That’s according to Steam Charts data, which claims that the game fell to just a single player at midnight BST on Wednesday, May 4.
The incredible stat comes just two months after the Square Enix title’s release, and follows weeks of dwindling player counts on PC, which is the only launch platform that can be reliably tracked (Babylon’s Fall is also available on PlayStation consoles).
According to the same data, the online brawler failed to attract more than 77 concurrent players at any point this week.
BABYLON’S FALL | Combat 101 Trailer
The title has averaged 64 concurrent players over the past 30 days. In comparison, Marvel’s Avengers – which was branded as a failure by Square Enix – averaged 276. Another Square Enix online game, Outriders, averaged 862 concurrent players over the past 30 days.
Babylon’s Fall was widely panned by critics when it launched in March. According to review aggregator Metacritic, the title is by far the worst reviewed game so far on PS5 and the worst game of the year.
Despite the game’s slow start, Square Enix and PlatinumGames moved quickly to insist that Babylon’s Fall development was not in danger.
The title’s poor reception seemingly encouraged the pair to address its future plans for the title, with a Twitter image published shortly after launch titled: “Is the continuing service in danger?”
The post insisted that there were “no plans to reduce the scale of development” on Babylon’s Fall, and claimed that content up until the game’s second season is “practically complete”, with work on Season 3 already started.
“In the future, Babylon’s Fall will almost certainly be frequently used as an example of how not to launch a live service game,” opens VGC’s review of the game.
“Not only does it fail at the most basic elements, such as a visual style that’s incredibly unappealing, or a mission structure that is somehow both dreadfully short and tedious, but the game also tries desperately to establish itself as a live game, filling your screen with as many opportunities to micro-transact as it can, despite the fact it actually costs $60 to purchase.”