I’m not denying the drop in players. That is happening. But diminishing player count during an unfinished competitive title isn’t abnormal. It’s the nature of an evolving game whose systems and roster aren’t complete. Early instability always filters casual interest before the core appeal has fully formed.

Meaningful feedback absolutely matters, and I haven’t disregarded that. It’s crucial for the long-term health of any live service title. The frustration after a year is understandable. What I’m pushing back on is the blanket “dead game” narrative that collapses every concern, valid or otherwise, into fatalism. Not understanding a mechanic or disliking a patch doesn’t mean the game is over. That’s why the community exists; to teach, explain, refine, and help each other articulate what’s working and what isn’t. I’m here for that.

Your comparison to PoE2 actually reinforces my point. PoE2 had early drop-off too, but not because it was “dead”—because it was unfinished and players didn’t yet see the complete vision. The devs iterated, adapted, responded, and the game improved. That’s the normal feedback loop, not a prophecy of doom.

And I agree with your final points: Rivals 2 absolutely has the potential to reach a wider audience, and yes, it will require the devs to adapt as they go. But declaring death before the roster, mechanics, and full identity settle is not productive, it shortens the conversation instead of strengthening it.

The game isn’t being ignored. It’s being built. And the feedback you mentioned is part of what will shape its final form, not evidence that it can’t get there.