Every studio releasing on Steam still asks one familiar question: how many copies did that game really sell? Despite over a decade of better analytics, official store data remains private. Developers and analysts continue to rely on review-to-sales ratios as a guiding formula.
This estimation culture, shaped by the community itself, persists because transparency from digital stores continues to be minimal.
The review-based estimation model was made popular years ago by Mike Boxleiter, whose formula compared the number of public Steam reviews to assumed total sales.
Carless introduced what he called the “NB number,” short for New Boxleiter, showing how review ratios have evolved alongside player behavior and Steam UI changes.
The NB number, now averaging about 63 sales per review, helps creators estimate a game’s commercial success using transparent, crowd-sourced insight rather than guesswork.
Simon Carless and the Modern Game Data Mindset
His tone is practical, driven by numbers but rooted in empathy for small studios struggling to gauge success.
What makes his work relevant is how it blends human insight with platform data. Instead of strict formulas, Carless emphasizes statistical reasoning, a mindset where creators understand the context behind ratios. He reminds developers that while reviews can signal engagement, they are not direct proof of revenue.
Steam’s introduction of the “Would you like to review this?” button in late 2019 marked a notable behavioral shift.
Players who once ignored reviews started participating, dramatically increasing feedback rates. Consequently, games released after 2020 began showing ratios closer to 40–50 sales per review, compared to 70–80 in earlier years.
Through his analysis of 237 participating developers, Carless uncovered that newer game releases settle around 20–60 sales per review. This compression of ratios is not just statistical noise; it reflects a cultural shift where community feedback became more normalized and incentivized by Steam’s evolving interface.
From Boxleiter to NB: How the Ratios Evolved
Originally, the Boxleiter model functioned as something of an industry myth. Developers needed a way to guess sales without access to official figures, and the review multiplier became shorthand for internal forecasting. It worked because user reviews were public, visible, and consistent across every game page.
Over time, however, this method needed recalibration. Jake Birkett’s 2018 survey refined the original number to around 82 sales per review on average, with medians in the mid-70s.
Then came Carless’s massive update, which introduced the NB number. By collecting input from hundreds of developers, he identified that review behavior wasn’t static. Game genre, release date, pricing model, and discount frequency all altered ratios.
Free-to-play titles, for example, distort averages since their download counts outpace paid conversions. Carless proactively removed outliers like those from the final dataset, strengthening the reliability of the finding.
What emerged is a modern ratio more suited to post-2020 Steam, smaller, tighter, and reflective of how players now engage with store ecosystems that prompt feedback more often than ever.
Why These Ratios Still Matter
Even with limitations, the NB number remains a valuable compass. Until platforms like Steam, Epic, or even the PlayStation Store begin sharing standardized sales visibility, ratios guide everything from marketing budgets to investor pitch decks.
Many developers, especially indie teams, use them as informal yardsticks for understanding where their titles stand in the sales hierarchy.
Steam AI (Credit: Reddit)
However, Simon Carless consistently warns readers about overestimating net revenue. A developer might look at an NB number, multiply by review count, and assume full-price earnings.
Reality is less optimistic. Variable discounts, VAT, refunds, and Steam’s standard 30% platform fee can reduce the actual net return to less than half the gross estimate.
He frames this as an educational opportunity rather than a discouragement. Transparency is not just about publishing sales numbers but building a smarter developer culture that knows what those numbers mean.
By adjusting assumptions around pricing and revenue share, creators can forecast more realistically. It’s a way of turning the NB ratio from rumor into responsible financial modeling.
The Broader Impact on Digital Store Ecosystems
The influence of review-to-sales modeling extends beyond Steam. As new digital marketplaces expand, from Epic Games Store to Game Pass integrations, developers increasingly want cross-platform compatibility.
Yet without public-facing numbers, review counts remain the one universal breadcrumb trail left to analyze performance.
Console platforms, however, rarely show player reviews, creating an imbalance in perceived transparency. Analysts predict that platforms like Xbox and PlayStation may eventually need to address these data gaps if they want to attract self-publishing developers who rely on these open, review-based insights for benchmarking.
Furthermore, public discussion around the NB number aligns with the modern trend of data storytelling, where community-shared science replaces secrecy.
Just as social media engagement metrics evolved from vanity figures into business intelligence, Steam review multipliers form a grassroots data framework powering business decisions today.
Practical Uses for Developers in 2025
For creators planning a release this year, applying the NB number responsibly can mean understanding both potential and risk.
If a new indie title receives around 1,000 reviews within a few months, the NB benchmark suggests approximately 40,000–60,000 copies sold. But those numbers fluctuate depending on genre, price tier, and review positivity.
According to Carless’s data, games averaging 84–89% positive reviews tend to maintain stronger long-tail momentum.
The correlation between user sentiment and continued sales proves that community trust still converts directly into commercial staying power. The NB number may reveal immediate sales, but review quality and frequency indicate sustained relevance.
Developers analyzing their own performance should view reviews as more than sales markers. They are evidence of engagement depth, showing how many players felt compelled to share their experience. As such, the modern NB ratio is not simply an economic equation but a behavioral reflection of post-2019 player culture.
Toward a More Transparent Future
Game industry progress often depends on pioneers who share knowledge instead of guarding it. Figures like Simon Carless represent a shift away from competitive secrecy toward collective education. His NB number survey demonstrates how goodwill, statistics, and collaboration can reframe industry understanding.
As we move deeper into 2025, discussions about revenue transparency are expanding beyond estimation formulas. Storefronts are increasingly pressured by both players and creators to demystify success metrics.
Even if Steam never reveals complete data, community-driven analysis will fill the gap, continuously refining these unofficial but powerful ratios.
Until public APIs unlock direct data access, the NB number stands as both a mathematical constant and a cultural symbol, proof that when the ecosystem hides answers, the creative community learns to measure itself.
Unity Software, one of the world’s most influential game development platforms, has officially canceled its widely criticized runtime fee policy.
The company announced that starting in 2025, developers will no longer be charged per installation of their games, a proposal that had sparked outrage across the gaming industry only months ago.
The decision follows intense community pushback from indie developers, large studios, and even long-time partners who called the runtime fee “unfair” and “destructive” to smaller creators.
The policy, which was initially meant to generate sustainable revenue for Unity, instead turned into a reputational crisis that threatened the very trust between the company and its developer base.
John Riccitiello, Unity’s then CEO, who had defended the runtime fee, resigned in late 2024 amid growing discontent. His departure marked a turning point, allowing the company to reassess its priorities and rebuild relationships with the global developer community.
Unity’s renewed direction is now anchored in transparency, user trust, and fair monetization models that align with developer success.
The scrapping of the runtime fee was not just a business adjustment but a strategic reset. It signaled that Unity had heard its users loud and clear. Developers who had threatened to migrate to Epic Games’ Unreal Engine or to other open-source tools now have reasons to reconsider staying with Unity for the long term.
What the New Pricing Model Means for Developers
Alongside canceling the runtime fee, Unity rolled out a revamped pricing structure for its Pro and Enterprise plans, effective January 2025. While the shift removes the controversial per-install charge, subscription prices are rising.
The Unity Pro plan will now start at $2,200 annually per seat, while the Enterprise plan moves to $4,000. These increases are significant but come with expanded features, improved cloud infrastructure, and better technical support.
According to Unity’s official announcement, most developers using the Personal and Plus tiers will continue to have free or affordable options, maintaining accessibility for indie creators. However, advanced users, especially professional studios and enterprise partners, will shoulder the primary cost of Unity’s new growth phase.
The company explained that the raised prices are intended to invest in performance optimization, enhanced AI-assisted development tools, and extended multiplayer and real-time collaboration capabilities.
Additionally, Unity Cloud, now deeply integrated into the engine, will play a central role in helping studios develop, test, and deploy projects more seamlessly across platforms.
For many developers, the higher subscription costs were still preferable to the unpredictable and confusing runtime fee. “At least we can plan our budgets,” commented one independent developer on a community forum after the announcement.
Others noted that this predictable pricing structure is more in line with industry norms used by competitors like Unreal Engine and Godot’s patronage model.
Industry analysts supported the move, calling it a “stabilizing decision” that prevents further fragmentation in the developer ecosystem. While the price hike will affect some studios financially, the transparency and predictability may restore Unity’s credibility and make long-term partnerships viable again.
Unity’s Road to Redemption
Unity’s leadership is now heavily focused on rebuilding trust after the public relations nightmare the runtime fee created.
Unity (Credit: Reddit)
The company has begun an extensive outreach program, meeting with top developers, studios, and educational institutions worldwide. It has also pledged to include developer representatives in its future pricing and policy consultations.
Marc Whitten, who took over as CEO following Riccitiello’s exit, emphasized how essential these open discussions will be to Unity’s future. “Our growth must align with developer success. If developers win, Unity wins,” Whitten said in a September 2024 press release.
His message echoed throughout the gaming community, signaling a cultural change within the organization that had previously been accused of corporate detachment.
Unity has also announced its intent to simplify licensing terms and strengthen cross-platform efficiency. These changes aim to make the development process faster and more reliable, particularly for mobile and VR applications.
The upcoming versions of the Unity Engine are expected to feature improved GPU rendering pipelines, smoother build integration, and expanded support for Apple’s Vision Pro and emerging AR technologies.
The company’s communication strategy has also grown more transparent. Unity now maintains an open feedback forum that allows verified developers to participate in ongoing discussions about feature requests, technical bugs, and pricing adjustments.
Within this framework, developers can see updates in real time, a step that contrasts sharply with the opaque rollout of the abandoned runtime model.
For many longtime Unity users, this shift signals the company’s intention to make amends not just through words but through tangible actions.
Several industry veterans, including indie studio founders and game educators, have expressed cautious optimism that Unity’s new approach could lay the foundation for a more sustainable future in game creation.
Industry Impact and Competitive Ripple Effect
Unity’s reversal has ignited conversations across the broader game development sector. Rival platforms have learned from Unity’s experience that pricing transparency and community feedback are non-negotiable in today’s decentralized creative environment.
Unreal Engine, for instance, continues to refine its royalty model, while open-source engines like Godot are seeing new growth from developers seeking flexible terms.
This shift has redefined expectations for how large software companies engage with their users. It has also underscored the importance of balancing innovation and affordability, an equation that Unity is now attempting to solve with renewed rigor.
As game development becomes increasingly democratized, companies can no longer afford to alienate their core user base.
For gamers and developers alike, Unity’s changes represent more than just a business correction. They signify a renewed commitment to partnership and creative freedom. Though price hikes may sting initially, the elimination of unpredictable fees offers a clearer and fairer path forward.
What Comes Next for Unity in 2025
As 2025 begins, Unity is positioning itself for long-term recovery and renewed innovation. The company plans to roll out new AI-based automation in animation tools, deeper cloud integration for real-time collaboration, and advanced simulation technology for industrial digital twins.
These updates are expected to reinforce Unity’s dominance not only in gaming but also in industries like automotive design, film production, and metaverse development.
The company’s path forward relies on consistency and continued dialogue. Unity’s leadership has expressed that their most valuable metric now is not quarterly revenue alone but sustained developer trust and product satisfaction.
The community will be watching closely to see whether Unity lives up to its promises of fairness, transparency, and stability.
Many developers who boycotted the platform are cautiously returning, hoping that Unity’s renewed approach means a genuine reset rather than another marketing pivot.
For those who have built their livelihoods on the engine, it’s more than just another corporate decision; it’s a turning point that will shape the next generation of digital creation tools.
