After some thought, I've come to realize why 7 Days is heading in the wrong direction.
Firstly, credit is due where credit is due - I was first introduced to the game around 2015 and I've been playing since. I'd come back every-time there was a "major" update. Many of these updates have been phenomenal. Everything from graphical overhauls, to new equipment, new weapons, new locations, better locations, zombie AI improvements, improved interface, etc.; I could go on.
But I'm starting to see the dilemma that you face. Looking at Steam's concurrent players historical data, after major updates it seems I'm not the only one who plays for a bit and then puts it off again after giving it a play or two after a 'major update'. You're trying to increase your player-base, keep the game alive, and keep it up-to-date. For that, people truly appreciate it - as you're one of the few indie devs who have stood by their "Alpha" game. Despite the game still being in "Alpha", it's honestly a complete game by this point and I'm sure many would agree with me.
However, these 'major' updates are continuously focusing on attempting to capture new players through flashy graphic updates and keeping old players by lengthening their play times by the use of RNG.
Neither of these strategies are smart moves in my opinion and will only lengthen the slow death of the game if serious updates aren't implemented that add to or improve gameplay. Now before anyone has a stroke, I'm not asking for AAA updates here. Just hear me out. Take A20's update for example: After it's release, players peaked at 70, 664 on 12/23/21. However, because nothing really substantial was added, the concurrent players are already dropping off the cliff and it's projected to drop more than half to 38,000 by Jan 20.
As a long-time player of 7D2D, I can tell you that changing the player's leveling ability to RNG schematics doesn't keep me in the game. Nor does prettier zombies, or slight changes in POIs, or a few new recipes. Sure, RNG schematics might increase the playtime of certain multiplayer realms or ever-so-slightly change someone's play-style due to having to find a recipe. But does it really change the overall aspect of the game? When we come back does changing the base items from skill-based to an RNG system really qualify as a major update?
The answer to that is no. Sure, I could see the argument from players that it changes up their play-style where they might have to go without a specific item or recipe, but you really didn't add content. You just adjusted the manner to increase the time in which they obtained it - therefore increasing their playtime. But are you really winning new and old players over with this method?
What we really want to see in major updates are many more weapons, an overhauled skill system, an overhauled loot system, more base defenses, more recipes, more variety of zombies, more vehicle variety (and faster vehicles), etc.
Now, again, before someone has a stroke. I'm not asking a AAA overhaul of the game and I'm fully aware that the FP don't have unlimited resources at their disposal to just turn this into some AAA game. But that said, these past few "major updates" have been a bit lackluster that seems to be taking a "shotgun" effect on updates to capture new players whilst also trying to keep it's current players and I believe it's achieving both poorly at worst and could do much better at best.
Without making this a wall of text, my main point is, as a long-time player of 7D2D, when a "major update" is released, it's a bit underwhelming when I create a game only to see that nothing substantial was added or changed. Instead, the game was made a bit prettier and roughly the same items exist, they just now require different recipes to make them. And now that this road has been further traveled, I no longer feel like I'm playing the survival base building survival game I was first introduced too. Instead, it's feeling more like an exploring game that just happens to have zombies in them.
Firstly, credit is due where credit is due - I was first introduced to the game around 2015 and I've been playing since. I'd come back every-time there was a "major" update. Many of these updates have been phenomenal. Everything from graphical overhauls, to new equipment, new weapons, new locations, better locations, zombie AI improvements, improved interface, etc.; I could go on.
But I'm starting to see the dilemma that you face. Looking at Steam's concurrent players historical data, after major updates it seems I'm not the only one who plays for a bit and then puts it off again after giving it a play or two after a 'major update'. You're trying to increase your player-base, keep the game alive, and keep it up-to-date. For that, people truly appreciate it - as you're one of the few indie devs who have stood by their "Alpha" game. Despite the game still being in "Alpha", it's honestly a complete game by this point and I'm sure many would agree with me.
However, these 'major' updates are continuously focusing on attempting to capture new players through flashy graphic updates and keeping old players by lengthening their play times by the use of RNG.
Neither of these strategies are smart moves in my opinion and will only lengthen the slow death of the game if serious updates aren't implemented that add to or improve gameplay. Now before anyone has a stroke, I'm not asking for AAA updates here. Just hear me out. Take A20's update for example: After it's release, players peaked at 70, 664 on 12/23/21. However, because nothing really substantial was added, the concurrent players are already dropping off the cliff and it's projected to drop more than half to 38,000 by Jan 20.
As a long-time player of 7D2D, I can tell you that changing the player's leveling ability to RNG schematics doesn't keep me in the game. Nor does prettier zombies, or slight changes in POIs, or a few new recipes. Sure, RNG schematics might increase the playtime of certain multiplayer realms or ever-so-slightly change someone's play-style due to having to find a recipe. But does it really change the overall aspect of the game? When we come back does changing the base items from skill-based to an RNG system really qualify as a major update?
The answer to that is no. Sure, I could see the argument from players that it changes up their play-style where they might have to go without a specific item or recipe, but you really didn't add content. You just adjusted the manner to increase the time in which they obtained it - therefore increasing their playtime. But are you really winning new and old players over with this method?
What we really want to see in major updates are many more weapons, an overhauled skill system, an overhauled loot system, more base defenses, more recipes, more variety of zombies, more vehicle variety (and faster vehicles), etc.
Now, again, before someone has a stroke. I'm not asking a AAA overhaul of the game and I'm fully aware that the FP don't have unlimited resources at their disposal to just turn this into some AAA game. But that said, these past few "major updates" have been a bit lackluster that seems to be taking a "shotgun" effect on updates to capture new players whilst also trying to keep it's current players and I believe it's achieving both poorly at worst and could do much better at best.
Without making this a wall of text, my main point is, as a long-time player of 7D2D, when a "major update" is released, it's a bit underwhelming when I create a game only to see that nothing substantial was added or changed. Instead, the game was made a bit prettier and roughly the same items exist, they just now require different recipes to make them. And now that this road has been further traveled, I no longer feel like I'm playing the survival base building survival game I was first introduced too. Instead, it's feeling more like an exploring game that just happens to have zombies in them.
Last edited by a moderator:
