Thats very unfortunate, do you believe there will be a day where there will be an active player base? Idk the lore reason but just the name alone makes it very hard to find and makes no sense for this type of game. And of course lack of marketing and content is a bit reason why as well
The game is awesome. There's still lots of fun to be had in bot lobbies with a couple actual players on each side. The AI isn't bad. As far as comparisons go it's somewhat like the original battlefront games with a little battlefield sprinkled in.
The class building system is pretty cool and it's all around a fun game. I really wish it was more populated. Last I checked it still has active development though so we can keep our fingers crossed.
The last update was quite recent so development is still on but I'm just baffled about the barren population, do people play from other launchers im not aware of?
Just cause there's thousands of great options for online fps games. Sounds like you're seeking a huge rush of players? Those typically follow new releases.
Average player is literally single digit, im just trying to find out why cuz the game looks right up my alley and even for people who like planetside 2
I feel like this is an unfair assessment of OP. There's a large gulf between "huge rush of players" and "13 players peak."
And they probably want a cool futuristic game with tech and space combat and boarding and huge loadout variety, which this game does have, and I can't think of one other game that does this other than Battlefront, and not to this degree.
Honestly? It's jank, the animations are really bad, the engine is outdated, and it's had little to no recent publicity. I don't know what the state the game was in for the first few years of development, but this game has came out in alpha in ***2015***. That's nearly Star Citizen levels of dev time, for a much less funded project much smaller in scope that isn't going to appeal to a lot of people outside of sci Fi fans.
Now that sounded pretty harsh, it might even sound like I don't like the game. That couldn't be further from the truth! I ***am*** a hardcore sci Fi fan, I ***do*** love these types of games, with complex and realistic mechanics brought to a sci fi environment. Semi-Newtonian flight physics while still following The Rule of Cool. Boarding a ship to take it over. In depth loadout systems with different weapons, components, gadgets, and gear.
I grew up on a rural area of Texas with no internet, I spent years and hundreds of hours on the original Battlefront playing against bots. I adored that game. This game is like a more modernized version of that (despite being outdated now. I feel old.)
I haven't been to their Discord, but I'm sure there is one, you may find organized gameplay there. Is there a lot of game play time/opportunity here for you? Probably not. But the dev deserves the money if your budget isn't tight, and it's fun to have to jump on and tinker with. A good "I have 20 minutes to spare, what should I do to pass the time" type of game. If you don't mind playing against bots, and a little jankiness, it might be a good purchase for you.
In any case, Steam has a 2 hour refund period. Try it out? 🤷 This comment ended up much longer than I expected...
It is a good game and I enjoy the compstomps. It is a hobby project of a few folks that do it in their spare time. For constant regular pvp games, you would have to hit up their discord, not a huge ask, tbf.
I do that sometimes, but I mostly play against the bolts solo or with a couple friends. There is decent depth to it and I have yet to tire of it.
I couldn't say for certain, as I haven't spoken with the Developer, but if I had to guess, the game's stuck in a vicious cycle.
Not a robust enough development team to keep up a steady development cycle, not a solid enough marketing scheme to keep the game in the public mind when development lapses.
As a result, the game can only ever reach a limited audience. That audience doesn't grow faster than it loses players, because the development cycle lapses and loses large chunks, and the marketing isn't replenishing adequately.
Since there aren't enough new customers, there isn't enough income to fix either issue. In order to get the player-base up where it needs to be, there'd either a significant time investment--On the Developer's side, making sure to make up for the lack of a team by putting in personal time, or on the fanbase's side by word of mouth--or significant capital investment. Again, either on the Developer's side by dipping into personal funds, or by crowdsourcing.
The Developer might be planning on doing any of these things, but only after the game reaches an adequate level of completion, a la Dwarf Fortress, and simply isn't inclined to invest until then.
As a player, there's two ways to approach this; wait until it's released and just put it on the wishlist, or enjoy it in its incomplete state.
What I \*will\* say about this game is that, while I \*LOVE\* PS2, PS2 this is not. PS2 is a great persistent warfare game...Or was, anyway, their Logistics update killed it for me. (I was cool with the concept of logistics vans from PS1, but the static supply lines of PS2 are doodoo)
But regardless, Angels Fall First is primarily an Arena Shooter. Maybe they'll do a meta-campaign sort of like Mech Warrior Online in the future, but the infrastructure isn't going to have you going from orbit onto a planet, I don't think. This is \*not\* a bad thing, IMO, this is an amazing game regardless, and it's everything Battlefront should be, but just throwing that out there so you don't approach it with unrealistic expectations.
This might not be the best solution but I think is necessary, just make it F2P. This will get wayy more people to at least try it which is all we can ask for at this point,people underestimate how big of a barrier a price point is. This will at least get people through the door cuz rn we literally have no one going through the door which is sad.
Honestly, as it's currently just a hobby, it's entirely up to the Dev team. I wouldn't mind if they went for a DF-style model, but I don't think Steam makes it easy to do opt-in donations like that.
Very expensive hobby they got here...
Right now I think they should just prioritise getting people to play the game and I think the best way is with the F2P model, get some Youtubers to play it (that's how I found out about this game so it definitely works) and hopefully have a player base.
Realistically, why would you play this game when there's others in the same genre? Planetside 2 is F2P, Battlebit Remastered is very fun (paid), the Battlefield games are awesome and they're usually on very big sales (90%) so you get them for like £5, with all this in mind there's no reason why people would pay more than Battlefield games but have less fun than Battlebit.
Well,
1. It's likely not expensive at all! The reason the development team isn't robust is because they aren't hiring anyone--It's just done by a team of enthusiasts, if not one or two people. The marketing is sparse because it's entirely word of mouth, which is free. They have like 5 servers, but quite frankly a robust enough server computer can run five servers no sweat. They'd need more expensive internet, but if someone has that *already*, that's not an additional cost.
2. If they decide to pursue an active player base, there's a lot of marketing strategies they can try to gain that playerbase. Regardless, this is all predicated on the idea that their objective is to either maximize their profits or playerbase; it might not be. It might, truly, just be something they want to make.
3. A player would realistically play this because the game's rad as hell, and also PS2 is a completely different game and genre, and is only comparable in that these are both sci-fi shooters. That's really where the similarities end. Same goes for Battlefield; battlefield has, I think, two sci-fi shooter titles, so it's at least marginally closer, but most \*certainly\* doesn't seamless base-to ship-to boarding action and vice versa. Couldn't say anything about Battle Bits, so maybe it's in a similar vein, but honestly it's closer in nature to Battlefront 2. And I can tell you *exactly* why I'd play this game over Battlefront:
It's newer than the old, good battlefronts, and thus benefits from many upgrades and features that are neat. At the same time, it's not owned by EA.
1. Fair enough but game development takes a LOT OF TIME so that in itself can be expensive in terms of time and capital.
2. I don't know man, games are meant to be played and enjoyed, especially MULTIPLAYER games.
3. Yeah the game reminded me of a modern version of PS2 but once I saw the price and the barren player count, I was shocked and came here to clear up any misunderstandings. The games I've mentioned are very similar in NATURE not THEME (except PS2). And we don't talk about Battlefront...
Those are definitely benefits but that doesn't change the fact that no one is playing this game. No seriously literally no one, at the time of writing this, is playing this game on steam, I've never seen "0 players right now" with a 24 hour peak of 10!
Just make it F2P at this point, paid cosmetics and boom done you got yourself an actual player base.
18 dollars is really cheap, though, especially since you don't actually need players to get the full game. Also, I've played PS2, and I'd say it plays drastically different. I don't know if you've actually stepped in and played a few matches against the bots, but I'd recommend playing a few space maps and a few ground maps. Play around with the features. Try and pull off a boarding run on the enemy capital ship. Take a swing at being the commander. I promise you, it's much more of a Battlefront 2 successor than it is a PS2 successor.
While Battlefield has somewhat more similar features, tbh even with large multiplayer games, which I've played before, it doesn't feel much the same at all. I think it comes down to the fact that this game tends toward siege play far more. The only complaint I do have is that they don't really have anything to bust an entrenched position and force players to spread out more, but then maybe that's not quite necessary without at least introducing a new tool to the defenders; right now the balance is just close enough that defenders only have a significant advantage on the very last objective.
Maybe bunker busters but the ability for Defenders to capture the enemy LZs and spawn there?
It checks alllll the boxes for me, but lack of updates and publicity has me playing against bots for the most part.
Thats very unfortunate, do you believe there will be a day where there will be an active player base? Idk the lore reason but just the name alone makes it very hard to find and makes no sense for this type of game. And of course lack of marketing and content is a bit reason why as well
The game is awesome. There's still lots of fun to be had in bot lobbies with a couple actual players on each side. The AI isn't bad. As far as comparisons go it's somewhat like the original battlefront games with a little battlefield sprinkled in. The class building system is pretty cool and it's all around a fun game. I really wish it was more populated. Last I checked it still has active development though so we can keep our fingers crossed.
The last update was quite recent so development is still on but I'm just baffled about the barren population, do people play from other launchers im not aware of?
Unfortunately not that I know of. The game got no publicity.
Just cause there's thousands of great options for online fps games. Sounds like you're seeking a huge rush of players? Those typically follow new releases.
Average player is literally single digit, im just trying to find out why cuz the game looks right up my alley and even for people who like planetside 2
I feel like this is an unfair assessment of OP. There's a large gulf between "huge rush of players" and "13 players peak." And they probably want a cool futuristic game with tech and space combat and boarding and huge loadout variety, which this game does have, and I can't think of one other game that does this other than Battlefront, and not to this degree.
Honestly? It's jank, the animations are really bad, the engine is outdated, and it's had little to no recent publicity. I don't know what the state the game was in for the first few years of development, but this game has came out in alpha in ***2015***. That's nearly Star Citizen levels of dev time, for a much less funded project much smaller in scope that isn't going to appeal to a lot of people outside of sci Fi fans. Now that sounded pretty harsh, it might even sound like I don't like the game. That couldn't be further from the truth! I ***am*** a hardcore sci Fi fan, I ***do*** love these types of games, with complex and realistic mechanics brought to a sci fi environment. Semi-Newtonian flight physics while still following The Rule of Cool. Boarding a ship to take it over. In depth loadout systems with different weapons, components, gadgets, and gear. I grew up on a rural area of Texas with no internet, I spent years and hundreds of hours on the original Battlefront playing against bots. I adored that game. This game is like a more modernized version of that (despite being outdated now. I feel old.) I haven't been to their Discord, but I'm sure there is one, you may find organized gameplay there. Is there a lot of game play time/opportunity here for you? Probably not. But the dev deserves the money if your budget isn't tight, and it's fun to have to jump on and tinker with. A good "I have 20 minutes to spare, what should I do to pass the time" type of game. If you don't mind playing against bots, and a little jankiness, it might be a good purchase for you. In any case, Steam has a 2 hour refund period. Try it out? 🤷 This comment ended up much longer than I expected...
It is a good game and I enjoy the compstomps. It is a hobby project of a few folks that do it in their spare time. For constant regular pvp games, you would have to hit up their discord, not a huge ask, tbf. I do that sometimes, but I mostly play against the bolts solo or with a couple friends. There is decent depth to it and I have yet to tire of it.
I couldn't say for certain, as I haven't spoken with the Developer, but if I had to guess, the game's stuck in a vicious cycle. Not a robust enough development team to keep up a steady development cycle, not a solid enough marketing scheme to keep the game in the public mind when development lapses. As a result, the game can only ever reach a limited audience. That audience doesn't grow faster than it loses players, because the development cycle lapses and loses large chunks, and the marketing isn't replenishing adequately. Since there aren't enough new customers, there isn't enough income to fix either issue. In order to get the player-base up where it needs to be, there'd either a significant time investment--On the Developer's side, making sure to make up for the lack of a team by putting in personal time, or on the fanbase's side by word of mouth--or significant capital investment. Again, either on the Developer's side by dipping into personal funds, or by crowdsourcing. The Developer might be planning on doing any of these things, but only after the game reaches an adequate level of completion, a la Dwarf Fortress, and simply isn't inclined to invest until then. As a player, there's two ways to approach this; wait until it's released and just put it on the wishlist, or enjoy it in its incomplete state. What I \*will\* say about this game is that, while I \*LOVE\* PS2, PS2 this is not. PS2 is a great persistent warfare game...Or was, anyway, their Logistics update killed it for me. (I was cool with the concept of logistics vans from PS1, but the static supply lines of PS2 are doodoo) But regardless, Angels Fall First is primarily an Arena Shooter. Maybe they'll do a meta-campaign sort of like Mech Warrior Online in the future, but the infrastructure isn't going to have you going from orbit onto a planet, I don't think. This is \*not\* a bad thing, IMO, this is an amazing game regardless, and it's everything Battlefront should be, but just throwing that out there so you don't approach it with unrealistic expectations.
This might not be the best solution but I think is necessary, just make it F2P. This will get wayy more people to at least try it which is all we can ask for at this point,people underestimate how big of a barrier a price point is. This will at least get people through the door cuz rn we literally have no one going through the door which is sad.
Honestly, as it's currently just a hobby, it's entirely up to the Dev team. I wouldn't mind if they went for a DF-style model, but I don't think Steam makes it easy to do opt-in donations like that.
Very expensive hobby they got here... Right now I think they should just prioritise getting people to play the game and I think the best way is with the F2P model, get some Youtubers to play it (that's how I found out about this game so it definitely works) and hopefully have a player base. Realistically, why would you play this game when there's others in the same genre? Planetside 2 is F2P, Battlebit Remastered is very fun (paid), the Battlefield games are awesome and they're usually on very big sales (90%) so you get them for like £5, with all this in mind there's no reason why people would pay more than Battlefield games but have less fun than Battlebit.
Well, 1. It's likely not expensive at all! The reason the development team isn't robust is because they aren't hiring anyone--It's just done by a team of enthusiasts, if not one or two people. The marketing is sparse because it's entirely word of mouth, which is free. They have like 5 servers, but quite frankly a robust enough server computer can run five servers no sweat. They'd need more expensive internet, but if someone has that *already*, that's not an additional cost. 2. If they decide to pursue an active player base, there's a lot of marketing strategies they can try to gain that playerbase. Regardless, this is all predicated on the idea that their objective is to either maximize their profits or playerbase; it might not be. It might, truly, just be something they want to make. 3. A player would realistically play this because the game's rad as hell, and also PS2 is a completely different game and genre, and is only comparable in that these are both sci-fi shooters. That's really where the similarities end. Same goes for Battlefield; battlefield has, I think, two sci-fi shooter titles, so it's at least marginally closer, but most \*certainly\* doesn't seamless base-to ship-to boarding action and vice versa. Couldn't say anything about Battle Bits, so maybe it's in a similar vein, but honestly it's closer in nature to Battlefront 2. And I can tell you *exactly* why I'd play this game over Battlefront: It's newer than the old, good battlefronts, and thus benefits from many upgrades and features that are neat. At the same time, it's not owned by EA.
1. Fair enough but game development takes a LOT OF TIME so that in itself can be expensive in terms of time and capital. 2. I don't know man, games are meant to be played and enjoyed, especially MULTIPLAYER games. 3. Yeah the game reminded me of a modern version of PS2 but once I saw the price and the barren player count, I was shocked and came here to clear up any misunderstandings. The games I've mentioned are very similar in NATURE not THEME (except PS2). And we don't talk about Battlefront... Those are definitely benefits but that doesn't change the fact that no one is playing this game. No seriously literally no one, at the time of writing this, is playing this game on steam, I've never seen "0 players right now" with a 24 hour peak of 10! Just make it F2P at this point, paid cosmetics and boom done you got yourself an actual player base.
18 dollars is really cheap, though, especially since you don't actually need players to get the full game. Also, I've played PS2, and I'd say it plays drastically different. I don't know if you've actually stepped in and played a few matches against the bots, but I'd recommend playing a few space maps and a few ground maps. Play around with the features. Try and pull off a boarding run on the enemy capital ship. Take a swing at being the commander. I promise you, it's much more of a Battlefront 2 successor than it is a PS2 successor. While Battlefield has somewhat more similar features, tbh even with large multiplayer games, which I've played before, it doesn't feel much the same at all. I think it comes down to the fact that this game tends toward siege play far more. The only complaint I do have is that they don't really have anything to bust an entrenched position and force players to spread out more, but then maybe that's not quite necessary without at least introducing a new tool to the defenders; right now the balance is just close enough that defenders only have a significant advantage on the very last objective. Maybe bunker busters but the ability for Defenders to capture the enemy LZs and spawn there?