EPTF2P players rate the game negatively and probably don't play as much each
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Ax2T6mq.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/dauJ5No.png)
New review count is a decent proxy for people trying the game, as a fraction of players generally leave a review after a day or two.
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread - Page 163
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
F2P players rate the game negatively and probably don't play as much each New review count is a decent proxy for people trying the game, as a fraction of players generally leave a review after a day or two. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16702 Posts
On August 17 2024 20:05 Cyro wrote: New review count is a decent proxy for people trying the game, as a fraction of players generally leave a review after a day or two. Thx for putting this together. On August 18 2024 02:00 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Releasing with only a 6 mission campaign with partly placeholder assets is such a weird choice to me. It's just straight up a bad introduction to the game especially when you try to invoke blizzard style RTS that all launched with 25-30 mission campaigns. I picked up SC64 in 2001 for $20. 60 missions for $20 was my intro to RTS. Over the years I've seen copies of SC64 sell for $200. Talk about aging like wine. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25286 Posts
On August 18 2024 03:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for putting this together. I picked up SC64 in 2001 for $20. 60 missions for $20 was my intro to RTS. Over the years I've seen copies of SC64 sell for $200. Talk about aging like wine. That’s not really ageing well, it’s just the collector’s market doing what it does. Luckily I’m happy enough emulating, or using what original hardware I kept running. For people who actually enjoy retro gaming as an activity the collector inflation is an absolute scourge. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16702 Posts
On August 18 2024 03:56 WombaT wrote: That’s not really ageing well, it’s just the collector’s market doing what it does. Very few N64 carts sell for over $200. There were many months where SC64 was the top priced cart. SC64 is popular and it has been popular for many many years. What is the price of the C&C game? ~$15? Wayne Gretzky 3D hockey was a system seller in '96. It was in every arcade and the N64 version is arcade perfect. The cart is dirt cheap even in the epicentre of hockey video games. Collectors want SC64 because it is good. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25286 Posts
On August 18 2024 04:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Very few N64 carts sell for over $200. There were many months where SC64 was the top priced cart. SC64 is popular and it has been popular for many many years. What is the price of the C&C game? ~$15? Wayne Gretzky 3D hockey was a system seller in '96. The cart is dirt cheap even in the epicentre of hockey video games. Collectors want SC64 because it is good. No they don’t, are you familiar with collectors? Novelty/rarity are the name of that particular game. I have various PS2 era games that are the ‘definitive edition’ equivalent who would sell, if I was so-minded for far less than absolutely inferior base games. | ||
|
PurE)Rabbit-SF
United States654 Posts
On August 17 2024 20:05 Cyro wrote: They did get a lot of F2P players, but the dropoff from EA day 1 to day 7 before F2P hit was huge (~ -80%) F2P players rate the game negatively and probably don't play as much each New review count is a decent proxy for people trying the game, as a fraction of players generally leave a review after a day or two. The graph you put together is a bit confusing, can you further explain what the positive overall and positive day is ? On paper it tricked me to think it was positive vs negative on a glance. | ||
|
PurE)Rabbit-SF
United States654 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/aC4NXhs.png) Actually storm gate have more positive view compare to negative one before Aug 13 that is open up to free to play, and has a lot more negative review comparatively indicated by the graph show above. I don't really know what kind of graph you put up together trying to sway the conversation about Cryo. It is confusing to say the least.  | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16702 Posts
On August 18 2024 06:09 PurE)Rabbit-SF wrote: Actually storm gate have more positive view compare to negative one before Aug 13 that is open up to free to play, and has a lot more negative review comparatively indicated by the graph show above. I don't really know what kind of graph you put up together trying to sway the conversation about Cryo. It is confusing to say the least. i don't find the graph confusing. and the #s behind both yours and Cryo's graphs match. 62% positive reviews before general public F2P release. Then it falls to under 55% positive reviews a few days after general release. I think it is down to 54% now. It's fading. If you dig into the people giving it a negative review these seem like 100% legit Steam users. When I am pretending to work tomorrow I'll dig into the positive reviews and see if they are legit Steam users. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On August 18 2024 06:03 PurE)Rabbit-SF wrote: The graph you put together is a bit confusing, can you further explain what the positive overall and positive day is ? On paper it tricked me to think it was positive vs negative on a glance. Positive % overall is counting all prior reviews, while positive % day is just the reviews from that date. | ||
|
kAra
Germany1374 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1710 Posts
On August 18 2024 16:27 kAra wrote: so the numbers doesnt look so good. biggest mistake? i guess asking competative 1v1 players what is fun in a game and focusing on that. the result is something not fun for most players. i dont think pros really tell the dev team fun things to implement, i think it is mostly regarding balance but i could be wrong | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9378 Posts
On August 18 2024 16:27 kAra wrote: so the numbers doesnt look so good. biggest mistake? i guess asking competative 1v1 players what is fun in a game and focusing on that. the result is something not fun for most players. When I look at a game like Path of Exile it's clear the devs had a clear vision for what they thought was awesome. In contrast, I don't think the two Tims really had any idea exactly what type of RTS games would be awesome. Besides, Sc2 but slower. For some reason they thought they could do everything sc2 did on a 40M budget (or perhaps they gambled on being able to acquire more VC), and they were convinced they could get 50% of WoL playernumbers. BattleAces - while not exactly my personal vision for the RTS genre - at least its obvious that David Kim had an idea he wanted to see executed. I don't think the game is too complex to develop (much more feasible on a limited budget). Its a new thing and many will probably be open to play it as a side-thing to their primary game. For that reason this game has a chance. The learning is this - founders who aren't passionate about their product and isn't dying to play this game them selves - are unlikely to succeed in creating succesful games. | ||
|
Comedy
456 Posts
I guess on frostgiant, Monk is the guy with the ideas, maybe together with a few other people on his team. Hopefully people who can at least play the game to a level where they can see nuances etc. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9378 Posts
On August 18 2024 18:13 Comedy wrote: I think 'the Tims' are managers who oversee the work, and aren't necessarily responsible for ideas on 'what makes the next great rts'. I think it's hard for boomers who probably have bronze skill level to really get a grasp of that anyways. It's a miracle that blizzard in the 90's was able to make sc1 and that it turned out the way it did, cause they must have had even less of an idea back then. I guess on frostgiant, Monk is the guy with the ideas, maybe together with a few other people on his team. Hopefully people who can at least play the game to a level where they can see nuances etc. Yes I think that is what happens as well. I think it's much more effective when one of the executives/founders is product-expert. It makes it much more efficient to implement ideas he can ensure everyone is onboard. The contrast is you hire someone else to hopefully figure out something, and you are effectively just gambling and you likely end up with different types of ideas/concepts at different teams. As opposed to if you dedicate your startup to nailing a primary area where you think all other existing produts on the market are far inferior. Generally if cofounders aren't technical or product-experts, I don't fancy their chances. I get there is some value in organizational and network skills, but it's my belief that they only succeed if the core idea is really really good or there is some luck involved. E.g. I don't think Riot Games had the strongest founding team but the potential of the idea was massive + a lot of luck in HoN messing up monetization model. Zerospace's founder creating the prototype entirely by him self impresses me. Although I do think he gambles when he doesn't have a clear vision for the design of the game and instead reaches out to "famous" people and hopes they can implement good ideas. | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey397 Posts
This was a pretty cool match. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16702 Posts
On August 18 2024 18:13 Comedy wrote:It's a miracle that blizzard in the 90's was able to make sc1 and that it turned out the way it did, cause they must have had even less of an idea back then. I do not think it was a miracle. I think the core 15 people at Blizzard working on the game are geniuses who worked extremely hard. I think Blizzard is full value for having the ambition and balls to make the first 3 race diverse race RTS. Blizzard continued to do great things. What happened in '97 to '99 was no accident. Also, Blizzard continued to support SC1 for many years after release in an era when all other developers made the game like it was a cartridge and forgot about it. Blizzard had the balls to be different. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25286 Posts
On August 19 2024 03:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I do not think it was a miracle. I think the core 15 people at Blizzard working on the game are geniuses who worked extremely hard. I think Blizzard is full value for having the ambition and balls to make the first 3 race diverse race RTS. Blizzard continued to do great things. What happened in '97 to '99 was no accident. Also, Blizzard continued to support SC1 for many years after release in an era when all other developers made the game like it was a cartridge and forgot about it. Blizzard had the balls to be different. Basically anyone I’ve heard speak on the matter thinks it pretty miraculous in terms of what a multiplayer phenomenon it spawned. People figured out all sorts of stuff that Blizzard never thought about, and none of it ended up completely breaking the game’s balance entirely. All the credit in the world for their vision and solid design, across the board, absolutely. They deserve all the credit for a great game that’s going. But in ways BW as the true phenomenon it became was also a tad fortuitous. In the same way I look at games that are popular speedrun titles. The core game is often great, but in very few cases did the designers ever intend for their game to be played that way. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21676 Posts
which is not to take away their brilliant work, they made an amazing game. But the success it ended up having and the longevity of it was pure chance. | ||
| ||
