Study Finds Steam Players with Extensive Playtime More Likely to Post Negative Reviews
A recent study has revealed that gamers who invest significant time into a title may paradoxically be more inclined to leave negative reviews on Steam. This research delves into the complex relationship between players and the games they dedicate hours to, highlighting that reviews aren’t always a reliable measure of satisfaction. It also sheds light on how this phenomenon varies across different game genres.
In August 2026, researchers Chetan Mudlapur and Om Prakash Singh from the Indian Institute of Information Technology examined how prolonged engagement with video games influences players’ perceptions. They analyzed over half a million Steam reviews, employing data-processing techniques to minimize bias. While they considered reviews from users who received free or early access to games, they ultimately excluded these from their findings, believing that financial investment significantly impacts how players rate their experiences.
The study found that players tend to leave reviews either shortly after starting a game or after extensive playtime. Steam’s refund policy allows players to reclaim their money if they request a refund before hitting the two-hour mark. Consequently, reviews from users with low playtime (0 to 2 hours) were predominantly negative, suggesting these players likely stopped playing and sought refunds. In contrast, those who played between 2 and 200 hours tended to leave “consistently positive” reviews. However, the “veterans” group, consisting of players with over 200 hours logged, exhibited a notable increase in negative feedback.
Interestingly, the researchers discovered that games with the highest playtime also had significant paradox rates in their reviews, indicating that dedicated fans could be the most critical. War Thunder, a free-to-play live-service game, topped the list for the highest paradox rate. Its Steam page reflects a growing number of negative reviews over the years. While the overall rating remains “Mostly Positive,” recent feedback has shifted to “Mixed,” likely due to players becoming increasingly dissatisfied with certain aspects as they invest more time.
Updates also play a crucial role in this dynamic. Long-standing games often receive regular updates, which can alienate players who have been loyal since the beginning and may be resistant to change.
The study concluded that live-service, strategy, fighting, and open-world survival games exhibited the highest paradox rates. Surprisingly, soulslike games, known for their difficulty, did not follow this trend; they, along with JRPGs and indie titles, showed the lowest paradox rates.
The researchers noted that the genre structure significantly influenced these patterns. Genres with high paradox rates typically included open-ended, service-dependent, or session-based titles, where player experience is heavily reliant on balance updates, matchmaking, community dynamics, and ongoing developer support. Conversely, genres with low paradox rates, such as Souls, indie games, and JRPGs, often provided story-driven or self-contained experiences with definitive endings, leading dissatisfied players to quit early rather than invest hundreds of hours.
The researchers suggest that the sunk cost fallacy may explain why players with extensive playtime develop strong negative feelings toward games they once enjoyed. Having invested considerable time and money, they struggle to walk away, even if the game has evolved in ways they dislike. It appears that around 50 hours of playtime is a critical threshold, as this is when players are most likely to leave positive reviews.
As a result, review bombings of titles like Wuchang: Fallen Feathers may be perceived differently on Valve’s platform moving forward.
