Last Flag and Mixtape’s SteamDB Stats Are More Similar Than You’d Expect

I randomly checked SteamDB for some of the indie games we’ve reviewed just to see how they were actually performing post-launch, and the results were more interesting than I expected.

As of May 21, Last Flag peaked at just 25 concurrent players within the last 24 hours despite launching only 37 days ago. Meanwhile, Mixtape (released just two weeks ago) peaked at 333 players.

Superficially speaking, these games are impossible to compare. One is a competitive multiplayer title built around replayability, while the other is a three-hour narrative experience designed to be finished in a sitting or two. Yet their early retention curves ended up looking surprisingly similar.

These two are undeniably among the most controversial indie games released so far in 2026.

Last Flag had a major marketing boost and exposure by piggybacking on Imagine Dragons, as both Dan and Mac Reynolds are the minds behind it. The game had a great setup that is genuinely unique within the competitive landscape, albeit with many poor design choices and the fact that players have to pay for very minimal post-launch content. Nonetheless, community reception remains fairly positive despite the game’s 69 Metacritic score.

Mixtape, on the other hand, was published by indie giant Annapurna and received perfect 10 scores from major gaming outlets like IGN, DualShockers, and Insider Gaming. However, the game demands very little input even by the standards of an interactive drama, which caused a lot of disappointment among the general public.

Now, let’s take a look at a fairer way to view the numbers:

For a short narrative game like Mixtape, it’s normal for retention to drop significantly. Especially since the game is around three hours long and can easily be finished in one sitting. Last Flag is a competitive game with a much greater expectation for long-term engagement. Seeing a competitive game retain players at a rate similar to a story-based game makes me ponder a few things about gamers’ consumption behavior.

And, honestly, it becomes way more fascinating when viewed through the lens of player psychology rather than commercial performance.

For a short-form narrative experience like Mixtape, most players likely approached it knowing exactly what they wanted from it. It is something they could finish in one or two sittings before moving on. In many ways, the drop-off is expected behavior. Players consume the experience, complete it, and leave satisfied. We’ve also reviewed Mixtape and rated it from our own honest opinion, if you’re interested for a not-perfect-10 opinion.

Competitive multiplayer games like Last Flag ask for something entirely different. Players are expected to repeatedly return, improve their skills, and ideally form some kind of long-term attachment to its systems and community. Replayability is supposed to be the entire point.

That is what makes the similarity in their early retention curves so interesting despite their completely different design goals.

Despite Last Flag being theoretically “infinite” in replay value, players abandoned it at almost the same rate as a three-hour narrative game people could finish in a single evening. You can also read our review of Last Flag to have an idea of why the game might sunset soon. So, do modern players actually value replayability as much as the industry assumes they do?

For years, replayability has been treated as one of gaming’s highest virtues. Games are expected to become hobbies, lifestyles, or forever games. But increasingly, players seem more comfortable treating games the same way they treat films or television series. Players consume them, discuss them briefly within the gaming community, then move on to the next thing.

This may explain why shorter narrative games continue to survive despite constant criticism over their length, or in the case of Mixtape, its minimal player input. Players today are drowning in entertainment options. A concise, memorable experience may simply fit modern consumption habits better than a game demanding hundreds of repeated hours.

Meanwhile, competitive and live-service titles face a much harsher psychological burden. Players are not merely evaluating whether the game is fun. They are evaluating whether it deserves long-term mental space. Once a multiplayer game shows signs of population decline, many players leave preemptively, fearing future matchmaking problems, shrinking communities, or a “dead game” stigma.

Of course, player behavior alone does not explain Last Flag’s decline. The competitive multiplayer space is already saturated with highly polished alternatives that have spent years refining their gameplay loops, progression systems, and live-service structure. For many players, Last Flag simply may not offer enough to compete with the standards already established by existing games.

With all said and one, I’m sure you’re begging to see a better comparison rather than two completely different games being pitted against each other. Let’s just add this here and leave it up to you to interpret.