Klei, can we stop getting updates?

[Random Guy000]

The game changed after going multiplayer, don't know if it's the reason why, though. It's what the majority of the people want. Nothing to be done about it

It's less survival-based and more boss killing based now. Some people still take the survival approach, but it's definitly not the direction the game has taken with it's updates, and thinking about it now, I'm not sure how sustainable "survival game style" updates would even be

Devs need to, for lack of a better wording, keep pumping out updates, and this is the most logical progression step, I guess. Also it's what the eastern community wants, and they're in the majority here, so yeah

If you ever want to play a version of the game that's closer to its the original vision, DS and its DLC's are the way to go

Edited July 7, 2025 by Random Guy000

[RexySeven]

18 hours ago, Hungry French said:

If you want that very game. Play DS.  

Your absolutely comical obsession with single player DS in every single thread or post amuses me.

[Hollow soul 3]

I kind of wish there was a legacy mode for players to maybe experience the basic don't starve experience together. Maybe options to turn off specific characters, or a world setting to disable skills (not skill tree progression, just in game effects). Not really sure if it would be something the players want though. I just think it would be neat.

[Edible Coal]

4 minutes ago, Hollow soul 3 said:

I kind of wish there was a legacy mode for players to maybe experience the basic don't starve experience together. Maybe options to turn off specific characters, or a world setting to disable skills (not skill tree progression, just in game effects). Not really sure if it would be something the players want though. I just think it would be neat.

i dont really understand this, like most of the new content requires you to activate them, you can just.....not ever use them

[Hollow soul 3]

27 minutes ago, Edible Coal said:

i dont really understand this, like most of the new content requires you to activate them, you can just.....not ever use them

Not sure why I used the word legacy there, I was more thinking the adventure mode from base DS. My brain keeps telling me it used to be a thing, but I'm pretty sure that's not accurate.

[Cruvimaster]

"Klei, Can We Stop Getting Updates?"
 

The updates are working well. After the peak in 2023, it was never below 50k. 

*** I just compared DST with Capcom's main franchise and in a game of only 4 months (Hype) against one of almost 10 years. But it is also better than the Terraria in the amount of players.

 

Edited July 7, 2025 by Cruvimaster

[Uedo]

9 minutes ago, Cruvimaster said:

"Klei, Can We Stop Getting Updates?"
 

The updates are working well. After the peak in 2023, it was never below 50k. 

*** I just compared DST with Capcom's main franchise and in a game of only 4 months (Hype) against one of almost 10 years. But it is also better than the Terraria in the amount of players.

 

I completely get the sentiment and I'm in agreement that on aggregate you're correct - The updates are, based on the available information WE have, successful as a whole. 
It's not unreasonable for the OP to feel that they would like these updates to stop, which isn't addressed by your post... at all.

You're showing upward trajectory, sure, but if you wanted to look at the range of the data it's not representative for the point your making, I could easily say something like 'Well we're comparing months to years, and if I were to look at the year 2015 - 2016 for DST could I draw a counter-point?' and the answer is yeah.

We could make similar arguments about the other points that are not comparable - Although one I want to mention, if the playerbase has been consistent since 2023, with it being around 50k, then unless we have data on retention it may just be that the player base is solid and it gives no measurement of impact of the updates if the playerbase is willing to stick around for the IP... which i'd argue your claims about it not dropping below 50k would indicate. This isn't even going into the fact that the largest demographic of playerbase do not use the forums here, nor do you have any data on satisfaction levels.

Final point though: Monster Hunter Wilds? That's a choice.

[Cruvimaster]

17 minutes ago, Uedo said:

This isn't even going into the fact that the largest demographic of playerbase do not use the forums here, nor do you have any data on satisfaction levels.

When a person is dissatisfied with something, they simply stop doing it. It seems insane for someone to continue playing something they hate. I don't know how satisfied other players are, but it's hard to understand how more than 50k people would spend their lives playing something they are very dissatisfied with.

And developers of any type of game have to be careful with their old fan base. They are usually more conservative and even a bit grumpy. And this is not about DST, but goes much further, like famous franchises (Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed etc).

The game needs constructive criticism, and it's good to show dissatisfaction to the devs. However, the devs have to filter their decisions since the dissatisfaction of 10 people may not reflect that of the other 50,000.

19 minutes ago, Uedo said:

Final point though: Monster Hunter Wilds? That's a choice.

Someone mentioned a Capcom game here in the comments. I thought it would be interesting to bring this up. Nothing special.

Edited July 7, 2025 by Cruvimaster

[Uedo]

1 hour ago, Cruvimaster said:

When a person is dissatisfied with something, they simply stop doing it.

This isn't the case generally - I forget the name of the bias but it leans into concepts like people tending to only provide feedback when dissatisfied or extremely satisfied. Polarisation in polls is something that is a main consideration.

 

1 hour ago, Cruvimaster said:

And developers of any type of game have to be careful with their old fan base. They are usually more conservative and even a bit grumpy. And this is not about DST, but goes much further, like famous franchises (Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed etc).

It may be that your sources are skewed but just like anything that comes down to preference and satisfaction it's ultimately subjective to the individual. You may say that, on average they're negative, I doubt that largely as people express grievance to feel alleviation from dissatisfaction - but even if I concede and accept your point, you're still unsafe to make those generalisations. We have a problem on the forums of people just outright not believing that people act on good faith with their true feelings, a lot of arguments break-down into 'But you're not seeing what i'm seeing' types of rhetoric - so generalising to this degree is unhelpful.

Do you think OP believes what they've said?
 

1 hour ago, Cruvimaster said:

Someone mentioned a Capcom game here in the comments. I thought it would be interesting to bring this up. Nothing special.

I'd have picked something more rounded without mixed reviews on steam and a large calling of people panning the game.

[SilverSpoon]

4 hours ago, Cruvimaster said:

"Klei, Can We Stop Getting Updates?"
 

The updates are working well. After the peak in 2023, it was never below 50k. 

*** I just compared DST with Capcom's main franchise and in a game of only 4 months (Hype) against one of almost 10 years. But it is also better than the Terraria in the amount of players.

If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can say "You Cocky, Negative-Nancy, Know-it-all, Wanna-be critic, Drama-queen, Baitor, and Forum Troll *******.” But to be fair, DST is also a game that rewards you with cash-able skins the more in-game hours you put in, so when evaluating its concurrent player count we need to consider whether DST’s CCU is closer to "CCU of Terraria’s or MHW’s" or "CCU of Banana."

Edited July 7, 2025 by SilverSpoon

[Capybara007]

9 minutes ago, SilverSpoon said:

If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can say "You Cocky, Negative-Nancy, Know-it-all, Wanna-be critic, Drama-queen, Baitor, and Forum Troll *******.” But to be fair, DST is also a game that rewards you with cash-able skins the more in-game hours you put in, so when evaluating its concurrent player count we need to consider whether DST’s CCU is closer to "CCU of Terraria’s or MHW’s" or "CCU of Banana."

even if we assumed that there are always 5000 conected users that are not playing the game and are just farming skins, the updates still have been a success acording to steam charts

[Hungry French]

On 06.07.2025 at 15:19, Frosty_Mentos said:

Ну, и да, и нет? Это по-прежнему большая часть одиночного контента, но у вас есть более конкретная цель — убить топливных ткачей, чтобы «победить» в своём мире.

Поганка для освещения тоже хороша. Древний страж для защиты.

Я думаю, что более серьёзная проблема заключается в том, что, если вы хотите получить классический опыт прохождения DS в другой игре, технически вы можете просто получить его. Я много играл в неё, не убивая боссов, а затем сосредоточился на том, чтобы пройти их всех, когда почувствовал, что с остальным покончено и нужно двигаться дальше. Вы можете просто избегать всего остального и сохранить старую классическую DS, занимаясь исследованиями океана или руин, а затем закончить игру. Вам также не нужно открывать разломы, если вы хотите просто собирать добычу в руинах.

В игре масса возможностей, но, на мой взгляд, основная проблема заключается в том, что люди, опираясь на прошлый опыт, сталкиваются с совершенно новыми визуальными и техническими изменениями в общем игровом процессе, а затем расстраиваются, потому что «всё стало слишком новым, странным и пугающим». В общем, всё так и происходит.

To get a classic DS experience, you need not only to remove new biomes, but also to restore the old generation and balance. Not to mention that caves and ruins in the DST are COMPLETELY different.

11 hours ago, RexySeven said:

Your absolutely comical obsession with single player DS in every single thread or post amuses me.

DS is just too good.

4 hours ago, Cruvimaster said:

«Клей, можно мы перестанем получать обновления?»
 

Обновления работают хорошо. После пика в 2023 году показатель никогда не опускался ниже 50 000.

*** Я только что сравнил DST с основной франшизой Capcom, и игра, которая вышла всего 4 месяца назад (по шумихе), превзошла игру, которая выходит уже почти 10 лет. Но iона также лучше Terraria по количеству игроков.

 

1,400 thousand active players, who, judging by the reviews, left because they did not like the game.
 

4 hours ago, Cruvimaster said:

Игра нуждается в конструктивной критике, и разработчикам полезно знать о недовольстве игроков. Однако разработчикам следует фильтровать свои решения, поскольку недовольство 10 человек может не отражать мнение остальных 50 000.

Constructive criticism : 
1. The game has poor optimization
2. hideously terrible lagging server code and solo (and it's not about your RTX 5090)
3. stripped down 3 world (Ruins)
4. Lack of elaboration of the game for playing with a different number of people 
The rest is purely a matter of taste.
The other complaints from the players are poor balance.
But this is a sandbox, not a walkthrough game - you can use items for fun or not use them.

Well, nostalgia for DS and what DST has become... All...

[_zwb]

23 hours ago, Cruvimaster said:

"Klei, Can We Stop Getting Updates?"
 

The updates are working well. After the peak in 2023, it was never below 50k. 

*** I just compared DST with Capcom's main franchise and in a game of only 4 months (Hype) against one of almost 10 years. But it is also better than the Terraria in the amount of players.

 

Player count is not a good measurement of the game's quality, gacha mobile games have hundreds of millions of players, does that make them good? No.

[Capybara007]

Dst is not a gacha game

[cybers2001]

On 7/6/2025 at 7:17 PM, Random Guy000 said:

It's less survival-based and more boss killing based now. Some people still take the survival approach, but it's definitly not the direction the game has taken with it's updates, and thinking about it now, I'm not sure how sustainable "survival game style" updates would even be

Have you followed Minecraft at all? That game is 15 years old and still has 2 bosses (I guess 3 if you count the ocean guardians, 4 if you add the Warden, too, but he’s not really meant to be fought)

Edited July 8, 2025 by cybers2001

[cropo]

1 minute ago, cybers2001 said:

Have you followed Minecraft at all? That game is 15 years old and still has like 2 bosses (I guess 3 if you count the ocean guardians, 4 if you add the Warden, too, but he’s not really meant to be fought)

Minecraft isn't really a survival game though. It has a hunger bar, and that is the extent of it; all it really accomplishes is dictating your health regeneration and is more of a fighting implement than a survival mechanic.

Minecraft is a building game where a majority of the content is your imagination, and the raw content within the game is fairly bare-bones. Recent updates have been combat-focused, namely the trial chambers, introduction of a new weapon, and on bedrock addition an animation overhaul that changed the weapon attack animations.

Once you have 2 cows penned together, your entire survival game ends right then and there. The game has not had any "survival" content added in like, forever; the main purpose of visiting the Wardens location is for enchants that drastically improve the quality of life for building things.

There are very few actual games out there that I would consider to be "survival" games; the one standout that comes to mind is The Long Dark since it's dangerous to simply walk around in the snow, everything you did costed calories and time(which got you colder) and very rarely were you able to actually kill a dangerous animal. Although that was when I played 10 years ago and I don't know if it has changed since then.

[cybers2001]

5 minutes ago, cropo said:

Minecraft isn't really a survival game though. It has a hunger bar, and that is the extent of it; all it really accomplishes is dictating your health regeneration and is more of a fighting implement than a survival mechanic.

There are a lot of players that genuinely enjoy minecraft hardcore mode. What's the point of hardcore in a "building game"? Just to die while building and have to start over?

Edited July 8, 2025 by cybers2001

[Uedo]

If we're unable to discuss the content around DST without comparing it to other games, it highlights some of the issues in my opinion.

I think a lot of people have raised good points, but constantly comparing everything to minecraft or gatcha games are just distractions - Minecraft is a critical and commercial success that impacted the gaming space dramatically, Why hold dst to the same standard? Gatcha games are also a really extreme example, that OBVIOUSLY is a poor example to compare DST to aswell.

Don't worry, we'll be here in 5 years time talking about the same development cycles, content and communication issues all the same. I was very different a few years back in my opinion of this game, but when every other update we get promises about better communication, loose comments about how the staff were also disappointed or rushed or promises that eventually it'll all make sense - it gets stale and loses a lot of good faith.

Don't make promises you can't keep, that's all I ask with Klei - that, and stop developing, testing and showcasing in god-mode.

It's the intent behind decisions and the lack of forethought that annoys people, we'll get posts like this until Klei actually address their issues.... or hey if they just wanna make bank, that's fine, but just own it.

[cropo]

22 minutes ago, cybers2001 said:

There are a lot of players that genuinely enjoy minecraft hardcore mode. What's the point of hardcore in a "building game"? Just to die while building and have to start over?

They like hardcore mode because it gets them a lot of views on stream when they play modded RPG packs that convert the game into a traditional combat-focused game and survive for 100 days. Minecraft is 100% not a survival game, the hunger bar was literally added to nerf HP regeneration because before it was added using the food just healed you instantly. It was a combat-balance, something Minecraft goes through quite a lot as they have many combat-beta's to test new features, they've recently rebalanced villagers to nerf players acquisitions of combat-related enchants(mending).

Adding to my previous point, I guess Vintage Story is a genuine survival experience, and it was made by an ex-minecraft modder who tried to "turn the game into a survival game" but was frustrated due to Minecraft being unable to be made into one, who then went on to make Vintage Story as a separate standalone game. 


Minecraft is either a building game, or a pseudo dungeon-crawler combat game depending on the person playing it and the updates have been themed exclusively around those two elements. There has never been an actual survival mechanic added to the game since the hunger bar, and the hunger bar was not added for survival. There is a long history of modders trying to convert the game into one that actually lives up to it's assumed survival genre and they have all failed to make it in to one, which is why an overwhelming majority of mods are ones that enhance the building quality of life, add mass-production mechanics in the vein of satisfactory or other related games, or convert the game into a purely combat-based RPG to better play into the games strengths.

Edited July 8, 2025 by cropo

[Bumber64]

18 minutes ago, cropo said:

Minecraft is 100% not a survival game

You're using an unreasonably strict definition. Mining ore to maintain your supply of tools is a survival mechanic.

The early Resident Evil games are survival horror because supplies (health, ammo, and saving the game) are limited resources.

[cropo]

2 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

You're using an unreasonably strict definition. Mining ore to maintain your supply of tools is a survival mechanic.

The early Resident Evil games are survival horror because supplies (health, ammo, and saving the game) are limited resources.

Alright well if you want to insist that Minecraft is a survival game go ahead and consider it as one then. In fact, Don't Starve could learn a thing or two from Minecrafts updates. They don't need to keep adding bosses all the time, they can take after Minecrafts example and add things like:

2017: Added new colored blocks for decoration. A miniboss that can be spawned by console command. 

2018: Trap doors, decorations, the Trident weapon, new enemies to fight.

2019: New decorations, the Crossbow weapon, new pillager-type enemies to fight in raids.

December 2019: Bees, decorations related to bees. 

2020: Nether update, adding much needed new biomes to obtain new building pieces, POI's with new combat-related enemies with a loot chest at the end. New endgame-tier armor that trumps the longstanding diamond armor and is the best armor in the game.

2021:Two updates split into halves, adding new copper-building pieces, the most advertised and showcased highlight of the update, and mini biomes in their changed caves which were also advertised primarily as new areas to find new blocks to build with.

2022: Perhaps, by your definition of Resident Evil, the single and solitary time they introduced a boss mob that wasn't intended to be fought which would make it resemble something of a "Survival game". Locked to a singular biome where the main item motivating a player to go there is one that makes building more convenient.

2023-2024: A mini dungeon where the player fights in an arena-based match against newly introduced mobs for a lootbox at the end that gives gacha-style loot, the most notable item being the newly added Mace weapon.


I'm just not seeing the "survival" content here. It would highly go against the core audiences desires for the game, who want either a combat-focused game or a creative game where they can make all kinds of jury-rigged contraptions with redstone to build the most ludicrous resource-farming deathpits imagineable. 

If you're trying to say an optional opt-in mode that clickbait streamers use to advertise mod-packs makes Minecraft a survival game then that is pretty bleak in my opinion.
 

[Uedo]

13 minutes ago, cropo said:

If you're trying to say an optional opt-in mode that clickbait streamers use to advertise mod-packs makes Minecraft a survival game then that is pretty bleak in my opinion.
 

If you have to maintain an action or series of actions in order for your character to stay alive or negate a forced downside after a period of not completing the action(s), it's a survival game.

I don't see why you'd bring up modders, the people who edit the game to often change the genre entirely - You're saying people who can wildly edit the game to tailor it into a specific view of what they would consider survival is proof it is not survival enough. You're trying to appeal to popularity and you're not even sure if most modders would take the same view, just this one you've referenced.

Back to Minecraft though; Why do you say survival elements haven't existed since they added hunger? Well you've got drowning, suffocation, starvation, lava, freezing, fall damage and the mobs themselves. I would say they create conditions that the player has to then maintain actions to avoid death or detriment. They are literal survival mechanics, even if it doesn't fit your style of play for the game.

I'm not sure why you give either-ors in your previous post, you say it's either a building game or a pesuedo dungeon crawler depending on who is playing it. Well, it can be both, and neither, depending on how you play too, although my point would be that doesn't stop it being a survival game - the mechanics I mentioned will always be there, whether they have an impact to you or not, and contrary to what you seem to indicate they're core challenges for players. 

TLDR; Like most things in life, Minecraft is multi-facetted - It is a multi-genre game and survival mechanics feature as a core of the default experience

[GimplyGoose]

The goal of (most) survival games isn't actually to survive. I mean it is, but not really. The goal is usually to survive while doing other things. If all you did in DST was interact with the survival mechanics, it would not be nearly as fun as it is. Layering additional survival mechanics onto the game could very easily create an extremely tedious game. Like, lets say a thirst meter was added to DST. Would that really add anything to the game? Personally, I don't think it would.

In my opinion, expanding DST in a way where there are more things to do (boss fights) or more ways to do things (character updates) are both great ways to grow the game.

[cropo]

4 minutes ago, Uedo said:

Back to Minecraft though; Why do you say survival elements haven't existed since they added hunger? Well you've got drowning, suffocation, starvation, lava, freezing, fall damage and the mobs themselves. I would say they create conditions that the player has to then maintain actions to avoid death or detriment. They are literal survival mechanics, even if it doesn't fit your style of play for the game.

Is the legend of zelda a survival game because it has drowning elements, or a depleting HP bar and magic meter that you must maintain? Try getting 2 Beefalos, do not allow them to fight back when struck, and let them breed with a single berry ad-infinitum, that is Minecraft. How is that a survival game? You say my definitions are too specific, but I say the examples both you and bumber gave me are far too vague and loose to the point they can be applied to practically any game.


 

 

20 minutes ago, Uedo said:

I'm not sure why you give either-ors in your previous post, you say it's either a building game or a pesuedo dungeon crawler depending on who is playing it. Well, it can be both, and neither, depending on how you play too, although my point would be that doesn't stop it being a survival game

If they have not added any significant survival-related challenged for the entirety of its runtime; it's only "survival" related feature of starving being added as a combat balance change in its infancy and never expanded upon, nearly every resource being so plentiful and easy to produce that server owners have to ban players who make too much to prevent server lag, the vast majority of the fan-base fighting over what color they should add as a dye for their blocks in their next update, their offshoot community of modders on the two available platforms only having Quality of Life, RPG and combat overhauls, and mass-production overhauls, and disgruntled people who want the game to be a genuine survival game going off to create their own game because the game is too easy to convert into a challenging survival experience...I would say that's not a survival game. At best, it just barely, technically fits the definition on technicality alone and nothing else. The original point of this tangent was that Minecraft was used as an example of a "survival game not having to rely on non-survival updates to thrive" which I disagreed with because Minecraft has never truly done anything with survival mechanics and their updates have been either for cosmetic or combat-related purposes, which is counterintuitive to the updates they allegedly want to see in Don't Starve.

 

25 minutes ago, Uedo said:

If you have to maintain an action or series of actions in order for your character to stay alive or negate a forced downside after a period of not completing the action(s), it's a survival game.

You have to do this in almost every game in existence though, this is not specific to any particular genre. Having "survival elements" does not make a game a "survival game". Don't Starve is a survival game because the core design philosophy, advertisement, and intent behind the game was to pit the player in an unforgiving world of hostility that they would need to brave in order to fulfil their basic needs, and failing to do so results in your death. 

Minecraft is an open-world sandbox where nearly every element of its features are at your disposal to manipulate, abuse, and reshape to your image and you are highly encouraged to do so. The player is not told they have to navigate a hostile world in order to keep their basic needs met in order to survive; they are plopped in the middle of no where and told to have fun, that the universe is kind and loves them, and that they have the power to create entire worlds. There are enemies trying to kill you, but that does not make it a survival game; every game with combat features enemies that are trying to harm you in some way. The core design philosophy of both Notch and Microsoft was to encourage creativity and imagination, not pit the player against the elements, starvation, and adversity, and Microsoft on principle have been very reluctant to add content to the game because they don't want to "complicate the game further" because turning it into an actual game with more elements and mechanics the player needs to deal with gets in the way of their creative process. They have even dumbed down the hostile elements as of late, by reducing enemy spawn conditions so builders would not be restricted in their lighting choices for their decorative building.
 

[GimplyGoose]

4 minutes ago, cropo said:

Snip

 

Just because Minecraft is easy, doesn't mean it isn't a survival game. Minecraft has mechanics that are common across the survival genre therefore it is a survival game. Check the genres listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft