INVISIBLE

Atm all I see is bots, no multiplayer...

R.I.P.

[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] This is an incredibly unambitious kitbash/asset flip looking PVP arena shooter with no players. Take on the role of a Unity Asset Store asset and run around a Unity Asset Store spacestation shooting nobody, because this has no players. Thanks, Steam Direct. It's a dead PvP game, and it's time for us to have a post-mortem to see some of the reasons this failed. [i]Most PvP games on Steam fail.[/i] Very few of them ever go viral. This game failed because the developer expected it to become "virally" popular without creating any actual reason or compelling features. This doesn't do anything that other games already do better. PvP games face extreme competition, PvP gamers have plenty to choose from and they gravitate to where all the other players are. This game didn't offer anything to peel those PvPers away from the PvP games they're already invested in. It had no upfront cost, but gamers still rejected it. This game lacks any meaningful solo content. The developer tried to use other players as a substitute for real work like level design and story, gambling that just because their game exists, it's going to magically pull the entire player base of Counter-Strike 2 over to this failure instead. They lost that unwise gamble. A game with no players and no solo content is a dead game. Developers need to stop relying on players as a substitute for real content, just because they feel creating genuine narrative, level design and so on is "too hard". Despite not being in Early Access, it's obvious this is an incomplete product. Developers have an obligation to deliver complete, not partially done products to gamers, that shouldn't be controversial. Whatever the excuses may be, it does no service to gamers for incomplete products polluting Steam like this. It makes it harder for gamers to find complete games, and it makes it harder for ethical developers who do the right thing to find their audience. The game assets here look a lot better than the actual game they're assembled on... that doesn't mean this is necessarily an asset flip or a kitbash, because there's no proof. But what matters is that this has all the same terrible quality as asset flips, and at the end of the day that's one of the reasons people don't like asset flips, the quality is bad. That's a problem. This game is fairly dated at 8 years old... and even back then it looked old and busted compared to contemporary, professionally made 3D games of the same period. It looked bad then, it looks worse now. Let's talk about price and the value this represents for us 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. Despite having no up-front cost, this failed to appeal to the 130 million+ gamers on Steam. SteamDB shows this peaked at [b]only 5 concurrent players[/b]... this is a dismal public reception. This was so bad they couldn't even give it away. The funny part is that means this never had a full server... it never got played the way the developer hoped. That's a little embarrassing. 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. "Invisible" is right, though. Nobody even saw this game.

᠌

进都进不去玩个得。不推荐

brutta partita

[h1] [/h1]