The game turned into a Terraria-like, and the original audience that fell in love with it moved on

[loopuleasa]

Just an observation, don't want to be mean (even though I will have to sound a bit mean to say what I am about to say)

Hear me out though

I like the game. The old game in its original recipe, and the new modern DST game (with superpowers).
But I am in a Venn Diagram minority. I play heavy games like Dota 2 and Path of Exile and Rust, and 10 hour boardgames, the extra complexity for me is excellent.

But all that complexity eats at the elegance and simplicity of the Don't Starve formula.

And many people who just like to play "a nice 2D survival game" are lost in transition.

What I am saying is:

Many of the original people that fell in love with DS and DST are not the same audience that plays DST in 2026

Why? The game is much more "bloated" for those people. My girlfriend literally never engaged with any skill tree, and stopped playing (only played Shipwrecked together for a while because the game flow is so good there and elegant and simple, we still can't stand the DST ocean). 

I'm glad Don't Starve Elsewhere is announced, to rekindle that original Survival game audience. Have some hopes for it for a redo.

I also have a feeling that in the age of AI coding, the Klei devs went ham and implemented a frenzy of features and mechanics.

And all those mechanics out of sheer volume are in a way making people's brains "foggy" when they play.

The original Don't Starve gameplay made you feel a particular way. Keywords: Wonder, Scared, Curious.

Nowadays the DST gameplay delivers a different feel to people: Inquisitive, Crafty, Optimizing.

It's like an emotional vs rational divide transition. The game itself "matured", but it lost its childlike qualities.

I still like it tho, but I play it as a Zen garden where I just build things and chill and vibe.

I don't play a survival game anymore, I play a sandbox game.

Maybe it is us that changed as well.

[HowlVoid]

Idk, Im still here. Still enjoy the game.

 

I think a lot of people look for faults for moving on from a game when they have dozens or even hundreds of hours. I dont think any game is supposed to keep your attention indefinitely. Even a sorta "soft" life service game like dst. 

I say this because I hope a lot of people arnt setting themselves to be dissapointed when dse isnt the game they were hoping for. Sometimes its just burn out.

Edited Wednesday at 02:47 PM by HowlVoid

[Cruvimaster]

"...the original audience that fell in love with it moved on"

Do you really think that those 14,000 people have been playing the same game for 10 years? Many simply stopped because their lives changed, and some even died. Games that want to last for many years need to constantly renew their player base.

Statistics are unkind to players who want to give the impression that the game is dying.

[Hi.]

5 minutes ago, Cruvimaster said:

Do you really think that those 14,000 people have been playing the same game for 10 years?

There are plenty of people I know that were part of that 14,000. Besides the author does have a point, the game went from a survival game to a more terraria type game where progression is determined on what boss to kill rather than survival. I also have some friends that played the first game and didn't like together because of how different the game is now. dst isn't necessarily a bad game (Besides the content bloat) but it is different compared to the og Don't starve which is probably why many people who used to play dst or played Don't starve left or never picked up dst.

[Cruvimaster]

Older fanbases are very similar across all games, whether it's DS, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, etc. They always complain about changes because they are conservative, and if companies remain stagnant because of a group of players, they will go bankrupt.

Just to be clear, I didn't buy the game yesterday.

[wormwood123]

Admittedly I do love current don’t starve… but yeah I think I’d enjoy it more if it was the same vibe as it was. It was just so unique and I can’t get it anywhere else. It’s my favourite game of all time and always will be. Hopefully elsewhere brings that vibe and discomfort back 

[Mysterious box]

1 hour ago, Cruvimaster said:

Older fanbases are very similar across all games, whether it's DS, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, etc. They always complain about changes because they are conservative, and if companies remain stagnant because of a group of players, they will go bankrupt.

Just to be clear, I didn't buy the game yesterday.

Ironically resident evil is a perfect representation of what dst has become I don't think either made a poor change but they changed nonetheless. Resident Evil became an fast paced action shooter which was a large departure from the slower paced horror game that made up it's initial base while I haven't kept up with the more recent entries I hear it's been moving back towards it's original identity. Neither style was bad if it were there would be heavy course correction early on but it's not like when older players complain about these things they're just the old man yelling at clouds how the games are experienced are changing fundamentally. It is very much possible to advance a series without changing it's identity but changing it's identity is always going to be a easier option as a fresh take has a big chance of drawing new eyes though it also has a chance of alienating people who were expecting new experiences from within the old identity. 

 

I will say though it is kinda awkward in the case of dst as it is very clear that a lot of what has been added via skill trees and even some refreshes weren't made with considerations for the game they are being placed in to the point we don't even hear the words like a mod character anymore because mod characters these days are more tame than what the current real cast does nowadays.

If there is one sin that I could give the current dst it's that despite massively expanding characters kits the characters overall are losing their individual identities and becoming more and more samey design wise. Which is great if you only ever planned to use a few characters but is terrible if their unique traits were the real appeal.

[Queron81]

I don't get it. You can play DST exactly how you played Don't Starve (with Reign of Giants DLC). The basics haven't changed, everything else is just extra. You don't even have to use the skill trees if you don't like them. Just watch people play it for the first time nowadays (on twitch) and you will see it is the same for them as it was for us when we played Don't Starve for the first time. We just got used to it and were concentrating on every new content over all this years which is mostly optional. For me DST feels exactly the same as in 2016 when I started to play it more regularely, just with many nice (optional) additions.

[Cruvimaster]

38 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

Ironically resident evil is a perfect representation of what dst has become

I'm from the Resident Evil era as a survivor (1 to 3). Then came RE4, and at the time, people said it wasn't a real Resident Evil game. Time passed, and the RE4 player base became the majority, and one character (Leon) became the game's representative for most (and not because he appeared in RE2). Today, the Resident Evil saga is doing very well, with RE9 breaking records.

Don't Starve Together must have something similar. In fact, I believe the biggest problem is the origin of the old Don't Starve players. Players who started with that game had to switch to DST because DS updates stopped. So they complain about several things in DST, using DS as a reference. A simple example is the bosses' health (they got used to 2k health). Another would be the thermal stone's durability. And anything that distances DST from DS will bother these people. I call them the widows of Don't Starve.

[gaymime]

there is a habit of people to imagine that they themselves are consistent over long periods of time, there is also a habit of people to not recognise when they themselves have changed and so they blame anything that is not their own growth and change for that feeling that old familiar things no longer feel the way that they did when new. often familiarity does in fact breed contempt and gamers have a tendency to be quite contemptuous with their nostalgia

[DegenerateFurry]

Been here since Don't Starve didn't have food spoilage in it. Still here. You do not speak for everyone.

[Cheggf]

4 hours ago, HowlVoid said:

Idk, Im still here. Still enjoy the game.

Loopuleasa is also still here, he starts the thread by saying it. One person still playing the game doesn't demonstrate anything. If you want to see who plays the game, go play the game. Look at any public server and you'll find tons of new players. It's almost exclusively new players. Go to other games like Warframe, Guild Wars, Warcraft, etc, and it's basically the opposite. Instead of being 99% new players, it's 90% people who've been playing the game for like a decade. 

4 hours ago, HowlVoid said:

I think a lot of people look for faults for moving on from a game when they have dozens or even hundreds of hours. I dont think any game is supposed to keep your attention indefinitely. Even a sorta "soft" life service game like dst. 

I say this because I hope a lot of people arnt setting themselves to be dissapointed when dse isnt the game they were hoping for. Sometimes its just burn out.

New players experience burnout far more since you're more likely to invest a large amount of time into a game that's a new experience to you. If it really was "just burnout" then you wouldn't be constantly getting threads like this, you wouldn't see that there's no old players in servers. Every single person doesn't simultaneously get burnout at the same time which lasts indefinitely. That isn't what burnout is. People clearly moved on because they don't enjoy the game any more, and people have made dozens of threads explicitly stating the reasons why they're leaving. 

[Mysterious box]

52 minutes ago, Cruvimaster said:

Don't Starve Together must have something similar. In fact, I believe the biggest problem is the origin of the old Don't Starve players. Players who started with that game had to switch to DST because DS updates stopped. So they complain about several things in DST, using DS as a reference. A simple example is the bosses' health (they got used to 2k health). Another would be the thermal stone's durability. And anything that distances DST from DS will bother these people. I call them the widows of Don't Starve.

Personally as someone who started with dst and then tried ds in reverse the low hp of bosses was kinda jarring but that aside.

 

52 minutes ago, Cruvimaster said:

I'm from the Resident Evil era as a survivor (1 to 3). Then came RE4, and at the time, people said it wasn't a real Resident Evil game. Time passed, and the RE4 player base became the majority, and one character (Leon) became the game's representative for most (and not because he appeared in RE2). Today, the Resident Evil saga is doing very well, with RE9 breaking records.

 

They weren't necessarily wrong though the unique style of a slower paced horror game wasn't as popular back then so making it a fast paced action game did bring it far more mainstream appeal but that does mean it technically wasn't resident evil at least in that it wasn't the game it made it's original appeal as. For example pretend we didn't know dse was thing what if the next installment of the series was a first person shooter and it became massively popular and mainstream due to it and then dst got abandoned as a result. I'm willing to bet a lot of current dst players would say it's not don't starve. A style change can be a case of it not following it's origins but also becoming wildly more popular due to it at the same time those aren't mutually exclusive concepts which is why I say neither side is really wrong in this scenario. People who enjoyed the unique experience aren't wrong to be upset when they experience goes away for mainstream appeal and people who enjoy the new style of the franchise aren't in the wrong for enjoying the new style more. I do however know there are some who just consider every different as bad for the sake of it but I don't think we should assume everyone who laments the direction changes as just bad actors.

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:03 PM by Mysterious box

[Evelo]

23 minutes ago, DegenerateFurry said:

Been here since Don't Starve didn't have food spoilage in it. Still here. You do not speak for everyone.

They weren't:

6 hours ago, loopuleasa said:

Many of the original people that fell in love with DS and DST are not the same audience that plays DST in 2026

I too was here a long long time. While I don't agree 100% with loop, I agree with this portion as it is reflective of my personal feelings. I love Don't Starve, I just dislike the boss-centric gameplay it is. I would enjoy it more if said bosses were predatory instead of passive and entirely optional.

Loop was making an observation, don't take it personally furry.

[Hi.]

I have a feeling this thread is about to get locked

(This was mostly just an excuse to use this image)

Edited Wednesday at 08:01 PM by Hi.

[Mysterious box]

I feel like people are taking others not enjoying certain directions the game took too personally it's not an attack on people who enjoy the current game and I honestly doubt that everyone who has a complaint about the current state of things hates every new thing that was added just because it's new that's just a very reductive way to approach any criticism as it translates to you played for a long time therefore your opinion is garbage unless you agree things are better now even if that isn't the intention. I personally have a love hate relationship with the current game. I enjoy what rifts added and I enjoy some of the concepts introduced with skill trees but I also dislike how every character is now a all rounder with no real individual identity beyond mostly cosmetic differences in their methods. There were definitely some issues between characters balance wise pre skill trees but it feels like the cast stood out from each other far more then than they do now.

6 minutes ago, Hi. said:

I have a feeling this thread is about to get locked

I don't think that'll happen nothing said has gone too far yet.

[Ridley]

Most people move on to different things and games. There's nothing wrong or weird about that. If you play with friends often it can be extra challenging to stick to a particular game for long.

28 minutes ago, Cheggf said:

Go to other games like Warframe, Guild Wars, Warcraft, etc.

My understanding is those games have more microtransactions or such. It is harder to move on from a game you invested in.

[Mysterious box]

9 minutes ago, Ridley said:

Most people move on to different things and games. There's nothing wrong or weird about that. If you play with friends often it can be extra challenging to stick to a particular game for long.

My understanding is those games have more microtransactions or such. It is harder to move on from a game you invested in.

While I can't speak for the other two Warframe is famous for not being predatory while also treating it's players very well more so than any other in the industry to unheard of levels it's not a sunk cost situation like most live service games people stick around for that game because their devs go above and beyond both inside and outside of the game but rather than me yapping about it I'd look into it if you are curious there's a good deal of content covering what sets it apart.

Edited Wednesday at 07:45 PM by Mysterious box

[Cheggf]

9 minutes ago, Ridley said:

Most people move on to different things and games. There's nothing wrong or weird about that. If you play with friends often it can be extra challenging to stick to a particular game for long.

My understanding is those games have more microtransactions or such. It is harder to move on from a game you invested in.

[Ridley]

10 minutes ago, Cheggf said:

Those are basically developer support DLC. You can use the spools that Klei gives out like free candy to craft the specific skins you want from those sets. I would argue they are on the same level as Deep Rock Galactic when it comes to ethics in microtransactions. 

12 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

While I can't speak for the other two Warframe is famous for not being predatory while also treating it's players very well more so than any other in the industry to unheard of levels it's not a sunk cost situation like most live service games people stick around for that game because their devs go above and beyond both inside and outside of the game but rather than me yapping about it I'd look into it if you are curious there's a good deal of content covering what sets it apart.

Well, I was avoiding wording like, "predatory" because that'll ruffle feathers and distract from the main topic. I took a peak at Warframe's monetization model and I don't think you and I are going to come to agreement on it. I could yap about free daily login items being a problem though, so it's probably best to just ignore me.

[nimzowitsch10]

Actually, I love that part of the game, its so great

..All jokes aside though yeah the game literally does feel like AI slop now, idk what the devs are thinking, hopefully DSE makes up for the mess DST is in right now.

Edited Wednesday at 08:27 PM by nimzowitsch10

[Cheggf]

Ridley's comment got me thinking, so I decided to look at the games I've played and see if there's a trend between the game changing and older players leaving. The list isn't exhaustive since it's only games that make it easy to tell how long someone's been playing, but it should give an idea.

Chivalry II - Mix of old and new players. What's changed? Not much, mostly just additions.

Mordhau - Mix of old and new players. What's changed? Not much, mostly just additions.

Dead by Daylight - Mostly old players, some new. What's changed? Not much, mostly just additions.

Hunt: Showdown - Mostly new players, some old. What's changed? The game is dramatically faster with a very different pacing and balancing.

Don't Starve Together - Almost entirely new players, very few old. What's changed? The game has entirely shifted from a survival game focused on the world to an RPG focused on skill trees and boss fights.

Team Fortress 2 - Almost entirely new players, very few old. What's changed? Everything from how you play the game to the weapons and artstyle are unrecognizably different.

Fortnite - If you start doing a dance from a few years ago you make children start literally screaming, "He's an OG!!! He's an OG!!!". What's changed? Almost nothing from the original game is still present in the modern game. 

Pirates Vikings and Knights II - Mix of old and new players. What's changed? Not much, mostly just additions.

Warframe - Mostly old players, few new. What's changed? A lot of powercreep, but that's about it.

Guild Wars 2 - Mostly old players, few new. What's changed? Not much, mostly just additions. 

World of Warcraft - Mostly old players, few new. What's changed? Compared to a decade ago, it's rather similar. Compared to 22 years ago it's a bit more different, but seeing players from 22 years ago is rather rare.

Out of that list of games I looked at, every single one follows the same trend: if the game is dramatically different, most of the people you find are new players. If it isn't dramatically different, there's still lots of old players. 

Just now, Ridley said:

Those are basically developer support DLC. You can use the spools that Klei gives out like free candy to craft the specific skins you want from those sets. I would argue they are on the same level as Deep Rock Galactic when it comes to ethics in microtransactions. 

I'm pretty sure I've spent more money on DST than Warcraft, Warframe, and Guild Wars. You can try to make as many excuses as you want, but the fact remains that DST charges just as much if not more than other games for the same content that they are. Warframe doesn't let you buy anything except cosmetics and scams. Guild Wars is just buying cosmetics that you can earn for free, with some huge expansions that are bigger than the entirety of DST. It is a completely absurd idea that someone is buying DST and then dropping it because all they did was spend $400 on DLC, as opposed to someone who downloaded Guild Wars for free and then bought an expansion for $30, which is a huge investment and they're really committed to that game now. 

[YouKnowWho142]

I'm super curious, if this game was purely survival would you even still be playing it after all these years? Original Don't Starve is purely survival, but not a ton of people play it anymore. Survival games have a shelf life that expires once everyone has learned the game and just becomes something you come back to every few months or years, just as I'm sure a lot of people here has been doing with shipwrecked or hamlet. Survival games thrive on novelty, but what novelty is left for a 13 year old game that can be beaten the very moment you understand the fundamentals?

I understand not liking the current direction, but considering its live service nature over such a long period of time this is its best method of staying relevant, fresh, long-lasting, and most importantly replayable. I think people need to accept that DST is not Don't Starve, and even if you did want to treat DST that way the fundamentals are at least still there. Everything added to DST past the survival is for people who want something more after they mastered the survival. If all you want out of DST is the survival and you are bored of it now, it means there isn't a ton left for you. Even if they added new survival elements, you'd eventually master those too after some time and be left at nothing once more. Ancient sanctum is nothing but exploration, but why would you do it more than once or twice?

Comparing DST to other games is quite low, but there's a reason we are getting a Subnautica 2 or Forest 2, and that's because survival games inherently require major changes to feel fresh. That's the exact reason too we are getting Elsewhere, because no matter what they add to DST it will never satisfy those who have spent thousands or even hundreds of hours honing on DST survival or exploration, because at its core no matter what they change or add to DST's survival the game is just old and there's nothing left for veterans survival wise. The fundamentals, the core, has already been thoroughly explored, and it's only with an entire refresh through a sequel can a survival game really feel new and fresh again. For DST though specifically, the answer was a genre shift, one I personally find welcome enough to give the game lasting power since, as a veteran, this game has long graduated from being just a survival game to me, otherwise I would've moved on to a newer, more relevant survival game that would've actually felt new.

Genuinely, if you play DST purely for survival, and this sounds harsh, but my best advice is to move on to other games. That's not a slight against DST, that's just how survival games are made to work. Survival games thrive off of novelty, understanding the world, adapting, and eventually mastery of the elements. Survival is one of my favorite genres, and once I understand how to survive and I begin to really thrive that's what tells me it's time to graduate from a game and discover a new fresh world to conquer, learn, struggle, and survive in. All DST has done has given me an incentive to play the game past just the survival, and I do not think it's in the wrong for that.

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:36 PM by YouKnowWho142

[Cheggf]

4 minutes ago, YouKnowWho142 said:

I'm super curious, if this game was purely survival would you even still be playing it after all these years? Original Don't Starve is purely survival, but not a ton of people play it anymore. Survival games have a shelf life that expires once everyone has learned the game and just becomes something you come back to every few months or years, just as I'm sure a lot of people here has been doing with shipwrecked or hamlet. Survival games thrive on novelty, but what novelty is left for a 13 year old game that can be beaten the very moment you understand the fundamentals?

I understand not liking the current direction, but considering its live service nature over such a long period of time this is its best method of staying relevant, fresh, long-lasting, and most importantly replayable. I think people need to accept that DST is not Don't Starve, and even if you did want to treat DST that way the fundamentals are at least still there. Everything added to DST past the survival is for people who want something more after they mastered the survival. If all you want out of DST is the survival and you are bored of it now, it means there isn't a ton left for you. Even if they added new survival elements, you'd eventually master those too after some time and be left at nothing once more. Ancient sanctum is nothing but exploration, but why would you do it more than once or twice?

 

I play Don't Starve more than I play Don't Starve Together. I would be playing Don't Starve Together a lot more if instead of dedicated the past 8 years to character updates and RPG elements they actually expanded on the world and added interesting additions. 

[Waywarbler]

34 minutes ago, nimzowitsch10 said:

..All jokes aside though yeah the game literally does feel like AI slop now

Huh? What makes you say that??