>>393479273
More users == more business case when you present to the investors.

Let's look at the most recent example. Take a look at Blizzard and how they defined success. MAUs, meaning how many people are logged into their service. They defined the MAU as the number of users logged into their service or account, and even going as far to define each game as a different MAU. So if you were logged into two different games for the week as a single user, you counted as two different MAU. Is that number meaningless? Yes, but not to investors. The investors see X million MAUs and think "oh hey, we're doing well" while the games that's being churned out is hot garbage and actual player engagement is dropping.

When investors look at products, they don't look at things like how much a community is engaged with developers or how well the developers listen to feedback. They look at cold, hard numbers. How many players are logged into the game is one of them. I just find it extremely funny that people who cried foul when they announced EAC just log right back in not even 5 minutes after the update's dropped.

>bu...but we left a negative review on steam guiz! i can still play the game guiz!
Even the recent review bombing can be explained favorably to investors. They can say "we introduced an anti-cheat system and all the cheaters review bombed the product" and then they can come right back and show how the player count didn't drop at all even after the update. This actually makes the game even better, since all the cheaters are now gone!

Considering that VRC is actually a social game, with the main focus in social interaction, you can say user engagement is the ONLY metric that matters, and you're padding it.

tl;dr You are giving VRC more clout.