give STDs and you still stay “everything is positive yeah”. right now you look like

You are just loosing all credibility.
Blindness is not the answer. not talking of the problem will not ùmake it disapear.

thanks for all this great info…
your 1.8 million estimate of PC Overwatch players is probably a bit off.

places like Korea … everyone plays Overwatch on PC and no one plays it on console.

I’m not gearbox employee, just a volunteer mod. Just in case that wasn’t clear I do not speak for gearbox. I’m just a fan and gamer like you.

This thread is not about a statement, I made that very clear. Its just putting the numbers in context. That is all.


You keep on saying that you’re “putting the numbers in context”, but you haven’t put the numbers in any meaningful context at all. (I posted about this, as have others, above).

Also, where are you getting your numbers for Borderlands? The OP says Steamcharts, but Steamcharts only goes back to July 2012, three years after the actual release, and the number for Jul 2012 is 11,400, not 7500.

Either way, the fact that Battleborn’s day one peak is a little less than half of the peak Borderlands userbase after 3 years is much more telling than pointing out that every game loses users after release (and even ignoring rate/percentage of users on top of that).

1 Like

Why are you people trying so hard to draw @Derch into an argument he has said time and time again he isn’t interested in?

Just imagine for a moment, some anonymous someone wrote some raw data on a chalkboard, notated where it came from, and walked away, leaving everyone who looks at it to draw their own conclusions as to what the information means. Would you then stand around and tell the wall that the original writer was making statements when he posted his data?

If you have better data or know of an error in the data, feel free to provide it. In fact, if anyone else wants to argue what the data means with you, great! But please! For the love of all that is good in this universe, stop trying to drag @Derch into an argument he clearly stated he has no interest in!


If he wanted to just take raw data and “leave it on a chalkboard”, he could have used Steamchart’s compare tool (where he says he got the info in the first place), taken a screenshot of it or just made a link, and then left it here for all to see. Instead the data was put into excel graphs that are not even on the same scale as each other, and claimed to be “putting things into context”. If you claim to be putting things into context, you’re going to have people question the supposed context and the methods.

1 Like

Actually, links have been posted and reposted and people were still throwing numbers around as if the numbers out of context were proof of something.

Context does not imply opinion or bias. It simply shows numbers next to one another. Words, on the other hand, usually convey a thought. In this case, the thought Derch is trying to convey is that he isn’t making a statement or attempting to interpret the numbers he’s provided. It makes no sense that people are trying to impart on him a position he has not given them permission to assign to him.

He posted numbers, not a page of his personal journal.

Never mind.

Derch is right. So are the naysayers. The trend is common to most games post-release. BUT, being that Battleborn STARTED at such a low number in the first place, it’s worse for BB than for other games with higher starting populations.

Derch is still right, though, because all the OP seeks to do is to point out that BB is following a familiar post-release trend.

And everyone else is still right because that trend, from a WEAK starting point, is still VERY bad news.

And I’m still gonna play my Battleborn on PC, because I can’t stand console controllers for most shooters.

(There. Constructive enough for everyone? Can I have my popcorn now?)

He posted numbers in graph form, using graphs that, when put side by side, are misleading at first glance, and claimed, in the topic and the OP, to be putting the numbers into context. Numbers and how you use them can imply or show a bias just as easily as words.

Popcorn, anyone?

so ironic that the thread claims to provide “context” and what i see is textbook “context dropping”


To everyone: I highly recommend to stop the personal accusations here and now. Add constructive feedback, add own numbers, add your own math, but stop talking about fellow members.

Its not so hard to follow our simple Forum Rules .

1 Like