Poll of the Day > Indie Steam Game Decksplash canned after failing to reach 100k players in 1 week

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://steamcommunity.com/games/499470/announcements/detail/1464095113790422871

wut....
---

Can't blame them. You can't keep up with the costs of maintaining an online game if you don't have enough players.
---

If it was a noname studio, then I'd call them out on unrealistic expectations, but their studio makes tons of games every year so if they want a multiplayer game they need self-sufficiency or they can afford to not bother, they can then in turn sell the IP to someone else.
---

i just can't believe they would set such a unrealistic goal for themselves...
---

it probably wasn't an unrealistic goal. they didn't have enough people playing to be worth it for them to keep a server up for the game, that's literally it.

so they decided to not spend the money to officially release the game.
---

This is just something that happens when every game has to be centered around online multiplayer for some reason.

well it's a multiplayer only game, so
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

This is just something that happens when every game has to be centered around online multiplayer for some reason.

single player games are harder to keep people interested in once they've beaten them

Online games allows the company to keep updating it and hyping it up

single player games are a one and done deal
---

NightMareBunny posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

This is just something that happens when every game has to be centered around online multiplayer for some reason.

single player games are harder to keep people interested in once they've beaten them

Online games allows the company to keep updating it and hyping it up

single player games are a one and done deal

Online games are wither WoW, or end up full of tumbleweeds in a month.
For every Overwatch or PUBG, there's thousands upon thousands of rotting corpses that nobody can play anymore, because the servers have been shut down and there's no single-player or LAN options.

Zangulus posted...

NightMareBunny posted...

i just can't believe they would set such a unrealistic goal for themselves...

So what youre saying is you have no idea what a realistic goal for them is.

Do you know?

They ain't Blizzard. I've never heard of this studio before, or any of the games they've made. A quick look from what I could find is that their most popular game--one I've never heard of before a few minutes ago--has about 600,000 players after more than two years. 100,000 players in a single week does seem a wee bit unlikely for this game.
---

Zangulus posted...

Golden Road posted...

Zangulus posted...

NightMareBunny posted...

i just can't believe they would set such a unrealistic goal for themselves...

So what youre saying is you have no idea what a realistic goal for them is.

Do you know?

They ain't Blizzard. I've never heard of this studio before, or any of the games they've made. A quick look from what I could find is that their most popular game--one I've never heard of before a few minutes ago--has about 600,000 players after more than two years. 100,000 players in a single week does seem a wee bit unlikely for this game.

You make accusational statements while undercutting your Whole point with those numbers.

If they feel it cant be sustainable without those sorts of numbers at this time, then who are you, or anyone else here to say differently?

What I said was completely apt: you have no idea what their figures are based on or why they need them so high.

I didn't say it was sustainable. I'm saying that they should've realized far earlier that there was almost no chance they were going to get the numbers they needed as quickly as they needed them. I can't find anything online to indicate this really had a prayer of working for them.
---

NightMareBunny posted...

i just can't believe they would set such a unrealistic goal for themselves...

I doubt that the 100k active players is an arbitrary number.

Running the game, servers and providing updates all cost money. If you have too few players, then you won't break even, let alone turn a profit.
---

NightMareBunny posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

This is just something that happens when every game has to be centered around online multiplayer for some reason.

single player games are harder to keep people interested in once they've beaten them

Online games allows the company to keep updating it and hyping it up

single player games are a one and done deal

True, but they are also much better suited to an indie game. Games with small teams can't keep up with the regularity and type of updates expected of a multiplayer game.

Plus, even if they are one and done, you are still making money off it.
---

It's the cartmanland tactic.

"Look at this awesome game, and you can't play it!"

"we want it"

"ok if 100,000 people pre order it we'll release it"
---

Golden Road posted...

Zangulus posted...

Golden Road posted...

Zangulus posted...

NightMareBunny posted...

i just can't believe they would set such a unrealistic goal for themselves...

So what youre saying is you have no idea what a realistic goal for them is.

Do you know?

They ain't Blizzard. I've never heard of this studio before, or any of the games they've made. A quick look from what I could find is that their most popular game--one I've never heard of before a few minutes ago--has about 600,000 players after more than two years. 100,000 players in a single week does seem a wee bit unlikely for this game.

You make accusational statements while undercutting your Whole point with those numbers.

If they feel it cant be sustainable without those sorts of numbers at this time, then who are you, or anyone else here to say differently?

What I said was completely apt: you have no idea what their figures are based on or why they need them so high.

I didn't say it was sustainable. I'm saying that they should've realized far earlier that there was almost no chance they were going to get the numbers they needed as quickly as they needed them. I can't find anything online to indicate this really had a prayer of working for them.

they did though. they ran a test and when the numbers showed it wouldnt be worth it to release it, they said ad much and now they arent going to release it.

they had to take a chance though, and thats not a bad thing. its a good thing that they did what they did, even if it is disappointing
---

helIy posted...

Golden Road posted...

I didn't say it was sustainable. I'm saying that they should've realized far earlier that there was almost no chance they were going to get the numbers they needed as quickly as they needed them. I can't find anything online to indicate this really had a prayer of working for them.

they did though. they ran a test and when the numbers showed it wouldnt be worth it to release it, they said ad much and now they arent going to release it.

they had to take a chance though, and thats not a bad thing. its a good thing that they did what they did, even if it is disappointing

They did not have to take the chance. A lot of time and/or money--usually both--goes into game development. This game was inevitably going to take time to find an audience, and they didn't have the necessary money in the first place to build that audience, and they should have realized that long before spending so much time and money on the game at the beginning of the project.
---

it took them a month to make, really not a big deal.

they took a chance, a chance they wanted to take.

ultimately it did not work out, and these things happen.

there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking chances, otherwise we'll just end up with countless call of dutys.
---