Page 7 of 9

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 30th, 2018, 9:16 pm
by _noblesse_oblige_
Wow - this thread took an unexpected twist.

Suffice it to say that the Barrows Deep game has really poor numbers, no matter who is playing it.
Also, releasing with a crap ton of bugs is no excuse for what "could've been". You don't know that had it been less buggy that the net outcome would've been much different.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 30th, 2018, 11:26 pm
by eisberg
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 9:16 pm
Wow - this thread took an unexpected twist.

Suffice it to say that the Barrows Deep game has really poor numbers, no matter who is playing it.
Also, releasing with a crap ton of bugs is no excuse for what "could've been". You don't know that had it been less buggy that the net outcome would've been much different.
Problem is, people here are thinking the crap numbers have to do with the game play and being different from the originals, when the evidence actually suggests it is mostly because of bugs/performance problems.

So yes, we do know that net outcome would have been different because vast majority of the negative reviews are due to bugs/performance and not due to game play/being different than the originals.

Heck, they fix it up, finish up the legacy stuff, controller support, ect, still make that DLC they mentioned prior to release, then re-release the game as "Director's Cut" or "Enhanced Edition" under a new SKU, and chances are they'll get much better sales and reception.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 1:35 am
by Lanatir
eisberg wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 11:26 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 9:16 pm
Wow - this thread took an unexpected twist.

Suffice it to say that the Barrows Deep game has really poor numbers, no matter who is playing it.
Also, releasing with a crap ton of bugs is no excuse for what "could've been". You don't know that had it been less buggy that the net outcome would've been much different.
Problem is, people here are thinking the crap numbers have to do with the game play and being different from the originals, when the evidence actually suggests it is mostly because of bugs/performance problems.

So yes, we do know that net outcome would have been different because vast majority of the negative reviews are due to bugs/performance and not due to game play/being different than the originals.

Heck, they fix it up, finish up the legacy stuff, controller support, ect, still make that DLC they mentioned prior to release, then re-release the game as "Director's Cut" or "Enhanced Edition" under a new SKU, and chances are they'll get much better sales and reception.
The crap numbers have to do with the fact that its a crap game.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 2:01 am
by eisberg
Lanatir wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 1:35 am
eisberg wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 11:26 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 9:16 pm
Wow - this thread took an unexpected twist.

Suffice it to say that the Barrows Deep game has really poor numbers, no matter who is playing it.
Also, releasing with a crap ton of bugs is no excuse for what "could've been". You don't know that had it been less buggy that the net outcome would've been much different.
Problem is, people here are thinking the crap numbers have to do with the game play and being different from the originals, when the evidence actually suggests it is mostly because of bugs/performance problems.

So yes, we do know that net outcome would have been different because vast majority of the negative reviews are due to bugs/performance and not due to game play/being different than the originals.

Heck, they fix it up, finish up the legacy stuff, controller support, ect, still make that DLC they mentioned prior to release, then re-release the game as "Director's Cut" or "Enhanced Edition" under a new SKU, and chances are they'll get much better sales and reception.
The crap numbers have to do with the fact that its a crap game.
It isn't a crap game, it is a great game but unfortunately it was hidden by performance problems and bugs when it launched. Many performance/bug problems that have been fixed, and the very reason why in the last 30 days it is now mostly positive on Steam.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 6:27 am
by thebruce
Ok ok, let's keep it to the topic of looking at numbers, not whether or we think it is or isn't a "crap game". That's an endless argument of opinions.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 8:23 am
by Lanatir
Well, the number of people playing the game have dropped again significantly over the last week and we are now talking about less than 250 people playing it.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 8:42 am
by Lanatir
most clicker idle games have 10 to 100 times that.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 11:59 am
by Spectralshade
eisberg wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 11:26 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 9:16 pm
Wow - this thread took an unexpected twist.

Suffice it to say that the Barrows Deep game has really poor numbers, no matter who is playing it.
Also, releasing with a crap ton of bugs is no excuse for what "could've been". You don't know that had it been less buggy that the net outcome would've been much different.
Problem is, people here are thinking the crap numbers have to do with the game play and being different from the originals, when the evidence actually suggests it is mostly because of bugs/performance problems.

So yes, we do know that net outcome would have been different because vast majority of the negative reviews are due to bugs/performance and not due to game play/being different than the originals.

Heck, they fix it up, finish up the legacy stuff, controller support, ect, still make that DLC they mentioned prior to release, then re-release the game as "Director's Cut" or "Enhanced Edition" under a new SKU, and chances are they'll get much better sales and reception.
evidence? Wow. talk about subjective interpretations.

I wrote my review while it was bug fiesta. I didn't mention bugs once in my review, but pointed out the flaws in the game designand how shallow everything in said design were.

But by your socalled "evidence" that's a review dictated because of bugs because of when I wrote it?

Un-frigging-believable...

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 12:10 pm
by miasma
Lanatir wrote:
October 29th, 2018, 6:54 am
BT4 has better numbers during 'kiddie time', while BT rematers is better at night, where the adults play.
Which makes sense. After all, one of the main reasons for playing the remasters is for the nostalgia, which, of course, won't be a factor for the younger audience. In my 40s now, I hardly play any video games these days, but I bought the remasters just to revisit the series that I enjoyed so much as a kid. And as much as I enjoy the nostalgia and simplicity of it, I freely admit that it's primitive by today's standards, and I can see why it might not appeal too much to the younger generation.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 2:47 pm
by eisberg
Spectralshade wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 11:59 am
eisberg wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 11:26 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 9:16 pm
Wow - this thread took an unexpected twist.

Suffice it to say that the Barrows Deep game has really poor numbers, no matter who is playing it.
Also, releasing with a crap ton of bugs is no excuse for what "could've been". You don't know that had it been less buggy that the net outcome would've been much different.
Problem is, people here are thinking the crap numbers have to do with the game play and being different from the originals, when the evidence actually suggests it is mostly because of bugs/performance problems.

So yes, we do know that net outcome would have been different because vast majority of the negative reviews are due to bugs/performance and not due to game play/being different than the originals.

Heck, they fix it up, finish up the legacy stuff, controller support, ect, still make that DLC they mentioned prior to release, then re-release the game as "Director's Cut" or "Enhanced Edition" under a new SKU, and chances are they'll get much better sales and reception.
evidence? Wow. talk about subjective interpretations.

I wrote my review while it was bug fiesta. I didn't mention bugs once in my review, but pointed out the flaws in the game designand how shallow everything in said design were.

But by your socalled "evidence" that's a review dictated because of bugs because of when I wrote it?

Un-frigging-believable...
Was I talking about your review? Here is a hint, No.
Did I say 100% of the negative reviews were about bugs/performance issues? No.

So your post did absolutely nothing. It doest change the fact that most negative reviews are about performance/bugs

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 4:17 pm
by Spectralshade
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 2:47 pm
Spectralshade wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 11:59 am
eisberg wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 11:26 pm


Problem is, people here are thinking the crap numbers have to do with the game play and being different from the originals, when the evidence actually suggests it is mostly because of bugs/performance problems.

So yes, we do know that net outcome would have been different because vast majority of the negative reviews are due to bugs/performance and not due to game play/being different than the originals.

Heck, they fix it up, finish up the legacy stuff, controller support, ect, still make that DLC they mentioned prior to release, then re-release the game as "Director's Cut" or "Enhanced Edition" under a new SKU, and chances are they'll get much better sales and reception.
evidence? Wow. talk about subjective interpretations.

I wrote my review while it was bug fiesta. I didn't mention bugs once in my review, but pointed out the flaws in the game designand how shallow everything in said design were.

But by your socalled "evidence" that's a review dictated because of bugs because of when I wrote it?

Un-frigging-believable...
Was I talking about your review? Here is a hint, No.
Did I say 100% of the negative reviews were about bugs/performance issues? No.

So your post did absolutely nothing. It doest change the fact that most negative reviews are about performance/bugs
i was using my review as an example. Your comment was a total disregard of >any< review that was actually about the game and negative.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 5:47 pm
by _noblesse_oblige_
eisberg wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 11:26 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 9:16 pm
Wow - this thread took an unexpected twist.

Suffice it to say that the Barrows Deep game has really poor numbers, no matter who is playing it.
Also, releasing with a crap ton of bugs is no excuse for what "could've been". You don't know that had it been less buggy that the net outcome would've been much different.
Problem is, people here are thinking the crap numbers have to do with the game play and being different from the originals, when the evidence actually suggests it is mostly because of bugs/performance problems.
Problem is that after patch 3 was released and inXile begged for people to change their reviews, the approval percentage only went up by 3% and then leveled off. If it was truly all about the bugs, the approval percentage should've kept climbing. Or, are you saying that there are still lots of bugs and performance issues which weren't addressed in the previous patches? If so, where is the robust communication from inXile detailing their next patch roadmap?

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 6:09 pm
by eisberg
Spectralshade wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 4:17 pm
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 2:47 pm
Spectralshade wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 11:59 am


evidence? Wow. talk about subjective interpretations.

I wrote my review while it was bug fiesta. I didn't mention bugs once in my review, but pointed out the flaws in the game designand how shallow everything in said design were.

But by your socalled "evidence" that's a review dictated because of bugs because of when I wrote it?

Un-frigging-believable...
Was I talking about your review? Here is a hint, No.
Did I say 100% of the negative reviews were about bugs/performance issues? No.

So your post did absolutely nothing. It doest change the fact that most negative reviews are about performance/bugs
i was using my review as an example. Your comment was a total disregard of >any< review that was actually about the game and negative.
Except what I said did not do that at all. I was talking about what most negative reviews were about. Your review has nothing to do with what most negative reviews were about.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 6:16 pm
by eisberg
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 5:47 pm
eisberg wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 11:26 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 9:16 pm
Wow - this thread took an unexpected twist.

Suffice it to say that the Barrows Deep game has really poor numbers, no matter who is playing it.
Also, releasing with a crap ton of bugs is no excuse for what "could've been". You don't know that had it been less buggy that the net outcome would've been much different.
Problem is, people here are thinking the crap numbers have to do with the game play and being different from the originals, when the evidence actually suggests it is mostly because of bugs/performance problems.
Problem is that after patch 3 was released and inXile begged for people to change their reviews, the approval percentage only went up by 3% and then leveled off. If it was truly all about the bugs, the approval percentage should've kept climbing. Or, are you saying that there are still lots of bugs and performance issues which weren't addressed in the previous patches? If so, where is the robust communication from inXile detailing their next patch roadmap?

That wasn't begging at all. Asking and begging are very 2 different things.
And no, if you go through the negative reviews that were done in the first days, you can find many many people that never came back to the game after those first days. This is why you see a game like No Man's sky sitting at 47% (Mixed) despite making great strides in improving the game, and that is because the chances of the people who left a negative review for performance/bugs and left the game because of those, actually coming back because of patches are still small.

Games have a hard time getting their overall reviews into the positive if they release with bad performance/bugs, even if they make great strides on fixing those things. The only real way to recover from that is by re-releasing the game as "Director's Cut" "Enhanced Edition" and put it under a different sku/product ID, and drop the original version from being sold.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 6:58 pm
by _noblesse_oblige_
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 6:16 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 5:47 pm
Problem is that after patch 3 was released and inXile begged for people to change their reviews, the approval percentage only went up by 3% and then leveled off. If it was truly all about the bugs, the approval percentage should've kept climbing. Or, are you saying that there are still lots of bugs and performance issues which weren't addressed in the previous patches? If so, where is the robust communication from inXile detailing their next patch roadmap?
That wasn't begging at all. Asking and begging are very 2 different things.
Begging is a form of asking. If you don't like the word "begging", then "pleading" would also work to describe their post-patch 3 communication.
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 6:16 pm
And no, if you go through the negative reviews that were done in the first days, you can find many many people that never came back to the game after those first days.
Yes, and I've said this before. It's a matter of momentum. Yet, there were people predicting that the patches were going to turn things around and that Barrows Deep was going to hit 70% approval once they were done patching.
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 6:16 pm
and that is because the chances of the people who left a negative review for performance/bugs and left the game because of those, actually coming back because of patches are still small.
Correct. And without knowing whether they would've changed their reviews if they did come back, you're engaging in speculation about what could've been by saying that the reviews would've been better.
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 6:16 pm
The only real way to recover from that is by re-releasing the game as "Director's Cut" "Enhanced Edition" and put it under a different sku/product ID, and drop the original version from being sold.
Could be. Time will tell if that happens in this case. Probably not worth speculating on the outcome since you don't know what such an outcome would be and I don't either.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 7:07 pm
by Jalis
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 6:16 pm
Games have a hard time getting their overall reviews into the positive if they release with bad performance/bugs, even if they make great strides on fixing those things.
And this game is no different. And that's a shame, because whatever someone feels about this 4th entry, fans of the series aren't as likely to get another entry as a result of this one's at best poor first impressions and at worst, lackluster support from RPG fans overall. We all lose in this situation, and it appears to be fairly obvious when the remasters are evidently beating the newest entry in word of mouth praise, reviews, peak players, etc. (Not sure if the remasters beat BT4 in sales, I don't think so?)

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: October 31st, 2018, 9:45 pm
by eisberg
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 6:58 pm
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 6:16 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 5:47 pm
Problem is that after patch 3 was released and inXile begged for people to change their reviews, the approval percentage only went up by 3% and then leveled off. If it was truly all about the bugs, the approval percentage should've kept climbing. Or, are you saying that there are still lots of bugs and performance issues which weren't addressed in the previous patches? If so, where is the robust communication from inXile detailing their next patch roadmap?
That wasn't begging at all. Asking and begging are very 2 different things.
Begging is a form of asking. If you don't like the word "begging", then "pleading" would also work to describe their post-patch 3 communication.
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 6:16 pm
And no, if you go through the negative reviews that were done in the first days, you can find many many people that never came back to the game after those first days.
Yes, and I've said this before. It's a matter of momentum. Yet, there were people predicting that the patches were going to turn things around and that Barrows Deep was going to hit 70% approval once they were done patching.
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 6:16 pm
and that is because the chances of the people who left a negative review for performance/bugs and left the game because of those, actually coming back because of patches are still small.
Correct. And without knowing whether they would've changed their reviews if they did come back, you're engaging in speculation about what could've been by saying that the reviews would've been better.
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 6:16 pm
The only real way to recover from that is by re-releasing the game as "Director's Cut" "Enhanced Edition" and put it under a different sku/product ID, and drop the original version from being sold.
Could be. Time will tell if that happens in this case. Probably not worth speculating on the outcome since you don't know what such an outcome would be and I don't either.
How is that any different than those who are saying that this game would have been sold/reception better had they made it closer to the originals?

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: November 1st, 2018, 4:38 pm
by _noblesse_oblige_
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 9:45 pm
How is that any different than those who are saying that this game would have been sold/reception better had they made it closer to the originals?
I don't know if it would've sold better, but it almost certainly would've had better reception, because the originals have a real following - an actual audience which can be understood. Look at the popularity of the remasters. If there was no faithful fan base, they would not have been as well received as they have been.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: November 1st, 2018, 7:22 pm
by eisberg
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
November 1st, 2018, 4:38 pm
eisberg wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 9:45 pm
How is that any different than those who are saying that this game would have been sold/reception better had they made it closer to the originals?
I don't know if it would've sold better, but it almost certainly would've had better reception, because the originals have a real following - an actual audience which can be understood. Look at the popularity of the remasters. If there was no faithful fan base, they would not have been as well received as they have been.
Isn't that assuming that the audience of the originals would outnumber the the amount of new people to the series? Not many people played the Trilogy, especially when 33k people got it for free, so that suggest that the actual people who are fans of how the originals were are small in numbers, and those people would most likely be by far outnumbered by the number of new people to the series, which would most likely make the reception actually even worse than it is now.

Re: Analysis of Steam activity for BT4

Posted: November 1st, 2018, 7:41 pm
by _noblesse_oblige_
eisberg wrote:
November 1st, 2018, 7:22 pm
_noblesse_oblige_ wrote:
November 1st, 2018, 4:38 pm

I don't know if it would've sold better, but it almost certainly would've had better reception, because the originals have a real following - an actual audience which can be understood. Look at the popularity of the remasters. If there was no faithful fan base, they would not have been as well received as they have been.
Isn't that assuming that the audience of the originals would outnumber the the amount of new people to the series? Not many people played the Trilogy, especially when 33k people got it for free, so that suggest that the actual people who are fans of how the originals were are small in numbers, and those people would most likely be by far outnumbered by the number of new people to the series, which would most likely make the reception actually even worse than it is now.
Not necessarily. Games tuned to a niche tend not to attract as many people outside that niche. I'll use an example I've cited in another conversation: the Dominions games by Illwinter. Most people are turned off by the 600+ manual and the fairly weak GUI, but yet the games have very high ratings on Steam. Why? Because most of the people who weren't interested in them didn't bother buying them. But, the series does have a cult following of hardcore strategy gamers.

One problem with Barrows Deep, as delivered, is that inXile didn't have a clear target audience and cast a wide net, trying to throw in a little bit for everyone, which ended up pleasing no one. They hyped the game in various ways in the gaming media in attempt to draw in "modern" players. The "modern" players generally weren't impressed and neither were most of the old school players. By contrast, Illwinter knows who their audience is. Krome knows who their audience is. The reception of their games reflects that.