Early Access Dev Log 11
While most of team is on holidays, we don't have much to report in terms of the actual development. We've been writing the stories for Broodmother's Treasure, and looking into whether we really need a Slumber Chamber at the Spire (we think, not) – but that sort of progress is not very visual. So let's use today's opportunity to talk about something else entirely, that is: the feedback that we receive from those who played the demo of the game.
[h3]DEMO STATS[/h3]
The demo version of Spire of Sorcery released on Steam in the summer of 2021, as a part of Steam Fest. As of today:
ːmagic_sparklesː 29.214 players have added the demo to their Steam Library
ːmagic_sparklesː 20.636 players have actually launched the demo
From what we know, this is a pretty good ratio.
We are also very happy that so many players have used the chance to "try before you buy", since our game relies on new mechanics and we want people to make informed decisions rather than rush in and then, perhaps, be disappointed.
And how much does an average player spend in the game?
ːmagic_sparklesː 30 minutes.
That's pretty neat, too. This compares to 1 hour 25 minutes that a player spends, on average, with the main game. In other words, if someone liked the demo, they will spend at least x3 times as much time with the main game – and most who enjoy the main game, spend between 4 and 8 hours with it.
[h3]PROLOGUE[/h3]
As much as we love Steam as a platform, it has some limitations (don't we all?).
In particular, a demo version of the game has its own app ID, but it's invisible. So players cannot publicly post screenshots from the demo, and they have no dedicated forums to comment on. We also have no way of notifying the owners that the demo has been updated.
Additionally, games in Early Access enjoy a somewhat limited visibility on Steam.
All of that contributed to the informal traditions, among independent developers and publishers, of re-releasing their demo versions as "prologues".
When we write it now, it sounds pretty awkward indeed: the same demo exists on Steam in two ways, one on the game's store page and another on its own page, where it's a "play for free" app with a description that says it is a demo. Quite complicated, right? But it's happening because re-releasing your demo as a prologue gives you the opportunity to reach additional audience, who may otherwise not discover the game.
As of now (during two weeks that it's been released):
ːmagic_sparklesː 3.333 players have added the prologue to their Steam Library
ːmagic_sparklesː 200 players have actually launched the prologue
You can see the difference between the audiences immediately: people who added the demo, did so specifically, and most of them tried it out. While people who added the prologue, mostly did so out of curiosity, and most of them haven't had the time to try it yet (and probably never will).
[h3]FEEDBACK[/h3]
A month ago we added to the demo, and to the prologue, the questionnaire at the end of the game asking three questions:
ːspellcastingː what did you like about the game?
ːspellcastingː what do you suggest to improve?
ːspellcastingː would you buy the full game?
Since then, we received nearly 500 responses, and it's extremely interesting to us, because this feedback comes directly from people who tried the demo.
Let's look at the most common answers.
What do people report as the features that they liked the most?
If you follow this dev blog for some time, you may remember how back in November we discussed if we need to simplify some of the mechanics of the game, and the overwhelming majority of players said "please, not" – because to most of the people who like the game, the nuances of various mechanics are exactly what makes it fun.
In other words, we take this feedback as a proof that we should continue developing the spell system (e.g. a forked tree of progression) and the deck of elements (e.g. deck management), and not be afraid to introduce more original solutions (e.g. the Chaos Burn).
And now let's see what people report as something that we should change / what confused them the most:
Once such feedback accumulated, we were relieved to see that we don't have the audience splitting into "two camps", which sometimes happens in discussions. For example, one "camp" would say "we want more stories" and the other would say "we want to skip stories".
Here, it's obvious that our UI needs more polishing, and more optimisation. Currently, using Spellbook in encounters takes several clicks, where it could do with just 2 (open/select) if we get smarter about showing the spells. And the same applies to other areas. This is something that we improve with each update, and there is still work to do.
The same applies to the use of icons in the game. The Encyclopaedia is still pretty raw and hard to navigate. We updated the icons in the encounter, and the character stats, just two weeks ago, and now this is easier to grasp. However, there is still work to do with encounter outcomes and the solution of "what can I do with this situation" in general.
As to the lore, and stories, and deck management, all of these are what we work on for the next updates, so we're happy to see that we move in the same direction as desired by most of the players.
[h3]OUR TAKEAWAY FROM THIS FEEDBACK[/h3]
What do you think about the answer to the question about buying the whole game – what was the most common response?
The vast majority of those who answered the questionnaire in the demo said that they will buy the game – however, they have had bad experiences with Early Access, and thus will wait until the game is either in full release or closer to completion.
We actually tend to forget about this, because like every developer (including those who fail and those who succeed), we believe in what we do, and are fully committed to the game. Yet realistically, it's a fact that projects fail on Kickstarter and in Early Access and once you get burned, you may be unwilling to take more risks.
The good news is that a lot of people do enjoy the game, are not scared away by its original mechanics and look forward to its release. Spire of Sorcery's current wishlist stands a bit above ːhypnoheartː 70.000 ːhypnoheartː and keeps growing by more than ːfire_tokenː 1.000 ːfire_tokenː every month, and we look forward to seeing more players get the game once it receives more content, and moves closer to its full release.
With this, we big farewell until the next week – when the whole team is back from holidays.
Stay safe!
/ Team CO /
[h3]DEMO STATS[/h3]
The demo version of Spire of Sorcery released on Steam in the summer of 2021, as a part of Steam Fest. As of today:
ːmagic_sparklesː 29.214 players have added the demo to their Steam Library
ːmagic_sparklesː 20.636 players have actually launched the demo
From what we know, this is a pretty good ratio.
We are also very happy that so many players have used the chance to "try before you buy", since our game relies on new mechanics and we want people to make informed decisions rather than rush in and then, perhaps, be disappointed.
And how much does an average player spend in the game?
ːmagic_sparklesː 30 minutes.
That's pretty neat, too. This compares to 1 hour 25 minutes that a player spends, on average, with the main game. In other words, if someone liked the demo, they will spend at least x3 times as much time with the main game – and most who enjoy the main game, spend between 4 and 8 hours with it.
[h3]PROLOGUE[/h3]
As much as we love Steam as a platform, it has some limitations (don't we all?).
In particular, a demo version of the game has its own app ID, but it's invisible. So players cannot publicly post screenshots from the demo, and they have no dedicated forums to comment on. We also have no way of notifying the owners that the demo has been updated.
Additionally, games in Early Access enjoy a somewhat limited visibility on Steam.
All of that contributed to the informal traditions, among independent developers and publishers, of re-releasing their demo versions as "prologues".
When we write it now, it sounds pretty awkward indeed: the same demo exists on Steam in two ways, one on the game's store page and another on its own page, where it's a "play for free" app with a description that says it is a demo. Quite complicated, right? But it's happening because re-releasing your demo as a prologue gives you the opportunity to reach additional audience, who may otherwise not discover the game.
As of now (during two weeks that it's been released):
ːmagic_sparklesː 3.333 players have added the prologue to their Steam Library
ːmagic_sparklesː 200 players have actually launched the prologue
You can see the difference between the audiences immediately: people who added the demo, did so specifically, and most of them tried it out. While people who added the prologue, mostly did so out of curiosity, and most of them haven't had the time to try it yet (and probably never will).
[h3]FEEDBACK[/h3]
A month ago we added to the demo, and to the prologue, the questionnaire at the end of the game asking three questions:
ːspellcastingː what did you like about the game?
ːspellcastingː what do you suggest to improve?
ːspellcastingː would you buy the full game?
Since then, we received nearly 500 responses, and it's extremely interesting to us, because this feedback comes directly from people who tried the demo.
Let's look at the most common answers.
What do people report as the features that they liked the most?
- the system of elements and the system of spells
- playing through magic, and playing for mages
- the look of the game, the visuals
- the combination of different mechanics of alchemy and spells
- the fact that the game offers original mechanics
- the setting of the game, the world, and the theme
If you follow this dev blog for some time, you may remember how back in November we discussed if we need to simplify some of the mechanics of the game, and the overwhelming majority of players said "please, not" – because to most of the people who like the game, the nuances of various mechanics are exactly what makes it fun.
In other words, we take this feedback as a proof that we should continue developing the spell system (e.g. a forked tree of progression) and the deck of elements (e.g. deck management), and not be afraid to introduce more original solutions (e.g. the Chaos Burn).
And now let's see what people report as something that we should change / what confused them the most:
- the game could use fewer clicks to perform the same actions
- some of the icons are confusing (such as outcomes in encounters)
- some of the menus obscure the game when opened
- the game needs deck management!
- the game needs more obvious flow for upgrading your characters!
- the game needs more lore!
Once such feedback accumulated, we were relieved to see that we don't have the audience splitting into "two camps", which sometimes happens in discussions. For example, one "camp" would say "we want more stories" and the other would say "we want to skip stories".
Here, it's obvious that our UI needs more polishing, and more optimisation. Currently, using Spellbook in encounters takes several clicks, where it could do with just 2 (open/select) if we get smarter about showing the spells. And the same applies to other areas. This is something that we improve with each update, and there is still work to do.
The same applies to the use of icons in the game. The Encyclopaedia is still pretty raw and hard to navigate. We updated the icons in the encounter, and the character stats, just two weeks ago, and now this is easier to grasp. However, there is still work to do with encounter outcomes and the solution of "what can I do with this situation" in general.
As to the lore, and stories, and deck management, all of these are what we work on for the next updates, so we're happy to see that we move in the same direction as desired by most of the players.
[h3]OUR TAKEAWAY FROM THIS FEEDBACK[/h3]
What do you think about the answer to the question about buying the whole game – what was the most common response?
The vast majority of those who answered the questionnaire in the demo said that they will buy the game – however, they have had bad experiences with Early Access, and thus will wait until the game is either in full release or closer to completion.
We actually tend to forget about this, because like every developer (including those who fail and those who succeed), we believe in what we do, and are fully committed to the game. Yet realistically, it's a fact that projects fail on Kickstarter and in Early Access and once you get burned, you may be unwilling to take more risks.
The good news is that a lot of people do enjoy the game, are not scared away by its original mechanics and look forward to its release. Spire of Sorcery's current wishlist stands a bit above ːhypnoheartː 70.000 ːhypnoheartː and keeps growing by more than ːfire_tokenː 1.000 ːfire_tokenː every month, and we look forward to seeing more players get the game once it receives more content, and moves closer to its full release.
With this, we big farewell until the next week – when the whole team is back from holidays.
Stay safe!
/ Team CO /