Frontier: Battle Royale

Aşırı derecede kötü.. çok ekmek yemesi lazım bu oyunun

Pas de joueur. Quelques bug d'affichage sur les armes au sol .

GREATEST game i am ever have been played, LOVED the graphics and OBVIOUS effort the AMAZING creators put into this GAME. I am EXCITED FOR the next DISCORD nitro TOURNEMEMT!

[quote][b]Note: Dead PvP game[/b] This game contains no meaningful single player content. There's no viably populated servers/active player population. This game cannot be played as intended.[/quote] "Frontier: Battle Royale" is a low key asset flip, a bunch of other people's assets assembled badly to make a basic game, typically this kind of thing is done by amateur developers without sufficient budget, talent and/or staff to do the job of game development professionally. It's then quickly rushed into Steam Direct. And, unsurprisingly, this never results in a product with any quality, interest, or value for gamers. This is a garbage tier asset flip level ripoff of PUBG/Fartnite that never got any players, because wow, it's garbage. I have a question, are amateur developers aware that games like PUBG exist before they make a really weak ripoff of PUBG then publish their PUGB ripoff on Steam then wonder why their PUBG ripoff didn't succeed? I don't think they are. So, the game might look better than you'd expect from an amateur project, but this is because it's partially or completely made up of stock assets, "borrowed" from asset stores and free asset websites. Very little in this game is truly the creation of the "developer", it's just a bunch of rearranged assets. While there's no up front price for this asset flip, the other problem with asset flips is that when developers aren't capable of doing their job and creating high quality assets, it's also true they can't do any of the rest of the job of a game developer either. That's definitely true for "Frontier: Battle Royale". The "game" here, such as it is, is of a pretty low technical standard. The implementation is basic, minmimum effort stuff, more like a 'weekend project' rather than a commercial/professional product... it's bad even compared to most amateur made games. An experimental piece... and the experiment is "can I spend $100 on Steam Direct and then call myself a game dev?" While that $100 spend on Steam Direct probably made the developers feel good about themselves, we have to ask why this kind of thing is good for gamers. Now on to pricing and value for gamers. This is "free" enough (not every "free" game in the "free" section is truly free, there's usually some hidden price tag), at least you won't be expected to spend any more money after you download this, but just because something is free doesn't mean it's good, and the cost of a game is more than just financial, your time is valuable too. In terms of public reception, this failed. There's over 130 million unique gamers visiting Steam every month. SteamDB showed the game peaked at [b]only 12 concurrent players[/b]... this is a dismal public reception. This was so bad they couldn't even give it away. All other issues aside (any of which would disqualify this from being worth your time), this is a game that relies on other players for it to be viable, and because there's not enough players, it's not viable. I can't recommend anyone downloads this, it's basically dead.