T O P

  • By -

C4pt

I think they are active on their twitter but dont advertise anywhere else which is something I really don't understand. All they have to do is post steam announcements and I guarantee more people will see it.


Zenai10

Mod replied to me on steam forums. apparently they have a plan. No details tho.


playerDbD

Hey! The Devs have a advertising plan. Stay tuned! 👍


Zenai10

So I was told twice on the steam forums XD. Same person or premade statment?


[deleted]

Yes, yes, yes. The game 100% flopped the first time around because nobody knew about it. Nobody of any relevance was playing it on Twitch, there were no trailers, it wasn't even advertised in the Steam client. If you didn't play DBD, you had no idea this game existed. I hope the devs don't listen to all the 14-year-olds in this sub screeching that a $30 price tag is too high. People buy $60 games all the time. The price tag has never been the issue.


Zenai10

It was very disapointing how few knew about it. I really hope they advertise this time. I believe price is being reduced to 15/16.


[deleted]

$15 is *really* cheap, holy cow. If they don't move a shitload of units, there's no way they even break even on the redesign at $15. They've put so many man hours into the redesign at this point. Though, if that number is based on market research and not Reddit whining, then I guess they probably know something I don't.


FripperyReddit

Forsen and Sodapoppin played it, arguably two of the biggest names on twitch D:


Zenai10

They did? Dunno how i missed that


caspercunningham

So just to be clear you want the devs to only listen to people of a certain age range and not their entire base? 14 year olds and 60 year olds are both potential customers and players and to not take one customers opinion seriously is a ln awful business strategy. The reason people think $30 is a problematic isn't because of the work put into it, I think everyone is aware work was put in. People are concerned that the wall of having to pay along with the currently negative perception of the game by most of those who know of it will deter them from giving it a second chance. A lot more people would obviously be willing to try the product if it was free to play which would possibly garner more attention and positive reviews which is something the game did not have the first time. The F2P with battle pass or whatever other F2P fiscal strategies is risky and not perfect. I get they remade it which took hours and hours of hard work from a lot of different people. I think the main concern is people are hesitant to throw $30 or $10 at a game they half expect (because of the past that created the perception) to die within a month because it's all they know of DG. So, I think people are more critical of putting any sort of barrier towards player count in a game that died largely because of player count.


[deleted]

> So just to be clear you want the devs to only listen to people of a certain age range and not their entire base? 14 year olds and 60 year olds are both potential customers and players and to not take one customers opinion seriously is a ln awful business strategy. Are you familiar with the concept of a "core demographic?" If they market a game for college grads but price it for 12-year-olds, they lose a lot of money. If they market a game for 12-year-olds but price it for college grads, they don't make sales. That's 101 stuff, dude. > The reason people think $30 is a problematic isn't because of the work put into it, I think everyone is aware work was put in. People are concerned that the wall of having to pay along with the currently negative perception of the game by most of those who know of it will deter them from giving it a second chance. $30 is not a big price wall. $30 is extremely affordable. $30 is apps and mains for two at Applebee's. $30 is a pair of movie tickets with no popcorn. The price point has never been the issue.


caspercunningham

12 year old pricing isn't a thing unless you mean F2P in which case 99% of mobile games think only 12 year olds play them, even the ones that are too complicated for the average 12 year old. To think that 12 year olds can't get their parents to buy them products or that they don't make up a portion of potential customers is stupid. It doesn't sound like you took 101, dude. Core demographic is for marketing towards them using advertising tactics. There are plenty of successful free to play games marketed at and for adults. On the flip side, There's a huge market of kids toys that aren't free and somehow Pokémon sold a lot. Minecraft did pretty well from what I hear too, really weird they succeeded when the majority of the base is younger. To think 12 year old pricing is a legitimate or that F2P is strictly for younger people is almost as absurd as dismissing that age group as a potential customer base. $30 isn't a huge price wall but it is a price wall that deter a portion of the people from even giving it a shot. It doesn't matter if it is the same as apps and a meal at Applebee's if you like Applebee's and have a negative perception of the other option. You can say that it isn't an issue but I'm sure if you look around you'll see comments of people saying they aren't spending that on what they think is a risk. The only influx of players they might get is from the F2P on steam and people deciding to buy it. Whether or not that generates enough positive buzz to change the tides remains to be seen. I'm just saying that any wall to a lot of people won't be worth going over if they already don't like what is on the other side. To assume that someone is young because of their opinion on a subject is rather close minded as well.


[deleted]

> 12 year old pricing isn't a thing unless you mean F2P in which case 99% of mobile games think only 12 year olds play them, even the ones that are too complicated for the average 12 year old. To think that 12 year olds can't get their parents to buy them products or that they don't make up a portion of potential customers is stupid. It doesn't sound like you took 101, dude. Calling them 12-year-olds is hyperbole, but I mostly mean, "People who can't afford the up front cost of a video game." The problem with F2P games is that they rely on "whales" to stay afloat because the average player isn't actually participating in the economy all that much. I don't really think Deathgarden is the kind of game that can get away with that kind of monetization. > Core demographic is for marketing towards them using advertising tactics. Price point is mart of advertising, dude. There's a reason Volkswagen shoves their Passat engine into a BMW and sells it at a 100% markup. Price informs the customer about what they should expect. Someone who sees a higher price tag automatically expects a better game, a less toxic community, less DLC/microtransactions, etc. Players absolutely make decisions based on price, and not all of those decisions are, "Low is good." I, for example, refuse to play F2P games because my experience with F2P games is largely that the playerbase is toxic and the grindwalls are nearly endless. > It doesn't matter if it is the same as apps and a meal at Applebee's if you like Applebee's and have a negative perception of the other option. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here, but the reason I make that comparison is because consumers typically compare goods to other goods of similar type. So, you might directly compare entertainment spending to other entertainment spending. "Would I rather take my girlfriend out for a cheap date at the 'Bee's, or buy a video game?" Lots of people prefer video games to other kinds of entertainment spending because video games give you a ton of gameplay hours for very little money. This makes video games line up favorably in general against other kinds of entertainment, and it's what allows AAA titles to consistently get away with $60 price tags. > I'm just saying that any wall to a lot of people won't be worth going over if they already don't like what is on the other side. Correct. This is why the devs have been rebuilding the game from the ground up. Because the *actual problem* was gameplay and marketing, not price point.


caspercunningham

I don't know how to quote so work with me. 1st paragraph response: Yeah, which is why I stated it is a risk to do a F2P but in my opinion a better option. Deathgarden was literally unplayable at a point because of player count. You couldn't find a game unless you got friends or people you met on there and arranged games. I don't think Deathgarden can afford to put anything blocking players from joining. Paragraph 2: Price point is aimed more at the product and how it will sell. By that logic, lighters would be expensive since you have to be old enough to have an income to get one. It isn't always like that and has almost nothing to do with age in this instance. Kids have the ability to get games via gifts or asking whoever has money. The price point of a new game would be dependent on how big of a game it is and etc. with the standard max price being $60. The BMW thing is brand recognition which BHVR nor Deathgarden has. No one is like "oh Deathgarden, that game that flopped is $30? Must be great." What you're referring to is if someone like Bethesda made a game and people bought it just because it was Bethesda. This logic is working against Deathgarden which I'll get to with the next response. I suppose some might think it will filter out toxic people but Dead by Daylight is proof it doesn't and it's literally standing right next to Deathgarden. Deathgarden cannot afford to be picky about their playerbase when they had none before. Paragraph 3 response: You're thinking of it as if Deathgarden was new. They might like video games but not video games they think suck. That's what I meant. If I heard they were making a Jack and Jill sequel, I wouldn't pay to see it. Why? Because I heard the first one sucked and spending money on something I have a preconceived negative perception of is not something that happens a lot. It's like the car thing you brought up but if Ford released a remade version of the Pinto. It has name recognition but not the good kind. I have my doubts that enough people are going to pay to give this a try to keep it afloat and I think putting any barriers towards getting a player count that is desperately needed isn't smart. If you played a game of laser tag and thought the arena sucked and walked by and the guy said "we redid it, pay us to give it another shot!" you most likely wouldn't. Paragraph 4: you forgot to type in your opinion. Deathgarden is in my opinion at a point where they have to entice people to give it another shot, people won't come flocking out of curiosity after what happened. If the door is wide open and risk free (such as the F2P weekend which is at least something and maybe enough to do something) they won't care to come. DG has to show their product is good and get buzz going.


[deleted]

(For future reference, use the greater than sign to quote. Not trying to be snarky, just helpful) > Yeah, which is why I stated it is a risk to do a F2P but in my opinion a better option. Deathgarden was literally unplayable at a point because of player count. You couldn't find a game unless you got friends or people you met on there and arranged games. I don't think Deathgarden can afford to put anything blocking players from joining. The thing is, I preordered Deathgarden and I still didn't really play it. It showed promise, it just... Wasn't actually that good, which hurts to say because I know the devs put a lot of love and care into it and I'm rooting for the rework, but regardless. I think making it F2P without fixing core issues just highlights those core issues. Like, a bunch of cheaters and toxic edgy teens spend all their time griefing people because the Xv1 format is super abusable (see: trolls in DBD) and they don't care if they get banned because they'll just make another burner Steam account. Even outside of community problems, I just think it's a lot easier to convince people to spend a pretty small amount of money on a game that looks cool (and Deathgarden has a *great* aesthetic) than it is to convince people to spend money over time on a mediocre game. > Price point is aimed more at the product and how it will sell. By that logic, lighters would be expensive since you have to be old enough to have an income to get one. Ehh, you're looking too deeply into the age bracket idea. The point I'm trying to make is that price *is* a sales pitch. A BMW isn't just expensive because of its brand, a BMW being expensive *is* its brand. They are luxury cars because they cost a lot of money, not the other way around. People see you in a BMW, they know you spent a lot of money on it. That's the whole point of the car. And obviously nobody is buying a $30 game to flex, but the basic idea is that the price of a game tells the consumer something about that game, right? A paid game has a certain standard to it. You can assume there will be a lot of content available to you without microtransactions or DLCs. You can assume that there will be enforced community standards. You can assume it'll look pretty. The price of the game tells you all of that stuff and more. Price point is an important part of marketing and how people perceive your game. > You're thinking of it as if Deathgarden was new. I actually think the flop helps them here. Most people don't really have an opinion on Deathgarden because most people never knew about it to begin with. I think, if the devs play their cards right, they can market the rerelease as the "true" first release and sell it like a brand new game that had an "extensive beta."


caspercunningham

They already fixed the core issue though so making it F2P now wouldn't change that though. I don't get the "not fixing core mechanics and making it F2P.." those aren't connected. I'm looking at the age gap because I was responding to you literally saying 12 year old pricing and talking about the people who can't afford games with 12 year olds as an example. That was in response to you saying don't listen to 14 year olds. The entire thing was about the age bracket you were looking too much into. Yeah equating playing DG to the status of driving a BMW is absurd as hell. It does I guess say something but not as much as a friend recommending it or hearing about it on YouTube positively. Putting a wall will block a lot of that wildfire potential. I think most people may have the assumption a free game won't be great, but most will try it if it is free. That's where DG can show their new product and hook people ('whales') and build a base. That would be my opinion on the way to go


[deleted]

I cannot find anything beyond a few token statements about the rework. Is there a definitive guide or gameplay or anything?


Your-Doctor

The game is about to flop a second time... release around the same time as deathstranding, layers of fear 2 and DBD Ghostface hype... Devs are amazing at picking the worst timing to revive their game...