Going to preface this by stating this is based on my experience with the PC version. I can’t speak for console gamers but based on what I’ve read as well as past and recent trends in online multiplayer communities, I will try my best to speculate.
Currently on PC, Brink sits at 600 daily players, which is abysmal for a game that isn’t even three months old yet. At launch, it was at ~13,000 which is even worse, considering it’s a “Triple A” Multiplayer First Person Shooter developed by the team behind everyone’s favourite Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. In theory, this game should have been a smash hit but because of launch issues and apparently lack of interest, the game is sitting at a very low number.
What does a low player count mean?
In terms of Servers:
-Lots of empty servers
-If you’re a fan of very specific variations of the core game’s ruleset, you’re out of luck because unless your “niche” was the majority at launch, you’re not going to find a game.
-Even if you’re a fan of one of the default game modes, it’ll be harder for you to find a game. Not as difficult as the niche gamer obviously, but still difficult.
In terms of community:
-After a few years (in this generation, it’s mere months), a large portion of the population (content tourists, casual players, people who only don’t have an attachment to the game, etc) of a multiplayer online game will either go back to whatever they were playing previously or on to the next big game. The only people who will remain are the elite and those who are absolutely in love with the games ruleset, community or any other thing relating to the product. In less than three months, Brink is at that stage. Because of this:
-It’s harder for new people to adapt to the game. The remaining players will either scare them off with their skill or behaviour, or they’ll have trouble finding matches or in the grand scheme of things, their place in the community.
In terms of business:
-Harder to justify continued support of the product.
-Less people to sell add-on content to (this can be massive expansions, map-pack DLC, cosmetic items, anything that adds to the game. I’m not saying Splash Damage will charge for DLC but it’s a possibility!)
-Harder to justify a sequel or new addition to the IP. This means there’s no second chance for the developer to fix their mistakes and attempt to 1up their previous attempt. I believe every developer deserves a second chance because no studio goes into development with the intention of making a bad product.
I work at a small video game retail chain (Need to pay for school somehow) and I’ve seen more copies of Brink returned and traded in since it released than every Call of Duty game combined. I would always ask customers why they were returning games because I was genuinely curious (it was also a good starting point for when I would eventually force my opinion on them). “No singleplayer”, “I thought I was paying for a $60 game, instead I got a buggy $10 XBLA title”, “Too laggy”, etc. The list goes on. No one said the actual game was bad. All the complaints were either technical things or because of the fact that people were spoiled by the poster child for a complete $60 package, Call of Duty (You get SP, MP and Co-op and regular major updates). If Splash Damage was given a second chance, they’d probably knock it out of the park.
I love Brink. I love how it looks, I love how it feels, I love the ruleset. I love Splash Damage as well and would love to see them flourish and become a big respectable studio. I recently read about THQ shutting Kaos Studios down which was upsetting. The game was commercially successful but didn’t have the critical reception to match the sales. I don’t know how many copies Brink sold but if a million plus seller like Homefront could lead to a studio closure, then what does the future have in store for Splash Damage and Brink?
