Game is dying

I don't really know what you expect of an indie game.

I do know multiple games which were designed and developed with probably million of dollars and which have had huge attention due to actual store sales, advertisements on tv and whatnot ; and guess what: some of these games are now dead.

dead = there is no more official lobby / server available

That defines dead for a multiplayer game.

I do hear "Soldat is dead" for years too and well, ofc. the playerbase decreases and the devs could probably turn the game to something better. The game itself is not dead yet though. It will probably still be played in 5-10 years, I'm quite sure of that.

There seem to be quite a lot of new threads on the forum and there are ppl. playing kag. I have to admit that the activity is low compared to the 184,136 players who purchased the game.

Games die just as humans, rock bands, fashion styles or tv-series.

Appreciate when a small team with really limited budget stands out.

ps: also note that the game is from 2011. it did already last for quite a while.

 

@Leo sorry to see you thinking of leaving, that said if your point was that we need new ways to lure and keep players, the OP does not really get that across, nor does it contribute anything towards a solution.

Yeah that's always attracted the highest calibre of gamer around hasn't it? Dirt cheap games, only the best play those right? People really give their full attention to the game they paid less for than a coffee right? Hackers really hate it when they can grab a pile of keys on the cheap don't they? Ten bucks sure is too much to ask for even an hour of entertainment.

That said, big sale coming at some undisclosable date. Don't say I didn't warn you.

 

Honestly, I feel like the emphasis is wrong here.

People keep talking about attracting and, more specifically, retaining players along the lines of "add X to the game, make the game more Y". But ask many long-term players about why they've stayed and you'll probably hear something along the lines of "came for the game, stayed for the community". My question is: what if the "solution" (as much as one exists) is not adding/tweaking game mechanics, but rather adding/tweaking social mechanics?

KAG is a multi-player game with a strong emphasis on teamwork; particularly micro teamwork (i.e. working together in tactical settings, like builder making ladders for knight over enemy walls)--although, ofc, macro teamwork (i.e. generally working towards the same over-arching goal) is also a thing. Thus, imho, it feels relatively self-evident that social bonds generated by the game--bonds that last between matches, that often jump from in-game to on-forum, that definitely affect in-game play/experience--are vital to the longevity of player participation.

Simply put: if people feel like they "belong" then they'll keep coming back, keep on hanging around, independent of their personal enjoyment/involvement with the game. The game acts as necessary focal point; but it's the social fabric the game generates that actually forms the basis of most peoples' continued engagement with the game.

And, sure, there are those who play KAG in total isolation from the players around them, for whom every other player may as well be a bot; but I'd suggest that they are very much in the minority--and that everyone else who's stuck around longer than a few months has done so because of the social capital they've invested/generated.

It's why @Leo had his servers, even though he didn't really play any more. It's why a myriad of young-old, old-old, and oooold-old fags who play irregularly still hang about and care to bitch about the direction the game is headed. Hell, in all honesty it's probably why @Geti continues to come and get involved with some of the shit-tier arguments that this community has managed to generate over the years...

The game matters. It's the reason most of us ever had reason to interact in the first place. But it's also only half of the equation. KAG is a game played with others.

So my question, again, is:

If that "with others" element was working better, would more people find reason to continue to play the game?

Maybe? Just maybe... >_>

 

An example from the medical world: http://dharmarajkarthikesan.com/2015/05/09/dear-doctors-be-kind-to-each-other/

We, those already embedded in the community, are the doctors. Those who are new to the game/forums are the patients. What would happen if we actually acted--to everyone we encountered, not just those we like/agree with--with a modicum of humility and good-nature?

Call it optimism if you will; but don't for a minute think that acting poorly towards others (something that most people here--myself included--are overly fond of) doesn't hurt the game, hurt the community, as much--if not more--than any game-breaking bug or glitch.