next »

[io3 creations]

Interesting monetary approach and thanks for sharing your results.  I was also thinking about if something was possible but never tested it.

Would the same approach be possible in the Apple/Google stores or would their guidelines prevent it?

[Pehesse]

Interesting monetary approach and thanks for sharing your results.  I was also thinking about if something was possible but never tested it.

Would the same approach be possible in the Apple/Google stores or would their guidelines prevent it?

I have no idea! Someone else would have to test it, as I currently have no plans to develop for mobile platforms, but it'd be interesting to see if the different market and attitude towards monetization there translates into the PWYL model.

[Greipur]

Congratulations on the launch. I agree that it would be interesting to hear statistics regarding your payment model.

[Pehesse]

Congratulations on the launch. I agree that it would be interesting to hear statistics regarding your payment model.

Thanks a lot! I've already started to share statistics, check the previous page for all the info, namely, those three posts:

https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=42222.msg1286935#msg1286935
https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=42222.msg1287006#msg1287006
https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=42222.msg1288572#msg1288572

[Greipur]

Congratulations on the launch. I agree that it would be interesting to hear statistics regarding your payment model.

Thanks a lot! I've already started to share statistics, check the previous page for all the info, namely, those three posts:

https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=42222.msg1286935#msg1286935
https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=42222.msg1287006#msg1287006
https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=42222.msg1288572#msg1288572

Ah, I missed that. The conversion rate from amount of players to payers seems to correspond to free to play and freemium games.

[Pehesse]

Ah, I missed that. The conversion rate from amount of players to payers seems to correspond to free to play and freemium games.

Yes, agreed. Or thereabouts :-D

I'll confess to being a tad disappointed so far, as I was hoping for more players to take an active part in the model to send a clear message, as it's being looked at by quite a few people, but I suppose the game is too divisive and not good enough to gather the kind of support the model would need to be considered a success and an actual alternative - maybe some others with more universal appeal would need to attempt this model to see if it's truly sustainable.

Of course, the argument can be made that changes might happen over time rather than over the traditional release window, though so far, the numbers follow the classic patterns. Still, I'll keep updating the stats, and I still plan to use the model moving forward for my future projects, at least as long as I can!

[io3 creations]

You are somewhat in uncharted territories and it may be hard to compare or generalize results.

Since I've posted some of your posts in the NARCISSUS devlog, I'll just link to my reply regarding using ads in games.  Not sure if desktop (Steam or other) games can implement ads in the same way though but that can be a decent source from "free" players.
https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=35123.msg1289401#msg1289401

[Pehesse]

You are somewhat in uncharted territories and it may be hard to compare or generalize results.

Since I've posted some of your posts in the NARCISSUS devlog, I'll just link to my reply regarding using ads in games.  Not sure if desktop (Steam or other) games can implement ads in the same way though but that can be a decent source from "free" players.
https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=35123.msg1289401#msg1289401

Appreciate the resposts and the spreading of the discussion, thanks a lot! :-D

You make some interesting points about ads, though I'll confess to being a bit of a hard-liner on that one: while I don't disagree they can bring in revenue, I find them disruptive (destructive?) in regards to the authorial integrity of a work, and since I don't consider my game a product and don't wish for it to be perceived as such, ads are a big no-no for me. In fact, anything in-game that takes away from the player experience as I designed it is something I'm very wary of, the only exception I made in Honey is the "about" section to talk about the PWYL model.

I'd be interested to know if some other games targeting other platforms with less of a definitive stance on this would have more success, but even then, I'm not sure I'd compromise what I consider to be a sign of respect towards players. If I have to make an ethical breach to potentially gain more, I'd still rather have my works stand on their own, even if it drives me out of the business altogether! I feel we have gone much too far treating videogames as consumerist products, reaching a point we're actively stifling their growth as a creative medium.

So... yeah, no ads for me (or anything of the kind for that matter), I'm afraid, but interesting thought nonetheless, and I appreciate the discussion either way :-D

[io3 creations]

I know what you mean about not compromising your beliefs/values. 

Actually, I've also started using a PWYL like approach for providing certain services and I call it "value exchange".  One difference is that it's easier for me to pre-select people who are actually interested in a certain service and thus I know are motivated which increases the chance that people will benefit from it and thus return the value in some form (financial or other).  That way, I can also be quite sure that I'm not wasting my time from both a personal and in some respect financial point of view.

I agree that having certain interruption wouldn't benefit all games/experiences, much like commercials interrupting a movie can break focus on the experience.  However, if you (or others) consider casual/short games, especially the type that requires intense focus for short amount of time  (e.g. lots of fast paced action), then it can be good to take a short break and receive "extra benefits".  I've read such player comments regarding ads.

So, with my "value exchange" approach it would be a biggie to use ads in certain types of games.

However, in some cases, there's also not just the financial aspect or the "value exchange", but something more and that's why I wouldn't even go with one of the free models.   It's almost like when you have to put some effort toward reaching/attaining something.  Kind of like getting to top of a mountain.  You can appreciate the view much more if you put considerable effort into getting there.  Sometimes, others need to do their part as well.

So, yes, there are lots of things to consider whether ads would even be a good fit for a game or what kind of monetary model you go with.

[Pehesse]

I know what you mean about not compromising your beliefs/values. 

Actually, I've also started using a PWYL like approach for providing certain services and I call it "value exchange".  One difference is that it's easier for me to pre-select people who are actually interested in a certain service and thus I know are motivated which increases the chance that people will benefit from it and thus return the value in some form (financial or other).  That way, I can also be quite sure that I'm not wasting my time from both a personal and in some respect financial point of view.

I agree that having certain interruption wouldn't benefit all games/experiences, much like commercials interrupting a movie can break focus on the experience.  However, if you (or others) consider casual/short games, especially the type that requires intense focus for short amount of time  (e.g. lots of fast paced action), then it can be good to take a short break and receive "extra benefits".  I've read such player comments regarding ads.

So, with my "value exchange" approach it would be a biggie to use ads in certain types of games.

However, in some cases, there's also not just the financial aspect or the "value exchange", but something more and that's why I wouldn't even go with one of the free models.   It's almost like when you have to put some effort toward reaching/attaining something.  Kind of like getting to top of a mountain.  You can appreciate the view much more if you put considerable effort into getting there.  Sometimes, others need to do their part as well.

So, yes, there are lots of things to consider whether ads would even be a good fit for a game or what kind of monetary model you go with.

Interesting points, and you're right that some games might benefit from ad-based models more than others!

You're also hitting on a key point when saying that people need to play an *active* part for any kind of model to work!

In truth, I hear lots of support for my PWYL experiment, but numbers show little of that translates to *actual* support.
As much as I hate to say it, if most who are interested in it simply sit back... then it's clearly not going to work!
Of course, I don't mean or want to put any kind of pressure out there on players (whether they supported or not) as that would be the opposite of what the model tries to accomplish, which is to get players to "vote with their wallets" according to their own sense of responsibility and value.
To be clear: I'm writing this here as a way to expand on my own feelings and thoughts in the matter, as honestly as I can: my goal isn't to sound ungrateful towards anyone who did support the game and the model so far, as indeed nothing could be further from the truth, I'm simply hoping to write the actual results I'm experiencing as a base to discuss the potential (or lack thereof) of the model in this dev-focused environment.
I also don't want to minimize the impact it had on player numbers, as I believe releasing the game in any kind of traditional format would have led to a very small paying userbase right off the bat: according to Steam stats, the game currently has been licensed 5600 times and actually downloaded 1600 times, when I would have looked at probably 10% of that at best with a traditional pricetag. So on that front, the PWYL led to a much higher playerbase than I could have hoped for in any other scenario, which is a victory in and of itself!

However I also think it'd be doing a disservice to all who are looking for the actual results of the model to sugar coat the remuneration numbers: the bottom line is that the conversion numbers are much, much below what I need (even lower than actual F2P conversion according to the latest stats).
I can't even say at this point I wouldn't have had more success using a traditional model: assuming I'd have priced the game at 9.99, I'd only have needed to sell 50 units, or 1% of the current free licenses (or 3% of the downloads) to equal the current revenue of the PWYL model, both being likely attainable goals.

My hope was to gain higher conversion numbers than traditional free-to-play mobile systems, since those generally use aggressive tactics such as ingame payment systems, ads or other forms of paywall to wear out players patience and get them to either pay, play uncomfortably or leave. This is overall the biggest failure of the model: it didn't manage to change people's minds, as lofty a goal as that was!

So in the end, to go back to your "value exchange" concept: what I was hoping for was to get the idea accross that players help get games made at all (here, the game I'm currently working on), rather than put up any kind of constraint!

[oldblood]

Thanks for the continued transparency on the business model. Being honest, I'm a bit surprised. I do agree that had you been selling the game for say $9.99, you likely would have more revenue than the current model. Hopefully this game will have a longer tail with people making purchases further down the line after (or during) play. I just want to point out that one benefit to your current model that will be hard to measure (or put a monetary value on) is the fact that you're exposing your work to a far larger group of players than if you were selling it for $9.99. For future games, you will have increased "brand recognition" as a wider audience will be familiar with your previous work and may be more inclined to purchase future games knowing the quality of your previous.

With the fact you can't put the game on "Sale", will make it harder to generate those revenue bumps throughout the year- you may want to look at updating the game to include more menu references or reminders to support the developer. (e.g. a main menu link to support the developer linked to Steam page). I'd also try to leverage the "Update" front page pushes you get from Steam to keep a steady stream of impressions on the game over the first few months.

[Pehesse]

Thanks for the continued transparency on the business model. Being honest, I'm a bit surprised. I do agree that had you been selling the game for say $9.99, you likely would have more revenue than the current model. Hopefully this game will have a longer tail with people making purchases further down the line after (or during) play. I just want to point out that one benefit to your current model that will be hard to measure (or put a monetary value on) is the fact that you're exposing your work to a far larger group of players than if you were selling it for $9.99. For future games, you will have increased "brand recognition" as a wider audience will be familiar with your previous work and may be more inclined to purchase future games knowing the quality of your previous.

With the fact you can't put the game on "Sale", will make it harder to generate those revenue bumps throughout the year- you may want to look at updating the game to include more menu references or reminders to support the developer. (e.g. a main menu link to support the developer linked to Steam page). I'd also try to leverage the "Update" front page pushes you get from Steam to keep a steady stream of impressions on the game over the first few months.

I have nothing to add, except to say that I entirely agree with your thoughts and advice, and you have precisely summed up my current view and plans!! So thank you very much :-) :-)

One of the update pushes I'm planning will be for the game's "birthday" on November 28th (I haven't planned additional content so far, but I could consider expanding the "About" option from the main menu and the information it presents). In addition, I'm trying to figure out when will be an appropriate time and occasion for more updates - when formally announcing my next project, perhaps, or when I have more to share about it?

On that note: I'll be opening a devlog about it here very soon - I currently can't because of connexion issues I've talked about on twitter, but as soon as my connection is fixed, I'll post about it here, and so I ask: my biggest regret with Honey is to have failed to make an engaging long-term devlog with information other than gif dumps, so I'm looking forward to working on that during the next project and share actual information and not just assets, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on what kind of information you're looking for in a devlog, and what parts of my work process you'd like me to expand on!

[io3 creations]

It's interesting that I was going to ask about what do you think would've happened if you had released the game as a paid game. 

Yeah, it's hard to add those types of upsell approaches - which again probably wouldn't fit your game.  Plus, spending millions in ad revenue that the top apps often need to spend to become visible and maintain visibility in the App store.

I like the "Support the Developer" button idea on the main menu.  Also, can't remember if you mentioned it, is there a similar button and mention at the end of the game after players finished it?  As you mentioned, it might be a bit intrusive to the gameplay experience, but in a way that might be the best place to have such a reminder.  Or if the gameplay requires the player to come back to the main menu before exiting the game, then you could have the "Support the Developer" button flash or do some kind of subtle animation to gently attract player's eyes.  If there are other menus that also allow players to exit the game then you could also add the button with the same features there.

Speaking of monetization, have you considered Patreon in some form?  That probably works if you can provide "value" on a consistent regular basis (e.g. ranging from wallpaper to custom art) and build up a reasonable fan base.  There are different regular (e.g. monthly) recurring options as well as milestones (e.g. releasing a game).

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

If somebody who played the game can tell us if they dropped card naturally or not, I think that'd be a great help :-D (they should drop every 45mn or so!)

Passing by to confirm that cards don't drop, and i think it will only drop if you spend 9$ value in dlc.
"Free-to-Play games operate differently. You instead earn card drops by spending money, either from that game's in-game shop or by buying the game's DLC in the Steam Store. The current rate of all Free-to-Play games is approximately $9 US per card drop"

As a customer i want to express my opinion about your sale strategy. I didn't like it actually, because i ended up not playing your game yet 
With the immense catalogue of steam and wishlist keeping increasing, it requires some managemement on how to spend your game budget. The fact that your game was free, made me just think that i can use my money to buy another game that i also wanted to play but isn't free and i would have never supported it if it wasn't because i followed this devlog. I had a 20$ on my steam account around the time your game was released and i had 2 other game i really wanted at the same time.
 Also, it might just be me, but it lost the intent to play this game , because there's not money value put into it.

[Pehesse]

It's interesting that I was going to ask about what do you think would've happened if you had released the game as a paid game. 

Yeah, it's hard to add those types of upsell approaches - which again probably wouldn't fit your game.  Plus, spending millions in ad revenue that the top apps often need to spend to become visible and maintain visibility in the App store.

I like the "Support the Developer" button idea on the main menu.  Also, can't remember if you mentioned it, is there a similar button and mention at the end of the game after players finished it?  As you mentioned, it might be a bit intrusive to the gameplay experience, but in a way that might be the best place to have such a reminder.  Or if the gameplay requires the player to come back to the main menu before exiting the game, then you could have the "Support the Developer" button flash or do some kind of subtle animation to gently attract player's eyes.  If there are other menus that also allow players to exit the game then you could also add the button with the same features there.

Speaking of monetization, have you considered Patreon in some form?  That probably works if you can provide "value" on a consistent regular basis (e.g. ranging from wallpaper to custom art) and build up a reasonable fan base.  There are different regular (e.g. monthly) recurring options as well as milestones (e.g. releasing a game).

Indeed, I have an "About" option on the main menu that tells players about the PWYL model and redirects them to the game's site. The end game credits also contain a mention to check this "About" section, though that's assuming players reach the end credits in the first place! :-D I didn't want to push too hard the option by having it flash or come to the forefront differently in any way, as I would equate it to ads then, which is the opposite of what I want: I'd like it to be informative and a result of their active choice to seek out information, not pushed on the player.

As for Patreon: indeed, I do have one, it was actually linked in my signature right here for most of Honey's development but I had to remove it because of the character limit :-D It's here: https://www.patreon.com/pehesse

I'm hoping people will choose to support the work process not out of a sense of entitlement or reward, as I feel offering additional "value" only to paying customers would defeat the purpose of the PWYL model in the first place: the intent is for the work to be free for everyone to access. Instead, I'm trying to make the process itself, its transparency and philosophy the source of value, but I can understand how and why it'd be a harder "sell"... though I have trouble finding a middle ground!

If somebody who played the game can tell us if they dropped card naturally or not, I think that'd be a great help :-D (they should drop every 45mn or so!)

Passing by to confirm that cards don't drop, and i think it will only drop if you spend 9$ value in dlc.
"Free-to-Play games operate differently. You instead earn card drops by spending money, either from that game's in-game shop or by buying the game's DLC in the Steam Store. The current rate of all Free-to-Play games is approximately $9 US per card drop"

As a customer i want to express my opinion about your sale strategy. I didn't like it actually, because i ended up not playing your game yet 
With the immense catalogue of steam and wishlist keeping increasing, it requires some managemement on how to spend your game budget. The fact that your game was free, made me just think that i can use my money to buy another game that i also wanted to play but isn't free and i would have never supported it if it wasn't because i followed this devlog. I had a 20$ on my steam account around the time your game was released and i had 2 other game i really wanted at the same time.
 Also, it might just be me, but it lost the intent to play this game , because there's not money value put into it.

About trading cards: all I can tell you is what I have setup on Steam's backend. I have selected for the game to be "Free", not "Free-To-Play", which are two separate and very different business models, and chosen for the cards to drop at 45mn intervals - I had no option related to monetary minimums, nor any information related to that in any section I filled. The DLC system wasn't even in place when I setup the cards, for that matter, so as far as Steam knew, there was absolutely no way to pay for the game when I made the cards and put them up for review (a process which involved actual people I had back and forth with, not automated machines). I have no other information than this: if it turns out that cards do indeed require a minimum amount to be paid first to drop, it's through no specification on my part, and it actively goes against everything I've selected and information I've been privy to, and I unfortunately have no option to change it.

As for the rest of your argument, well, I appreciate and thank you for your honesty and candor, even though I'll confess to being utterly baffled by it! What you're telling me is that you're placing more value on the act of purchasing than on the act of playing itself, which is the consumerist behavior I'm actively trying to address with the PWYL mode, as it opens the door to every deceiving marketing tactic to take advantage of the audience.

Let me try to present it a few different ways:

-you want to buy apples from the market, and you come across two stands: one displays apples, you can choose any amount you want and pay whichever amount you want for them. The other displays nothing but a closed bag labeled "apples" with a photo of apples pinned on it, but you have to pay a set amount to have the right to open it and check the state of the apples, or if it is in fact even apples in there in the first place.

-assuming you want to play Honey as you said yourself: the price is 9.99 (or if you attach more value to more expensive pricetags, make it 24.99), you simply *must* pay after you have played the game. Now, take that same scenario, except you don't *have* to pay that specific amount, you can choose not to pay after you've played it, in case you didn't enjoy the game as much as you thought you would. Now, take again that scenario, but make the amount you pay whatever you want, rather than a set amount.

Even looking at your argument from a purely individualistic standpoint, how do you stand to gain more by gambling your money on a game you can't know you'll like beforehand, when you have an alternative you can try for yourself? It's not like it's one or the other in this case: you can very well choose to play the accessible game, and if you decide you don't like it (or even if you do but don't want to pay for it), you can then proceed to buy the other and play it. (That's, of course, assuming you intend to play the two games in the first place, which is what you wrote)

I can't blame you for choosing not to play the game, though of course I'm very sorry you feel this way and hope you'll reconsider sometime down the line. What I can't understand is why you *lost* interest in the game, when no matter how you consider the situation, you only stand to gain from it, since you were interested in the game in the first place: if you play it and like it, you've had an enjoyable experience, if you play it and don't like it, you didn't spend anything for it, and if you value the act of purchasing above all else, the system is set up explicitely so you can define the value of your enjoyment, rather than have it be dictated for you. How can you then conclude that you're not interested in the game anymore, if you were in the first place? The game does NOT have "no money value put into it": it explicitely has the value *you* choose to attach to it. It may be "none" in the case of many, but that responsibility and choice is theirs, and is the core concept driving PWYL: each individual is in complete control of their entire experience, from the act of play to the choice of supporting the game (or make that "purchasing" if you'd rather).

The traditional market asks players to trust what they're told and gamble their money on good faith, I'm offering people the chance to make an informed decision based on their own experience. How then, assuming you were interested in the game in the first place and have followed the log as you wrote, do you lose interest in the game itself, considering the experience it offers doesn't change in *any* of the above mentioned scenarios?

I hope you won't take the above the wrong way: I'm honestly trying to understand your argument, but no matter the angle I approach it from, I can't see any way you benefit from it, assuming your intent was to play the game (if you didn't, of course, I can completely understand why you wouldn't be interested in the first place, but that isn't what you wrote - also, if your concern is available time, I'd argue it's very easy to spend 30mn to an hour to see if you like it before definitely choosing one way or another)!

[DireLogomachist]

I think I understand Bakkusa's point a bit.

If I've put money into something I feel more incentive to use/value it.
The transaction and exchange of value (i.e. $) reinforces the value of the work itself in the mind of the buyer.

There's a pile of awesome free games out there that I'll probably never play, not because they aren't worth it but because there are good games I've already bought and I need play them first to justify their purchase.

I do like that you made something so awesome and decided to offer it for honefree! That takes guts!
On the flip side, human psychology works in weird ways sometimes. 

[Pehesse]

I think I understand Bakkusa's point a bit.

If I've put money into something I feel more incentive to use/value it.
The transaction and exchange of value (i.e. $) reinforces the value of the work itself in the mind of the buyer.

There's a pile of awesome free games out there that I'll probably never play, not because they aren't worth it but because there are good games I've already bought and I need play them first to justify their purchase.

I do like that you made something so awesome and decided to offer it for honefree! That takes guts!
On the flip side, human psychology works in weird ways sometimes.  

Thanks a lot! And I absolutely agree, in fact it's what I tried to summarize as "putting value on the act of purchasing rather than the act of play", which most likely plays a big part in why the game is currently underperforming. I don't debate that this exists, what I don't understand is how someone who has enough investment and interest in a game to follow its devlog would change their mind when said game is finally available based on that principle. In this scenario, the tools are even available to the players to make a purchase, even before playing the game, if the act of purchase is so important to their experience (as quite a few did, in fact, whether to show trust and/or support to the game before playing it, which I appreciate immensely).

I can perfectly understand (if not agree with) players not being interested in the game out of context because of it appearing "free", but going from wanting to play something to losing that will on the virtue of having free access to what they were looking forward to, by virtue of having the choice to pay or not, rather than the obligation? I'd like to figure out what happens there, as it may be playing another part in the current situation. To me, this translates to actively wanting to be taken advantage of (ie: putting faith in most current aggressive marketing tactics, directly leading to No Man's Sky-type situations to name only one of the most recent examples - even the best intentioned marketing still requires their audience to take a leap of faith through the act of purchase), rather than expressing choice and responsibility with full knowledge and control of their experience, which is a notion I can't get behind and hope to help change if I can!

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

It's not choosing not to play, it's mostly postponing the moment i'm going to play it .
I think there's another factor to consider, it's the time/play. i wouldn't compare that to the apples because gaming is imo a luxury/entertainment and comparing it to movies would be closer. why pay now when i can just wait until it's free on television.
Games tend to drop in price over time, so if i buy a game at release date, i'll use my free (gaming) time (which is also valuable) to play the game.Otherwise i could just wait for the game to drop its price and play it then.
When i game is free, things get different, would have probably different if i was younger , but in this case i doubt i'd even spend money on it. (And that's where there is a thin line in where people would spend money in your marketing approach.)
Whether i play your game now or in a year, the game price will never change so the

There's a pile of awesome free games out there that I'll probably never play, not because they aren't worth it but because there are good games I've already bought and I need play them first to justify their purchase.
[...]
On the flip side, human psychology works in weird ways sometimes.

that's pretty much it actually.

To be honest, i was suprised by myself. I don't really understand why i'm not playing it despite waiting for it.

[Pehesse]

It's not choosing not to play, it's mostly postponing the moment i'm going to play it .
I think there's another factor to consider, it's the time/play. i wouldn't compare that to the apples because gaming is imo a luxury/entertainment and comparing it to movies would be closer. why pay now when i can just wait until it's free on television.
Games tend to drop in price over time, so if i buy a game at release date, i'll use my free (gaming) time (which is also valuable) to play the game.Otherwise i could just wait for the game to drop its price and play it then.
When i game is free, things get different, would have probably different if i was younger , but in this case i doubt i'd even spend money on it. (And that's where there is a thin line in where people would spend money in your marketing approach.)
Whether i play your game now or in a year, the game price will never change so the

There's a pile of awesome free games out there that I'll probably never play, not because they aren't worth it but because there are good games I've already bought and I need play them first to justify their purchase.
[...]
On the flip side, human psychology works in weird ways sometimes.

that's pretty much it actually.

To be honest, i was suprised by myself. I don't really understand why i'm not playing it despite waiting for it.

Well, either way, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and there's no hard feelings if you decide not to play the game in the end, or at any point. I only hope the above gave you more insight as to why I chose to use this model (and intend to keep using it)!

In fact, in regards to your last sentence: I believe this is a natural reaction, and such questioning would be the first step towards questioning the very model I'm trying to offer an alternative to, so... I think it's a good thing, and I hope more people will get to ask themselves that same question! I'm not delusional enough to believe change will happen after a single attempt, but I'm hoping people will gradually come to question, understand, and eventually, possibly come around to this alternative!

[Pehesse]

The timing is perfect, as I just recovered my connection in time to upload the latest weekly stats:






So close to 100 units sold! Also, just in case: bear in mind that "free licenses granted" doesn't actually represent the actual number of players, that's the "first time download" stat a little down below.