553 reviews on Steam and 154 Negative

I think this sums it up quite well. The current game concept of catering to the niche community with ever more housing stuff seems like Second Life but ten years to late.
To make the likes of me happy and get a good review they would have to fundamentally change just about every game system implemented so far, which would mean the game would be released years later than the already much delayed release (which laughably some in this forum still say could be this year; mind you a beta for an MMO alone often takes 9 months and we are not even in alpha for a while yet...)

 

There is no way you could know how many hours people played in those reviews. The reason being, many people never linked their game to Steam until much, much later than they'd already been playing. I've even known some people that want to link their account to Steam solely to give a negative review because they can't even sell their game anyway. So there are way too many variables to be dismissive.

Perhaps Port might like to approach some of those paying customers to clarify their misconceptions, or invite them to take part in some constructive way.

 

Actually many negative reviews are quite accurate and not many of them state what you said.

As much as you may not like it it is perfectly fine to trash a bad game for what it is without providing any constructive criticism. It is the developers task to come up with what needs to be changed to get happy customers. Why should those not liking the game do the work for them? There are literally thousands of higher-rated and better games out there, a number of them in pre-alpha.

 

Unlike UO this is a game with 15 year old concepts. I doubt anyone has trouble understanding them

 

Compared to the number of backers this forum is essentially dead (as in very few posters, mostly high level backers contribute in the discussion at all) and the feedback they obtain consequently is from a small sliver of the actual backers. Steam reviews are an indication that the perception of the wider backer base differs quite a bit from those. Not surprizing: The wider player base could give a damn about POT's and the pay-to-win garbage this game is overloaded with.

 

There is no obligation to link your steam account until you write the review. It seems natural that many people would leave the game unlinked (as is mine currently) until there is something for which they will need to link it.
As such maybe the steam hours of many negative reviewers are more indicative of how long they played after making the decision to review the game, which does not bode well for those players changing their mind: They seem to have lost interest.

Actually the overwhelming amount of steam reviews is positive and the "mostly positive" category SotA is currently in is already pretty low for a steam game. The "mixed" category below is pretty much already is the death sentence for sales on steam.
Notice that this is also true for pre-alpha games: Many of them get "very positive" or "overwhelmingly positive", while shroud is already as above. I browsed through some of the review history of people reviewing shroud negatively and multiple of them have a number of positively reviewed games.

 

Indeed SotA seems like bold pay-to-win to many. It does not matter if it is actually true (in my opinion it is), if people get that impression that is enough.

 

Welcome in the Mico-SotAfans-Community,

I am very worried too. Here people like to say SotA is not Uo and PvP is not important.
This is very negative for the development of the game.

Only my point of view. I am one of the few who continue to believe.

Portalarium is super dynamic and creative, they ll create a great game.

-Abydos

 

I just did a little exercise for myself and browsed through all of the steam games I bought (64 of 67 I own) and only one had a worse fraction of positive reviews. That game was a port of an old favorite to PC which I just immediately bought without researching it. I would be curious how this looks for the rest of you.

 

Just for reference: The German platform with the most reach completely tore it apart in their last progress review (quite a while ago) and in the list of reader's interest they only get to # 168 in category rpgs(!).
Germany is a very big market for RPGs traditionally and I recall someone mentioning that after Americans, Germans were the second biggest number of backers.
There is also a number of critical posts from backers on the last news item on the game from April.
Seems steam is not the only place the game struggles...

 

This list is absolutely ridiculous, 8.26 for a game that no one in the public has played? 9.09 for game that makes more promises and delivered less than SotA? I pledged to SC, and I think they'll deliver, but this list is just meaningless and baseless.

Portalarium were maybe a bit too open with their development, and people are just having trouble seeing past the poor presentation. It's difficult even for me to look past the awful sound placeholders.

 

I think it was a mistake to enable and encourage reviews on steam for a pre-alpha build game.

 

Considering the state the game has been in, it's a wonder that the reviews are as good as they are.

 

Again, these lists are nothing more than daydreams. It is giving someone a "most likely to succeed" award, none of those numbers will matter when (if) any of the games release.

It is perfectly fair to say SotA isn't worth $45 now, but who knows where development will be next year, maybe 11.93/10, maybe 0.23/10, judge it then.

 

There are plenty of people who gladly pay a premium for alpha/beta access.

If this were a finished, release game in this state, I'd say it is likely not worth much since it is missing features and content. I put down well more than $45 with no regrets because I knew I was paying for a game I'd get way down the road. Such is the nature of crowd-funding.

The problem with Steam right now is that many people are used to LOW COST Early Access games. $45 seems like a lot to them for the current state of the game. But $45 really isn't out of line for a pre-order on what will likely be a $60 game at launch. It is all about perspective.

 

Welcome Maxxgold! You seem to be quite new and a little confused. Have you actually even played the game? You make some pretty unfounded generalizations that don't really carry merit. Either way welcome to New Britannia!

I hope you figure it out.

 

That makes no sense. There are many steam games where people explicitly criticize the game being overpriced, yet this is not the case for the vast majority of negative SotA reviews. People know very well what they dislike and they write it explicitly. No reason to make up excuses.

 

Strangely I think what he says is spot-on. Do you really think insulting him will lift his "confusion"?
It seems to me some of the high-level backers are blinded by their large investment

 

It was probably premature to introduce it on Steam altogether. But that's water under the bridge now.

 

Many of the positive reviews are good faith reviews that have little to do with the state of the current development.

Many of the negative reviews are about the actual design of the game.