PC Remember the 80 / 20 / 5 rule when talking about the fanbase

[Khalagar]

I see this all the time with gamers on forums assuming "everyone knows this" or "everyone does this!" and people wildly over rate what the average player knows or does or understands etc



With most fanbases it breaks down to be around

80% of gamers never interact with info online, they do not look up any guides or streamers or anything, they just launch the game and play it  and learn as they go and nothing else

20% of gamers will look up guides and videos to figure out more about how to play a game

5% of gamers will look up guides and videos, but will also go post on forums and interact with the fanbase and developers directly

Basically everyone who actually posts on a forum like this is already in the top 5% of the most hardcore players in the entire playerbase.

I see it all the time with people watching the 1.0 changes and nitpicking the changes, or demanding to know why X was changed etc, or making hilarious comments like "Everyone can easily hit end game by day 14, because they will just speed run X and use Y min max strategy to maximize every waking minute in the game!"

Pretty much all the changes I've seen for 1.0 seem completely reasonable and geared towards making sure your average joe who doesn't look up info can still figure stuff out, while also trying to slow down how fast the turbo maxers can reach end game and get bored and rush to the forums to complain about playing 80 hours in 4 days and running out of content

 

[Slingblade2040]

This game has never been that difficult even when I started playing this or minecraft or even Terraria it wasn't that hard to get a grasp of the game. 

How low of a bar are we setting when we say average player? This game already has built in notes to explain things so if these folks don't read them who's fault is that?

This whole thing of dumbing things down so the average player finds it easy makes no sense since it's being based on the average player being dumb or having little to no skills.

 

[theFlu]

I see this all the time with gamers on forums assuming "everyone knows this"

Tihihi... how meta shall we go? I'm a gamer, being wrong about (you, a gamer posting on a forum (posting that you assume that a lot of people do this simple mistake (of assuming that people do this simple mistake))) Two wrongs don't make a right, but how about 4 nested ones..?

Anyhoo, your point about "most are average joes" is mostly valid, but

- TFP is well aware, they're doing the game their way anyway; at best you can convince them of something 'logical' here (I may have had some effect on "improving" tooltips for players via a discussion about trader talents being wonkily written, in the times of the previous forums)

- as well as TFP is aware, posters often are too; nothing stopping an actual game dev offering feedback here, either.

Elite whiners will whine, some nabs actually show up asking questions on their first days in game, it's all quite a diverse group of people here.

Optimally, the game can cater to both audiences.. for the goal of "one playthrough and done" for absolute casuals, it just needs to be not jarringly bad. For the goal of "you don't really get bored or annoyed for your first 20 playthroughs" it needs to be really well polished in several areas; one jarring problem will rip out repeat longevity. And of course it needs to provide some variance etc.

Chess vs checkers vs tictactoe .. none is jarringly bad, but chess basically reaches a level of complexity where you can sink your life into it and not "complete" it. Each is easy to pick up; tictactoe is a fun way to learn that games can be Solved and thus becomes Pointless if two players know the solution; checkers is a decent intermediary, but also plays mostly like a solved game once you put any thought into it.

If I was devving a game, I'd aim for a near-chess experience, as an "aim high, land 'far enough'". If some things need to be dumbed down, then so be it; but aim for the longevity-bracket, it's just good for the game.

TFP sadly aims for a 50h experience, so a one-and-done - or so I've come to believe on these forums at least.

 

[MechanicalLens]

Tihihi... how meta shall we go? I'm a gamer, being wrong about (you, a gamer posting on a forum (posting that you assume that a lot of people do this simple mistake (of assuming that people do this simple mistake))) Two wrongs don't make a right, but how about 4 nested ones..?

Anyhoo, your point about "most are average joes" is mostly valid, but

- TFP is well aware, they're doing the game their way anyway; at best you can convince them of something 'logical' here (I may have had some effect on "improving" tooltips for players via a discussion about trader talents being wonkily written, in the times of the previous forums)

- as well as TFP is aware, posters often are too; nothing stopping an actual game dev offering feedback here, either.

Elite whiners will whine, some nabs actually show up asking questions on their first days in game, it's all quite a diverse group of people here.

Optimally, the game can cater to both audiences.. for the goal of "one playthrough and done" for absolute casuals, it just needs to be not jarringly bad. For the goal of "you don't really get bored or annoyed for your first 20 playthroughs" it needs to be really well polished in several areas; one jarring problem will rip out repeat longevity. And of course it needs to provide some variance etc.

Chess vs checkers vs tictactoe .. none is jarringly bad, but chess basically reaches a level of complexity where you can sink your life into it and not "complete" it. Each is easy to pick up; tictactoe is a fun way to learn that games can be Solved and thus becomes Pointless if two players know the solution; checkers is a decent intermediary, but also plays mostly like a solved game once you put any thought into it.

If I was devving a game, I'd aim for a near-chess experience, as an "aim high, land 'far enough'". If some things need to be dumbed down, then so be it; but aim for the longevity-bracket, it's just good for the game.

TFP sadly aims for a 50h experience, so a one-and-done - or so I've come to believe on these forums at least.

I would nonetheless 100% suspect that's what the average player does. Play for 50-60 hours at the most at the beginning of an alpha/version cycle, and put the game down for a few months, or even until the next big update. There are no DLC (yet), no microtransactions (yet?), no battlepass (yet???), so there is little incentive from my perspective to really care about people who have hundreds or thousands of hours in the game. The only positive outcome for them at that point is you might leave a positive, helpful review and recommend the game to others after you've sunken your teeth into it.

Well, at the very least, the game is replayable for many, and if not the base game, the modding community is pretty strong, as well.

 

[theFlu]

so there is little incentive from my perspective to really care about people who have hundreds or thousands of hours in the game. The only positive outcome for them at that point is you might leave a positive, helpful review and recommend the game to others after you've sunken your teeth into it.

I do agree that "average playtime" is not a direct improvement for the bottom line for TFP in any way. But, my point is, it will make for a Better Game, even for the 50-hours crowd. If the 50-hours crowd feels like they "could" spend another 200 in the game, but just choose to do something else, they're also going to be more positive about it. It'll Feel like a better game. Which also means a bigger hype train!

I'm not on tictactoe forums looking for interesting topics, or new people to help; I'm here, volunteering, a free journal for 7dtd-electiricity and whatnot. I was sold the game by a recommendation of an IRL friend, who brought me in, because the game was Good and showed much promise. He's a man of good taste. I've sold the game to another friend after that, and I've seen him picking it up in the recent months again. If it was a one-and-done, I'd never had recommended it forwards, as I'd have forgotten about it a long before.

Sure, it's a long tail sales tactic, but as it has been an absolute success as EA, I think that's also the smart play. The launch won't be a Valheim, even if the game is already Better. Because a lot of the interested people already have it.

 

[binf_shinana]

I do agree that "average playtime" is not a direct improvement for the bottom line for TFP in any way. But, my point is, it will make for a Better Game, even for the 50-hours crowd. If the 50-hours crowd feels like they "could" spend another 200 in the game, but just choose to do something else, they're also going to be more positive about it. It'll Feel like a better game. Which also means a bigger hype train!

I'm not on tictactoe forums looking for interesting topics, or new people to help; I'm here, volunteering, a free journal for 7dtd-electiricity and whatnot. I was sold the game by a recommendation of an IRL friend, who brought me in, because the game was Good and showed much promise. He's a man of good taste. I've sold the game to another friend after that, and I've seen him picking it up in the recent months again. If it was a one-and-done, I'd never had recommended it forwards, as I'd have forgotten about it a long before.

Sure, it's a long tail sales tactic, but as it has been an absolute success as EA, I think that's also the smart play. The launch won't be a Valheim, even if the game is already Better. Because a lot of the interested people already have it.

I generally agree with this post

The post at the beginning of the topic has some similarities to the Pareto principle, but the Pareto principle may lead to the opposite conclusion, that a game will get a better response if it focuses on enthusiastic fans.

It's normal for critical opinions about changes to game systems to be posted on the forums, and last year there were many critical opinions posted about the removal of empty bottles.

I think that this may have led to the change in the specifications of the Dew Collector, even if only slightly.
It may have been 5% of players who made a fuss, but it's possible that TFP decided that it would suit 80% of players and changed the specifications of the Dew Collector.

 

[Darthjake]

I see this all the time with gamers on forums assuming "everyone knows this" or "everyone does this!" and people wildly over rate what the average player knows or does or understands etc

View attachment 30792

With most fanbases it breaks down to be around

80% of gamers never interact with info online, they do not look up any guides or streamers or anything, they just launch the game and play it  and learn as they go and nothing else

20% of gamers will look up guides and videos to figure out more about how to play a game

5% of gamers will look up guides and videos, but will also go post on forums and interact with the fanbase and developers directly

Basically everyone who actually posts on a forum like this is already in the top 5% of the most hardcore players in the entire playerbase.

I'm a top 5% hardcore player?  Dude, I want some of your meds.

 

[Fox]

 

[Khalagar]

This game has never been that difficult

You should watch actual new players play it, they get absolutely R O L  L E D

Even my friend who's like 700 hours in still dies all the time even to zombies that can't jog. Your average gamer is *significantly* worse at games than you would think

This whole thing of dumbing things down so the average player finds it easy makes no sense since it's being based on the average player being dumb or having little to no skills.

It makes sense when you understand that the goal is to make money and make sure your average joe can have fun. You can offer some stuff to make sure elite players have things to do as well, but the balance is always focused on having high end players make their own challenge, like by playing on higher difficulties.

Most of the changes TFP make are focused around making the game more accessible by simplifying clunky systems or removing noob traps.

Optimally, the game can cater to both audiences..

It definitely can and does. I'm not saying it should be turbo easy, I'm just explaining to the people who scream about "Why was X removed" or "why did they rework Y" again

New players can be *very* easily overwhelmed by complicated systems and combat so TFP has to make sure your average joe can pick up the game and enjoy it long enough to at least be outside the Steam Refund window. Ideally they want them to stay as long as possible, but their goal as a company is to make money, and they can't do that if potential buyers bounce off the Steam store page or refund it within an hour of playing and dying horribly while being overwhelmed

TFP sadly aims for a 50h experience, so a one-and-done - or so I've come to believe on these forums at least.

Most survival games fall into that area. The Palworld devs said it best when they said not every game is one you need to be able to play for the rest of your life

7 Days is a great game to pick up once every 12-18 months and do an 60-80 hour playthrough, then put down until the next update. I've done it so long that I'm nearly a thousand hours in the game lol. I would say a very large part of recurring 7 Days player base does that exact same thing and just rotates between 7 Days, Ark, Conan, Palworld, Enshrouded, Soulmask etc and just plays each survival game for "a good playtrhough" and then puts it down until more content is added

TFP does a good job of adding enough content to make it worth coming back for, really hoping they keep that practice after 1.0

The post at the beginning of the topic has some similarities to the Pareto principle, but the Pareto principle may lead to the opposite conclusion, that a game will get a better response if it focuses on enthusiastic fans.

It's a similar principle, but yeah the opposite since it's about stats that make up a playerbase. Several devs have talked about it before, and you can see it even on this forum where there's probably at most a couple hundred people who post here (with more on Reddit and steam) despite the steam count being 40,000+ people playing in the last 24 hours.

It works out to about 5% of those 40K actually going to a forum to engage with the fanbase, so those 5% get caught in an echo chamber and assume EVERYONE is part of the 5%, when in reality they are a tiny minority of *very* hardcore players

I'm a top 5% hardcore player?  Dude, I want some of your meds.

If you're posting here, you almost certainly are lol. Look at the steam global achievement stats, over 90% of the playerbase have never even traveled 1000km and like 70% have never killed 500 zombies. Even like 30% have never placed a bedroll etc

If you can find a gun, make moderate base, survive a few horde nights and make it to like day 50 in the game, you are probably *already* in the top like 10-20% of the playerbase

 

[Slingblade2040]

You should watch actual new players play it, they get absolutely R O L  L E D

Even my friend who's like 700 hours in still dies all the time even to zombies that can't jog. Your average gamer is *significantly* worse at games than you would think

It makes sense when you understand that the goal is to make money and make sure your average joe can have fun. You can offer some stuff to make sure elite players have things to do as well, but the balance is always focused on having high end players make their own challenge, like by playing on higher difficulties.

Most of the changes TFP make are focused around making the game more accessible by simplifying clunky systems or removing noob traps.

It definitely can and does. I'm not saying it should be turbo easy, I'm just explaining to the people who scream about "Why was X removed" or "why did they rework Y" again

New players can be *very* easily overwhelmed by complicated systems and combat so TFP has to make sure your average joe can pick up the game and enjoy it long enough to at least be outside the Steam Refund window. Ideally they want them to stay as long as possible, but their goal as a company is to make money, and they can't do that if potential buyers bounce off the Steam store page or refund it within an hour of playing and dying horribly while being overwhelmed

Most survival games fall into that area. The Palworld devs said it best when they said not every game is one you need to be able to play for the rest of your life

7 Days is a great game to pick up once every 12-18 months and do an 60-80 hour playthrough, then put down until the next update. I've done it so long that I'm nearly a thousand hours in the game lol. I would say a very large part of recurring 7 Days player base does that exact same thing and just rotates between 7 Days, Ark, Conan, Palworld, Enshrouded, Soulmask etc and just plays each survival game for "a good playtrhough" and then puts it down until more content is added

TFP does a good job of adding enough content to make it worth coming back for, really hoping they keep that practice after 1.0

It's a similar principle, but yeah the opposite since it's about stats that make up a playerbase. Several devs have talked about it before, and you can see it even on this forum where there's probably at most a couple hundred people who post here (with more on Reddit and steam) despite the steam count being 40,000+ people playing in the last 24 hours.

It works out to about 5% of those 40K actually going to a forum to engage with the fanbase, so those 5% get caught in an echo chamber and assume EVERYONE is part of the 5%, when in reality they are a tiny minority of *very* hardcore players

If you're posting here, you almost certainly are lol. Look at the steam global achievement stats, over 90% of the playerbase have never even traveled 1000km and like 70% have never killed 500 zombies. Even like 30% have never placed a bedroll etc

If you can find a gun, make moderate base, survive a few horde nights and make it to like day 50 in the game, you are probably *already* in the top like 10-20% of the playerbase

If you are going to use steam stats about 70% not killing zombies or 90% not traveling 1000 km then that sounds like they found the game incredibly boring. Your friend who keeps dying to zombies is either a skill issue or they play on high difficulties where they can die quickly or have a reckless playstyle. 

Saying the game is hard or to complex for new players is ridiculous because for difficulty they have the settings menu for any complexity they have the in game journal they can read to get an understanding on things. Now if even after all that new players struggle with the game then that's on them and the devs for not giving proper quests or in game journal explanations on how to play. 

 

[Khalagar]

Lmao you must have missed this, easy mistake to not see it



I posted it for a reason, since your mindset is **exactly** what that's talking about. I assure you, just about everything you think is "really easy" in 7 days is not that easy to a new player, or even an average gamer since average would include everyone ages 4 to 80

they have the in game journal they can read to get an understanding on things

Bruh I started Soul Mask last night and even with an in game tutorial that's very in depth and even with literally like 4,000+ hours in survival games, I'm still having to google mechanics constantly that are "sort of explained but still not clear"

Average gamers are not going to even go that far. My friend (the same one I mentioned dying in 7 days) literally just said "the game has walls of text explaining everything and I ain't reading alla that" and that was it. He's just been brute forcing the game trying to figure it out as he goes, and that's exactly how the 80% of gamers play games. They aren't going to look anything extra up, they aren't going to watch guides, they probably won't even read the in game stuff, they are just going to attempt to play the game and it needs to make sense

This is basic software design as a whole. It's literally what I do for a living, and making sure your software is ten times more idiot proof than even the greatest idiot you know of is the *bare minimum* and still not enough

 

[theFlu]

New players can be *very* easily overwhelmed by complicated systems and combat so TFP has to make sure your average joe can pick up the game and enjoy it long enough to at least be outside the Steam Refund window.

I don't disagree with much - I assume even you don't think "aiming at the 30% of people who haven't placed a bedroll would be a good idea". But things that make a game accessible aren't in any real competition with things that make the game good.

He's just been brute forcing the game trying to figure it out as he goes, and that's exactly how the 80% of gamers play games.

I agree there, and that's what a good game should allow for, for sure. Getting to know it by playing is the most fun way to figure out a game.

Hmm, I guess half the issue is, you're making claims "against some feedback", and you're not giving any examples; I'm sure there's "some feedback" that can sufficiently be countered with a "players are actually nabs". I just don't have any of such myself, it wouldn't apply to my complaints about the book system, the water system, or the magical spawn system from A21 for example...

 

[MechanicalLens]

Lmao you must have missed this, easy mistake to not see it

View attachment 30797

I posted it for a reason, since your mindset is **exactly** what that's talking about. I assure you, just about everything you think is "really easy" in 7 days is not that easy to a new player, or even an average gamer since average would include everyone ages 4 to 80

Bruh I started Soul Mask last night and even with an in game tutorial that's very in depth and even with literally like 4,000+ hours in survival games, I'm still having to google mechanics constantly that are "sort of explained but still not clear"

Average gamers are not going to even go that far. My friend (the same one I mentioned dying in 7 days) literally just said "the game has walls of text explaining everything and I ain't reading alla that" and that was it. He's just been brute forcing the game trying to figure it out as he goes, and that's exactly how the 80% of gamers play games. They aren't going to look anything extra up, they aren't going to watch guides, they probably won't even read the in game stuff, they are just going to attempt to play the game and it needs to make sense

This is basic software design as a whole. It's literally what I do for a living, and making sure your software is ten times more idiot proof than even the greatest idiot you know of is the *bare minimum* and still not enough

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if these numbers were somewhat accurate across most titles:

1) 60% of people never launch the game in the first place.

2) 35% of people put in 10 minutes to a few hours, get bored or lost, and quit.

3) 5% of people dedicate their time to one full playthrough (per version or once period). TFP would logically try to bring as many people over from the 35% to this group. These 5% are also some of the individuals who look up guides, tutorials, and communities.

4) 5% of that 5% play the game regularly, mod their experience, and are regular faces in the community.

 

[binf_shinana]

The problem is, I have no idea what he's so upset about...

It's natural for heavy gamers to claim that vanilla is too easy, and TFP has the right to ignore that opinion. That's all.

Especially on the forums, where heavy gamers gather, it's inevitable that such opinions are seen a lot.

 

[Slingblade2040]

Lmao you must have missed this, easy mistake to not see it

View attachment 30797

I posted it for a reason, since your mindset is **exactly** what that's talking about. I assure you, just about everything you think is "really easy" in 7 days is not that easy to a new player, or even an average gamer since average would include everyone ages 4 to 80

Bruh I started Soul Mask last night and even with an in game tutorial that's very in depth and even with literally like 4,000+ hours in survival games, I'm still having to google mechanics constantly that are "sort of explained but still not clear"

Average gamers are not going to even go that far. My friend (the same one I mentioned dying in 7 days) literally just said "the game has walls of text explaining everything and I ain't reading alla that" and that was it. He's just been brute forcing the game trying to figure it out as he goes, and that's exactly how the 80% of gamers play games. They aren't going to look anything extra up, they aren't going to watch guides, they probably won't even read the in game stuff, they are just going to attempt to play the game and it needs to make sense

This is basic software design as a whole. It's literally what I do for a living, and making sure your software is ten times more idiot proof than even the greatest idiot you know of is the *bare minimum* and still not enough

You are basing a new player as a complete idiot who can't grasp anything in game. Which is ridiculous. Players aren't asked to operate a complex machine. It's build a base or hide in a home, fortify it, kill zombies, do quests and survive. Most of which they are taught how to do in the tutorial quests or is explained through the journal. Now if that is way to much for a new player to grasp then they need to stick with games like Mario or animal crossing. 

If your friend or anyone refuses to read tutorials then it's a them problem if they can't understand the game mechanics. Now if the tutorial or guide isn't explained properly then thats on the devs. 

This is similar to the whole souls games need an easy mode added and that hasn't stopped sales as they continue to be ridiculously popular.

A game being complex and having depth isn't bad. What is bad is dumbing it down because people can't understand mechanics despite tutorials and explanations in the in game journal.  These are the same people who don't read instruction manuals then complain that the thing they built is junk and doesn't work. 

To me this is basically folks viewing all new players as brain dead gamers who can't grasp or understand even basic game mechanics so we have to dumb it down for all players. 

 

[warmer]

TFP sadly aims for a 50h experience, so a one-and-done - or so I've come to believe on these forums at least.

I think if any dev is aiming to exceed 50h of content/progression they need to either water it down and dilute it in order to extend that, or they are going to have a lot of BORING GRIND.

Why is that sad if they aim for 50h? I am failing to understand how that is a bad thing. That's less than $1 an hour when you think about. What kind of return on your investment are you expecting? I think that is the true question and EVERYONE has a different answer.

 

[theFlu]

I think if any dev is aiming to exceed 50h of content/progression they need to either water it down and dilute it in order to extend that, or they are going to have a lot of BORING GRIND.

Chess.

- is that a boring grind?

- how much does the base game cost? (couple pieces of paper)

Now, where I see them focusing at the "first playthrough at the expense of repeats"

- "loot 1k books per character" (it's fine once, you've got a world to explore and they show up as you go... repeating the grind isn't appealing to me.. )

- "we have a nearly-unique infinitely modifiable world, let's make it as solid as possible to support our questing paths / story-telling" (suddenly a door opens and there's zeds there! even if you actually looked a second ago).

- And not even exploiting the building mechanics in any way for their "default" storytelling. For example, giving some free-form puzzles to solve, "how do I get there the easiest?", might be nice. Do it easier the next time

It's not about money, at all ... I've gotten 4k hours out of it for a tenner. I'll prolly give A22 a once-over. But I'd absolutely love if the game was being designed for repeatability, it has all the basic building blocks for it; as sorta evidenced by my hours.

It's about the type of game it could be, but is being designed as a Doom. Or Borderlands, just without the gun grind. I got exactly one playthru out of Doom, and a couple tries at the arcade mode. Ehh. Let's say I'm not on Doom forums atm

 

[ElCabong]

I would only add that 50% of players that b**** about 7 days to die I never played it.

 

[Arez]

I googled the 80/20/5 rule and the top result was from a page called "Ask a Game Dev".

80% + 20% + 5%.

That doesn't add up to 100%.

The math is wrong.

No wonder so many games are so buggy!

 

[faatal]

7 Days is a great game to pick up once every 12-18 months and do an 60-80 hour playthrough, then put down until the next update. I've done it so long that I'm nearly a thousand hours in the game lol. I would say a very large part of recurring 7 Days player base does that exact same thing and just rotates between 7 Days, Ark, Conan, Palworld, Enshrouded, Soulmask etc and just plays each survival game for "a good playtrhough" and then puts it down until more content is added

TFP does a good job of adding enough content to make it worth coming back for, really hoping they keep that practice after 1.0

That is exactly how I play games. Generally getting bored at 30-40 hours. I will make it to 60 if they keep me entertained enough. I come back to No Man's Sky like once a year to try the new updates. A new World of Warcraft expansion will hold me for maybe 2 months, then 6 month break and back for 1 or 2 months and repeat. Maybe once a year for  Terraria or Avorion. Every 2 years for some others. Too many games to play.