No reason to sound the alarms just yet, because it didn't happen overnight - we're looking at an 18 month period, which is how long it took EA's Battlefield 1 to drop from 569 thousand players to today's most faithful 90 thousand.
It's nothing new for a game to be dropping players along the way, especially after a year and a half on the market like Battlefield 1. A combined figure of 90 thousand players on peak days and hours isn't that bad either, excellent retention, but at some point it will stop being viable from a financial standpoint.
Matchmaking is still pretty fast and considering its niche appeal, Battlefield 1 is still doing well for all intents and purposes. However, many questions were raised over whether EA could've done better.
EA will always remain EA and we've got to admit - their practices are enough to drive bears away from honey. The company rolled out plenty of DLC so as to freshen the game up but, as EA oh-so-often does, managed to step on so many toes in the process.
Buying a game only to have to shell out another $50 for the season pass never sat well with many gamers. You're basically locked out of playing maps in a game you paid for, because you didn't shell out more greenbacks.
EA, money-smart as they are, do not seem to comprehend that gamers don't like the feeling of being nickeled and dimed out of their cash. It's a big deal when it comes to player retention rates, although the mass appeal of EA's games seems to be compensating for that pretty well.
Ironically enough, Battlefield 4, which launched back in 2013, boasts about of its big brother Battlefield 1. The game has anywhere from 40 to 50 thousand players on peak days, which is quite a feat for a five year old.
EA have already announced that monthly updates for Battlefield 1 will , so the company is well aware of its population drops. Maybe it's a good time for EA to rethink their practices? What am I saying, it's been that time for a decade now.