Average review score increasing with time played is attrition bias.

[Deadoon]

People who are lack interest in something tend to drop out early, which can lead to the data being biased if this is not accounted for. If the review score increasing as time passes, then that isn't an indicator that people who play more like it more, it's that people that like it tend to play more.

The review score increasing very fast after only an hour can be a negative indicator as well, as that can mean that the initial impressions people tends to be very poor, or that there is a fundamental issue in the onboarding process, so people write it off early.

[Larkis]

That makes no sence.

The review score is based on how many reviews are voted up or voted down. The playtime is not something that has any relevance here.

Cause of this Games had a lot struggle to get bether reviews after for example a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, cause people who are angry leave a bad review and leave. And even when the Devs solved the problem, the bad review is still there. and will not leave when the gamer stops playing.

When the review score gets up there are only 2 reasons.
1. new reviews are more positive then negative.
2. People change there negative review to positive.

[Deadoon]

Originally posted by Larkis:

That makes no sence.

The review score is based on how many reviews are voted up or voted down. The playtime is not something that has any relevance here.

Cause of this Games had a lot struggle to get bether reviews after for example a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, cause people who are angry leave a bad review and leave. And even when the Devs solved the problem, the bad review is still there. and will not leave when the gamer stops playing.

When the review score gets up there are only 2 reasons.
1. new reviews are more positive then negative.
2. People change there negative review to positive.

Sort by time played, like the devs and some "analysts" did.

All reviews (steam and not, all languages) are at 1333 reviews, 60% positive.
Reviews after 1 hour played 1067, 67% positive.
Reviews after 10 hours played 370, 80% positive.

That is attrition bias, those with low interest drop out early, while those who remain interested continue onwards.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/2012510/view/4343243762388958064
More playtime = more fun: We found this interesting–though it may seem obvious–but Steam reviewer data indicates that the more players take the time to sink their teeth into the game and explore the various modes in Stormgate, the more they tend to enjoy it. You’ll find Reddit posts to this effect too, where players’ opinions improved after actually spending some time with the game.

[Kurtino]

It's an incredibly stupid thing to highlight and it's the kind of information you would cherry pick and present if you were disillusioned into thinking there's nothing wrong with your game and the players must be at fault.

I still can't believe a CEO would post something like that...we found that players who played longer tended to enjoy the game more...christ, what a revelation; if you just keep playing you'll like it!

[Larkis]

Originally posted by Deadoon:

Originally posted by Larkis:

That makes no sence.

The review score is based on how many reviews are voted up or voted down. The playtime is not something that has any relevance here.

Cause of this Games had a lot struggle to get bether reviews after for example a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, cause people who are angry leave a bad review and leave. And even when the Devs solved the problem, the bad review is still there. and will not leave when the gamer stops playing.

When the review score gets up there are only 2 reasons.
1. new reviews are more positive then negative.
2. People change there negative review to positive.

Sort by time played, like the devs and some "analysts" did.

All reviews (steam and not, all languages) are at 1333 reviews, 60% positive.
Reviews after 1 hour played 1067, 67% positive.
Reviews after 10 hours played 370, 80% positive.

That is attrition bias, those with low interest drop out early, while those who remain interested continue onwards.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/2012510/view/4343243762388958064
More playtime = more fun: We found this interesting–though it may seem obvious–but Steam reviewer data indicates that the more players take the time to sink their teeth into the game and explore the various modes in Stormgate, the more they tend to enjoy it. You’ll find Reddit posts to this effect too, where players’ opinions improved after actually spending some time with the game.

Ah i agree in this.

[Spartan dropkick]

Well then the negative scores are nothing to be concerned about - it's just that people who dislike a game tend to play it less 🤔

[Deadoon]

Originally posted by Spartan dropkick:

Well then the negative scores are nothing to be concerned about - it's just that people who dislike a game tend to play it less 🤔

Originally posted by Deadoon:

The review score increasing very fast after only an hour can be a negative indicator as well, as that can mean that the initial impressions people tends to be very poor, or that there is a fundamental issue in the onboarding process, so people write it off early.

People with less than an hour played have 33% positive reviews, and at 2 hours 40%.
For comparison, elden ring(huge sample size) has 52 and 55% respectively for those data points. NMS has 37 and 42, which can be indicative also of how bad this game's launch is.

[Magpie]

Originally posted by Kurtino:

it's the kind of information you would cherry pick and present if you were disillusioned into thinking there's nothing wrong with your game and the players must be at fault.

Somebody with a functioning brain! Yes, it's damage control. Yes, the launch is a disaster.

Originally posted by Deadoon:

so people write it off early.

Yeah, because it sucks and it's not worth wasting any more time on.

[tacohunter]

Originally posted by Deadoon:

Originally posted by Larkis:

That makes no sence.

The review score is based on how many reviews are voted up or voted down. The playtime is not something that has any relevance here.

Cause of this Games had a lot struggle to get bether reviews after for example a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, cause people who are angry leave a bad review and leave. And even when the Devs solved the problem, the bad review is still there. and will not leave when the gamer stops playing.

When the review score gets up there are only 2 reasons.
1. new reviews are more positive then negative.
2. People change there negative review to positive.

Sort by time played, like the devs and some "analysts" did.

All reviews (steam and not, all languages) are at 1333 reviews, 60% positive.
Reviews after 1 hour played 1067, 67% positive.
Reviews after 10 hours played 370, 80% positive.

That is attrition bias, those with low interest drop out early, while those who remain interested continue onwards.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/2012510/view/4343243762388958064
More playtime = more fun: We found this interesting–though it may seem obvious–but Steam reviewer data indicates that the more players take the time to sink their teeth into the game and explore the various modes in Stormgate, the more they tend to enjoy it. You’ll find Reddit posts to this effect too, where players’ opinions improved after actually spending some time with the game.

Do you believe this is a good thing? Frost giant is tryng to make a living service game. The company hemorrhages insane amounts of cash each month. They need a massive player base to sustain themselves and to make sure they don't shut down the stormgate servers and development. The fact that those that are playing longer tend to enjoy the game is a moot point when so many are just done and refunding.

This is very much a damage control statement and trying to change the current narrative. Looks like frost giant games is even worse off then I thught.

[Kurtino]

Originally posted by tacohunter:

Originally posted by Deadoon:

Sort by time played, like the devs and some "analysts" did.

All reviews (steam and not, all languages) are at 1333 reviews, 60% positive.
Reviews after 1 hour played 1067, 67% positive.
Reviews after 10 hours played 370, 80% positive.

That is attrition bias, those with low interest drop out early, while those who remain interested continue onwards.

Do you believe this is a good thing? Frost giant is tryng to make a living service game. The company hemorrhages insane amounts of cash each month. They need a massive player base to sustain themselves and to make sure they don't shut down the stormgate servers and development. The fact that those that are playing longer tend to enjoy the game is a moot point when so many are just done and refunding.

This is very much a damage control statement and trying to change the current narrative. Looks like frost giant games is even worse off then I thught.

They're calling it out for being attrition bias; why do you think what they're saying suggests its a good thing?

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by Kurtino:

It's an incredibly stupid thing to highlight and it's the kind of information you would cherry pick and present if you were disillusioned into thinking there's nothing wrong with your game and the players must be at fault.

I still can't believe a CEO would post something like that...we found that players who played longer tended to enjoy the game more...christ, what a revelation; if you just keep playing you'll like it!

Yes, it is a very silly statement.

Of course they play more, they are of the few that liked the game.

[Larkis]

Originally posted by Deadoon:

Originally posted by Spartan dropkick:

Well then the negative scores are nothing to be concerned about - it's just that people who dislike a game tend to play it less 🤔

Originally posted by Deadoon:

The review score increasing very fast after only an hour can be a negative indicator as well, as that can mean that the initial impressions people tends to be very poor, or that there is a fundamental issue in the onboarding process, so people write it off early.

People with less than an hour played have 33% positive reviews, and at 2 hours 40%.
For comparison, elden ring(huge sample size) has 52 and 55% respectively for those data points. NMS has 37 and 42, which can be indicative also of how bad this game's launch is.

You got in your own trap.

People who dont like the game will mostly dont play it an hour. So people who like the game will play more and fall out of the filter.

With + 10h playtime the scores will be mostly positive. With less then an hour the score will be mostly negative. That doenst say nothing.

Also it smells cheesy. Why should someone buy a game, give it a positive review but play it less then an hour total? So looks like NMS and edlen ring just have payed reviews here, with people get the game for free, give a review and get payed for it.

As you see, you can turn that numbers in any direction that you want. The only number that is important, is the total review score, cause thats the score that the casual gamer see.

[Kern]

Originally posted by Deadoon:

People who are lack interest in something tend to drop out early

No joke!
My son who doesn't like spinach, he didn't finish his dish! Do you think he would have liked more if he had been made to eat entirely?

My wife didn't like a movie (whose name I won't mention) and we stopped it after 30 minutes, do you think she would have liked it more if we had watched it to the end?

No, but really... To go and get this kind of totally fallacious argument... What a shame

I know very soon in a game if I like it, I don't need +10h to know that I don't like a game. I could make an exception maybe for a few old-school RPGs that take a long time to start, but not an RTS!

[Deadoon]

Originally posted by Larkis:

You got in your own trap.

People who dont like the game will mostly dont play it an hour. So people who like the game will play more and fall out of the filter.

With + 10h playtime the scores will be mostly positive. With less then an hour the score will be mostly negative. That doenst say nothing.

Also it smells cheesy. Why should someone buy a game, give it a positive review but play it less then an hour total? So looks like NMS and edlen ring just have payed reviews here, with people get the game for free, give a review and get payed for it.

As you see, you can turn that numbers in any direction that you want. The only number that is important, is the total review score, cause thats the score that the casual gamer see.

There was no trap, it's comparing how fast the attrition is between games.
Reviews do not update their time played rating as time progresses. If you review under an hour, then never update it, you can have a thousand hours, but your review will still appear in the under an hour section, because that is the relevant position for the review itself.
So someone might like the early parts, give a review, continue playing while still enjoying it.

[Larkis]

Originally posted by Deadoon:

There was no trap, it's comparing how fast the attrition is between games.
Reviews do not update their time played rating as time progresses. If you review under an hour, then never update it, you can have a thousand hours, but your review will still appear in the under an hour section, because that is the relevant position for the review itself.
So someone might like the early parts, give a review, continue playing while still enjoying it.

So also someone might have a bad first impression, leave a bad review. Keep playing, enojoyed it much later but just forget to change the review?

Makes that numbers much more inconsistence as before.

[Blackguard]

The review score will likely jump up massively when the game goes free2play in a few months.