There’s a new player-count-related debate spreading like wildfire throughout the gaming space, and it concerns the success of ARC Raiders compared to the relative failure of Battlefield 6. In recent days, fans of both titles have been actively engaging in a debate to determine why one is soaring while the other can’t seem to do anything right.
This stems from Steam player counts (where else?), which paint a telling tale. Two months after release, ARC Raiders has managed to retain 91% of its peak player count on Steam, while Battlefield 6 has witnessed an 85% plummeting drop in the numbers.
Where do you stand on the debate?
Steam Isn’t the Ultimate Litmus Test for Gaming Numbers
Too many people are still reliant on Steam’s figures for the picture of health for a game, but extrapolation is king. It could be considered woefully unfair to use a single platform to determine the overall health of a game like Battlefield 6, given that on PC, that’s arguably not even the most popular launcher for the game.
It doesn’t matter much, as the debate rages, and Steam data is all we have to go on when it comes to facts and figures.
In the most recent news, it was Forbes that drew attention to the numbers, pointing out that ARC Raiders has retained 91% of its player base after two months. On the other hand, Battlefield 6, which was released in proximity to Embark Studios’ new extraction shooter, has plummeted by more than 85%.
It’s a fractured debate for many reasons.
First, the live-service model for ARC Raiders and Battlefield 6 is quite different. The former operates on delivering new missions, progression paths, unlocks, boss characters, maps, and events, which represent much more meat than what Battlefield offers. EA’s new first-person shooter is focused more on new maps, modes, and battle pass bundles than anything else.
ARC Raiders, being an extraction shooter, has a ‘reset loop’ that ensures players can come back every few weeks and restart their playthrough, which isn’t a thing in Battlefield 6, a typical multiplayer shooter. There’s point two in the argument against this debate.
ARC Raiders also represents something new and exciting in the gaming space: a truly accessible extraction shooter. At the same time, Battlefield 6 is just a first-person shooter with a boots-on-the-ground military setting, and they’re a dime a dozen. Folks came, saw, enjoyed the game, and departed for greener pastures when things started going south.
That’s the third point.
The fourth point against the argument is that ARC Raiders has simply been doing things better where Battlefield 6 is failing. In recent weeks, some of the new maps, modes, and bundles released in the Battlefield 6 space have left players disappointed, and controversies have surfaced regarding gen-AI art that have gone unexplained by Electronic Arts.
It’s simple, really. While Battlefield has a peak of 747,440 on Steam, it’s mostly comprised of players edging with curiosity into a game that marked a potential resurgence for a failing franchise. They dipped their toes in the water, and many of them decided to ultimately move on.
Conversely, ARC Raiders operates on a concept that many hadn’t ever experienced before it dropped. They’ve tried it, liked what’s on offer, and more have decided to hang around. It also helps that you can invest in ARC Raiders for as little as $30, and everything after that point, bar cosmetics, is free.
So, it’s safe to say we can cap this debate and move on. It’s a non-starter, apples and oranges, chalk and cheese, and something barely worth addressing.
Do you think there’s a deeper theme to discuss here, or is it pointless comparing two drastically different games like this? Let us know your thoughts on the Insider Gaming Discord server.
For more Insider Gaming coverage, check out the recent Tarkov interview that revealed deep secrets about the game’s development
Grant has been gaming for 30+ years and in the industry for 10+. You'll probably find him playing a post-apocalyptic game or an extraction shooter somewhere.
More from Grant Taylor-Hill
Meanwhile, many of us haven’t played either game.
BF6 sold everyone a different game than they adverstised during the highly successful playtest. After many bad updates the people tricked into buying the game just stopped playing. Its pretty simple. Its far too “Cod-like” with small maps and terrible hit registry. The playercount falling off is a result of their deceitful development. Its not a return to the old BF they advertised.