Why I believe this game doesn't sell

This is the forum for FEEDBACK & IDEAS for the game. No bugs, glitch or crash reports here.

Why I believe this game doesn't sell

Postby wafflah » 30 Oct 2015, 19:35

Hello, first I would like to say that I truly respect the developer team for trying to fix a game that didn't start off too well by accepting the mistakes they make.

Now on to the subject of this topic. I believe that the game isn't selling very well. First off, the selling point of this games is it's "finite" value, as in the population system. Now, while this is a very bold approach that might attract some people, the majority of gamers will be turned off by this, especially since the game isn't made by one of the super duper triple a company (which most will associate with a guarantee of good quality).

Now with the problem that there isn't enough people buying the game, another problem arises: the population. With a population of 215 289 061 (the population at the time I am writing this), if you say that on average there are 1 000 deaths per day then the game would end in about... 580 years. Put that number to 10 000 it would be 58 year and put it to 100 000 and it would take 5.8 years. Considering I believe that 5.8 years is a good time span for this game's population system, if a player were to die on average 10 times per day (which is a good amount I'd say) you would still need to have on average 10 000 players playing each day which would put you in about the top 30-40 games played on steam (a bit under left 4 dead 2).

Now with the average of... 10 players a day (even that amount is very generous) you pretty much lose the whole "finite" feeling of the game as everyone who is playing will probably be dead in real life before the "death" of the game. That destroys the whole population experience since you won't even be near the "climax" of the game when you will be 70 years old. You could lower the current population to accommodate the current player population but that lower number will scare a lot of new players even more.

I believe that lowering the price and fixing and adding new content is a very good step towards the right path. However, with only 3 maps and 1 game mode (which means that you play the same game on 3 different landscapes), the very numerous bugs and optimisation needed for the game I think many would turn away from this product which does certainly have potential.

So how do I think you can fix this? Well, if you want to make this game a hit then it's probably never going to happen. With initial release and the early reviews being so important in the current gaming industry, there isn't much hope for hitting that 100 000 deaths a day. You can probably lower the price to 5$ (the current on-sale price) but even then with a mixed review on steam most of the players will look a the comments on steam that are mostly negative and will start doubting if they should pay 5$ (which I know is a large sum - you can buy a Big Mac at McDonalds if you want with that...) for a game with a single game mode and a "finite" value (although they probably don't calculate how long this game will keep on going with the current population drop rate).

So is the answer to lower the price even more? Arguably it could work. Take Orion for example: the game is very messy but at a very low price of 1$ most people are happy buying it just to play a bit with their friends. Of course the price is up to the developers and I totally respect your choice if you were to not put it that low. The other answer of course is to add a lot of new content: 2-3 new game modes, about 5 new maps and model optimisation would make this game completely worth a 15$ price tag (I would even pay for 20$). On the other hand, with this much work put into one game you could basically make a new one and make a much better impression on launch, that is if money is what you want.

Since you said in one of your dev updates that people feel like this is more of a "event" feeling game, another suggestion that I have is to periodically make those "events". More players on each map, more Light Artifact on each map, hostile ai that can kill you while you are the flock, etc. A feeling of dynamic temporary changes (for those who don't like the change it is only temporary and those who liked it they will have had a fun experience) to the game play can keep players looking forward to what next event will be released. That will also make your workload a whole lot bigger (considering your current dev team is composed of 7 members which 4 of them are still studying).

So here are my kind of long thoughts (now that I look back at how much I wrote I feel like I got a bit carried away) on the problems of this game. I know that I probably sound like I'm trashing a lot on what you made but I just want to give a realistic point of view on this matter and give my honest feedback and suggestions on such a game that has so much potential. I seriously apologise if I've offended anyone with my post and I don't mind if it's taken down for whatever reason.

I would like to say again that I truly respect you developers who, instead of abandoning a game that didn't sell very well on launch, which almost all other developers give up on, try to make this a work that maybe won't be the biggest hit ever but will at least be a fun game that people will enjoy and not regret purchasing. Thank you for taking your time reading this whole wall of text (or thank you for just reading the end only ;) ).

Thank you.
wafflah
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 30 Oct 2015, 18:28

Return to Feedback and ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron