[quote=“AlphaUT;211342”]
It is. People on this very forum verified that with the developer of the website including myself. Peak numbers means very little in regards to the actual playerbase size and health of a game. Peak numbers are also typically viewed by many as the game literally only having a few thousand people playing the game as opposed to over 100,000 people actually playing it. People like yourself apparently since you don’t seem to understand the difference between peak numbers compared to consistent numbers that shows the entirety of the playing population. Just like you don’t understand the difference between a lie and a milestone/target date.
Can we have a better explanation of how that number came from? Did they count it as many time as an account opened the game during a day or a specific time? Did they count it as an account is just one, and count it only one time per 2 weeks, no matter how many times that account opened the game?
Yes, peak number only represents the highest number of players playing within one day, and there is a POSSIBILITY that 1996 is the highest number and the rest of the time is 1995. Look at all other popular games. They have a larger number of 2 weeks player playing. They have a larger number of peak number. Some old games like TF2 and Warframe, they have a much larger number, even though they are old. Why? Because they are more attractive.
Maybe saying a game’s peak number means nothing is correct. But have you ever check some other games, comparing them.
When I say is game dying, it does not mean, SD giving up or the game will stop updating or even close. It means the majority of the people stopped playing it. When a game does not have a lot of people playing it, that basically tells me “there is no hope”
Moreover, as the slow progress continuing and not so many people playing, will the company keep giving the money to it? At least it does not make sense to me to waste money on a project which the future of it isn’t so bright. Why wouldn’t I use the money for a better project that can gain the profit?
And now you’re trying to become a martyr for your cause by posting why you were warned hoping that I’ll out myself as some evil entity. I have no issues with you posting the warning as I posted in the thread why it was being closed. Your willful ignorance and inability to be a socially conscious member of the community is what could get you removed. Not because anybody is oppressing you. But because you are trying to get away with using inaccurate information as a basis for calling people who work very hard liars.
So make no mistakes, if you get banned it’s entirely on you. You will not be a martyr…you’ll just be a guy who doesn’t know how basic social situations work or how to properly debate a topic so that your voice is heard.
About this part. My apologize. I did not make myself clear of what exactly the warning was for. It is true that my another thread seems to be a crusade. I thought the warning was for this thread. The time I see the warning, post my comment, jokes on it, I did not realize my another thread was closed.
@Amerika
(well, I did find it funny when I post the picture of “User Banned Please Carry On” myself, atleast it seems to be a joke for me)[/quote]
The number is based on how many people turned on Dirty Bomb. These are numbers that can be gotten from Steam’s API very easily and it’s not an estimate. It’s literally the amount of unique players who turn on Dirty Bomb in a two week period. Sadly, a lot of sites simply go with the extremely situational peak numbers as opposed to using concurrent numbers. And people confuse peak numbers as being the total amount of people playing a game which leads to a lot of animosity. 128,000 people playing a game consistently isn’t “dead”…not even close. It’s weaker than it was but given that context it’s not dead. Peak numbers are still valuable but only for explaining short peaks and valley’s that happen during events, sales and new content as a short term snapshot of current popularity.
Warframe, for a time, didn’t have huge peak numbers but it always had very consistent concurrent numbers (just like DB). Then it was bought by the same company that bought Splash Damage and due to a cash infusion from that same company and a lot of good calls on the design end and providing players with useful content to keep them happy has helped that game a lot. It’s something I’d like to see done with DB.
As for the rest…I did link you the exact thread that generated the warning and that I shutdown. So you should probably read those warnings in the future, if you ever get another one, before posting 
Apology accepted though.
And I have no issues with this thread. It’s a good opportunity for people to learn about what is being done and could be done even if it’s not all sunshine and rainbows for DB. I bet in the future people who read this might use SteamDB or similar and concurrent numbers as well when debating these types of topics so even that is a little win for this thread.
However, concurrent numbers are down and that can’t be argued. But it does show that a lot of people still play DB and they aren’t just sitting there turning it on for a second and turning it off. So flat out saying the game is dead isn’t accurate. But figuring out why numbers are down is a good thing.
Apology accepted though.