• steal_your_face@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I get how that could be demoralizing for the team but I think the vast majority of users don’t look at steamdb or care about it. I think I’ve looked once or twice and only for bigger games.

    • GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This may sound dumb, and I’ll google it in a second, but idk what steamdb is.

      Edit: ok, it’s a stats website or something? idk why this would be useful to the average player or the dev is upset. I don’t need to know how many people are playing XYZ game. Maybe I just play weird, indie stuff so that player count isn’t ever going to be a useful ranking metric, but why would a player care?

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        For competitive multiplayer games, there’s some minimum threshold of active players required for the experience to work. If there aren’t enough users, the chances that you’ll find a game with a reasonable skill gap and latency go way down.

      • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Steamdb is useful for a couple different reasons. It shows you more stats than just the number of players, it also shows the price history and what’s on sale (you can filter only the games at a historic low price for the best deals), when a game was released and last updated (great to see if it’s an abandoned game), some other cool stuff that players might like to check before buying a game.

        I usually go there during the seasonal sales and it helps save me money after seeing that most games have been that price before so it can probably wait until I actually have money haha

  • Knightfox@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In my mind Early Access is for games that are so close to completion that they can ask for money and withstand criticism.

    It should go:

    • Alpha (closed or open)
    • Beta (closed and/or open)
    • Early Access
    • Full Release

    If your game suffers in Early Access then it likely means your game wasn’t ready for Early Access. Too often a game that should still be in Closed Alpha or Closed Beta is thrown up on Steam as Early Access. If you’re gonna do that then you have to take the criticism as well.

  • GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree with closed beta, but for a different reason: I hate beta testing software. I don’t have time for that anymore. Maybe if I was in my 20’s or younger. I only want complete games, relatively bug free.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that it works well for games that have very long development cycles where a lot of that development cycle is tweaking. Think of something like Dwarf Fortress.

      • cmhe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think with BG3 it worked quiet well as well. It let the devs get feedback on the game mechanics, but limited the story so that the full release still offers something new. It was a good demo, that let people see the direction of the game. And it also let people get familiar with the game engine so modding tools and some release compatible mods where available very early after the release, that allowed to customize the game experience somewhat.

        I have not read anyone serious stating that the game was dead, while it was in early access, but maybe because that is a bigger title.

      • Knightfox@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah except that Dwarf Fortress was a complete game for years and free. Under the hood it’s the same game, it only costs money now if you’re getting the better graphics and music added.

  • William@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree with closed beta, but for different reasons.

    There will always be “dead game” trolls that will find some statistic to back themselves up. Trying to hide from them isn’t going to solve the real problem, though I guess it’ll solve how mouthy they can get during development, rather than after release.

    • glitches_brew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can’t imagine how rough it would be to pour hours and hours into a passion project only for a vocal minority to be constantly posting irrelevant criticism.

      It’s gotta be demoralizing.

  • CazzoBuco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Literally all of the posts on Steam discussion boards that say “dead game” are farming those clown trophies to gain points in Steam.

    Just go through any game news and you’ll see them everywhere

  • wahming@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can somebody explain why the stats would be showing 1 player if there’s 10k? How much of what he’s saying is hyperbole?

  • plistig@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sorry, maybe it’s just me, but the gameplay video looks aggressively boring. Most of the reviews have quite low playtimes, too. I daresay the actual player count was closer to 1 than 10,000 by orders of magnitude.