Soon, others also spoke up.

“Damn, I hadn’t noticed before, but now that you mention it, I see that our game’s ‘not recommended’ rate has already reached 47%. This… it’s about to be removed from the platform!”

“Is our game really that bad? On other platforms, it has over 80% positive reviews!”

This was the lead designer from another local game company in Jingzhou. Unlike the previous game, this was a single-player casual mobile game with a one-time purchase fee.

Logically, single-player games should have better reputations, but the problem was even more serious!

Yan Qi opened the Morning Dew Gaming Platform page to check, and indeed, the “not recommended” rates for both games were very concerning—44% for one and 47% for the other!

The Morning Dew Gaming Platform didn’t have a rating system, just straightforward “recommend” or “not recommend” options. If the “not recommended” rate reached 55%, the game would fail its trial period and be directly removed from the platform.

And if a game had already passed its trial period but for some reason reached a 65% “not recommended” rate, it would still be removed.

It had only been a few days, yet the “not recommended” rate had already crossed the 40% warning line. This was extremely dangerous!

Yan Qi felt puzzled.

This shouldn’t be happening, right?

He knew these two games. Although both were older titles, they had generally stable operations on other platforms with decent reputations.

The first game was a pay-to-win mobile game. While it certainly couldn’t compare with those excellent major titles, in the circle of domestic mobile games, how could it have fallen to such a high “not recommended” rate of 44%?

The second game was a single-player game with a one-time purchase fee. It had a fairly good reputation in the gaming community overall, yet its “not recommended” rate had reached 47%, which was even more absurd!

Yan Qi had noticed this rule of the Morning Dew Gaming Platform when signing the contract—that games with a “not recommended” rate exceeding 55% would be directly removed—but he hadn’t paid much attention to it.

On one hand, they could get half of the money back, so the loss wouldn’t be too great. On the other hand, there was a special weighting algorithm for the “not recommended” rate, and Yan Qi didn’t think they would fall to that level.

According to the Morning Dew Gaming Platform’s regulations, the specific “recommended” and “not recommended” rates weren’t calculated by simply counting the number of players, but by calculating after assigning weights to each player.

In simple terms, players who spent more time on the platform, consumed more, or purchased more games of a certain type would have higher weights when clicking “recommend” or “not recommend.”

One very important indicator here was the playing experience of certain types of games. For example, between players A and B, if player A spent more money but player B played a large number of action games, then when evaluating action games, player B’s “recommend” or “not recommend” would carry a higher weight.

Overall, this was a relatively objective and comprehensive evaluation mechanism. Even if there were some deviations, they wouldn’t be too significant.

But… looking at the current situation, this mechanism didn’t seem to be working properly?

Others in the group chat were also alarmed, all showing great concern.

Because this mechanism on the gaming platform would affect them too!

All these game developers had signed agreements with the Morning Dew Gaming Platform. After a game launched, there would be a one-week “trial period,” and if the “not recommended” rate exceeded 55%, the game would be removed!

At first, everyone thought this wouldn’t be too difficult to pass, since a “not recommended” rate below 45% was roughly equivalent to a rating below 2 out of 5 on other platforms.

How many games on other platforms got less than 2 stars?

Plus, with this weighting algorithm, for games of decent quality without bugs, wouldn’t it be normal to get a passing score in the initial period after launch?

But looking at the situation of these two games now, things clearly weren’t that simple.

“What’s going on? Why is the ‘not recommended’ rate so high?”

“Is it possible that the weighting algorithm isn’t working? After all, the Morning Dew Gaming Platform has only been open for a short time, so player data on this platform is scarce, and the weighting algorithm can’t clearly differentiate between players.”

“That’s possible! Also, it could be because there are few players and limited samples, causing large probability deviations that lead to inaccurate ratings.”

“That doesn’t seem right either. Players must buy the game to rate it. Players who don’t like this type of game won’t buy it in the first place, so why would they click ‘not recommend’?”

“Regardless, we need to improve this rule quickly. The bugs in our game are about to be fixed, and it can go online in the next day or two. What if it gets removed as well?”

Everyone was very concerned, both helping to analyze and tagging the group owner for solutions.

But before the group owner responded, the person in charge of the first game spoke again.

“The inaccuracy of the weighting algorithm due to limited player data on a new platform is indeed an issue, but it’s not the main problem!”

“At first, I was also puzzled about why the ‘not recommended’ rate was so high. Later, one of our employees infiltrated a player group chat, and we finally discovered what was happening!”

“It turns out some gaming guilds are exploiting a loophole. After making in-game purchases, they want to use this method to get half of their money back!”

“Since other players can also benefit from games being removed, quite a few players are supporting this, and now the ‘not recommended’ rate is getting higher and higher!”

The person responsible for the single-player game also had a sudden realization: “So that’s it! That explains why our game, which is actually a decent quality single-player game, has such a high ‘not recommended’ rate!”

Some people still didn’t understand and asked: “Huh? But what’s the benefit to players if a game is removed? Won’t they lose access to it too?”

Someone quickly explained: “No, even if a game is removed, players can still play it. There just won’t be new servers or subsequent maintenance. But the issue is, these few current games weren’t going to have updates or maintenance anyway!”

The group chat was full of people in charge of various game companies, who were extremely well-versed in these insider aspects. So they quickly analyzed the truth of the matter.

Clearly, players had found a loophole in this refund system!

According to the Morning Dew Gaming Platform’s regulations, if a game’s “not recommended” rate was too high, it indicated serious problems with the game. Removing it and offering partial refunds was considered a responsible action toward players.

But now, players were obviously not clicking “not recommend” because of poor game quality, but for the refund!

Of these two games, one was a pay-to-win online game already in the late stages of its lifecycle. On the first day of server launch, some gaming guilds had joined.

After studying the platform’s mechanism, these players suddenly discovered that having the game removed seemed more beneficial to them!

According to the platform’s rules, they could continue playing even after a game was removed. There just wouldn’t be new players joining, and the game wouldn’t have any future version updates.

But for this old game, there weren’t going to be any updates anyway!

Even if there were updates, they would mostly be inconsequential content that wouldn’t significantly affect the game’s enjoyment.

Moreover, mobile games operated on a small-server model, opening a new server every two to three days on average. So for these veteran players, whether new players came or not didn’t affect their gaming experience, because new players would go to new servers, not old ones.

Removing a game meant that players who had made purchases could get half of their money back.

This 50% refund was nothing to scoff at. How many pay-to-win games would offer such an unlimited, non-discriminatory 50% promotion?

If they spent enough money now, got 50% back after the game was removed, and the game couldn’t accept further purchases, they could still maintain their advantage over other players based on their previous spending, continuing to dominate indefinitely.

And the players of that single-player game clearly had the same motivation.

For them, the restrictions were even fewer, because this single-player game was also in the late stages of its lifecycle. It would be difficult for the developer to recover costs by investing resources in developing new versions, so they’d rather develop new projects.

Therefore, removing this game from the platform would directly save these players half their money, with no negative impact whatsoever.

If they could achieve this just by clicking the “not recommend” button, why wouldn’t they do it?

Moreover, as many had analyzed, the new platform couldn’t accurately determine players’ true weights, and the newly directed traffic consisted of players who were more interested in immediate benefits. These two factors further fueled this phenomenon.

That’s why the situation had developed to this point.

Soon, the group owner spoke up.

“Everyone, please remain calm. We’ve already noticed this issue.”

“The platform has had an emergency discussion and decided to make some modifications to the agreement. After a game is removed, it can be modified and reapplied for listing, though there are time restrictions.”

“After the first removal, an application for relisting can be made after one month; after the second removal, the application can be made after two months, and so on.”

“For games that are relisted after removal, previous players who have already rated won’t participate in the evaluation. Their original ratings will only be kept as records and won’t affect the trial period data upon relisting.”

“If the game still doesn’t pass the trial period, it will continue to be removed according to the previous rules, with the next application extended to two months later.”

“If the game passes the trial period, old players can regain access to the latest version of the game by paying the difference.”

Yan Qi carefully analyzed this new regulation and found that it did plug some loopholes.

At least games wouldn’t be sentenced to “death” directly but could appeal.

It was like changing from instant death to infinite revival.

Some games removed due to too many bugs or incomplete content could be fixed and then relaunched. For games maliciously removed by players, upon relisting, previous players could no longer rate them, and instead, a new batch of players would evaluate, making it more fair.

But the problem was… this approach seemed to be treating the symptoms rather than the root cause!

Sure enough, someone in the group quickly raised an objection.

“This approach won’t work! The most profitable period for a mobile game is the first month or two. If it gets maliciously removed and needs to wait a month to relist, won’t that waste everything? That’s too long!”

“Yes, and switching to a new batch of players doesn’t necessarily solve the problem. What if most players on the entire platform are thinking of using this method to get games at half price? Wouldn’t most games be removed then? Can the platform even continue to operate?”

“Don’t blame me for being direct, but in my view, this measure is too amateur. It’s obviously thought up by someone who doesn’t understand games.”

“Right, this measure simply won’t work. Just cancel it altogether! Games with low ratings can be denied promotional resources, but there’s no need to remove them! That’s a loss for the platform too!”

However, the group owner remained unmoved: “Sorry, rules are rules, and this cannot be changed.”

“Regarding the issue of players deliberately clicking ‘not recommend’ and maliciously removing games, we already have a countermeasure, but we can’t announce it yet. Don’t worry, we’ll definitely give everyone a satisfactory response soon!”