Is it okay to not fix a bug?

Yes, and it's necessary. Every game has bugs that aren't worth fixing, ones affecting a few players in rare conditions, or costing disproportionate effort for minimal benefit. With impact data you can see which those are and confidently defer or mark them won't-fix. A healthy approach fixes the high-impact bugs and honestly triages the rest, rather than trying to fix everything.

How Do I Know If a Bug Is Worth Fixing?

Q: How do I weigh a bug's impact against the cost to fix it?

Consider reach (how many players hit it), severity (how bad it is for them), and effort (how costly the fix is). A high-impact bug is worth fixing even if hard; a low-impact bug that would take days usually isn't. A bug that's both low-impact and expensive to fix is a clear defer. Impact data makes this a grounded decision rather than a guess based on how the bug was reported.

Quick answer: Weigh how many players it affects (reach) and how bad it is for them (severity) against the cost to fix. High reach or high severity usually makes a bug worth fixing; a rare, minor, costly bug usually isn't.

Not every bug is worth fixing, and pretending otherwise wastes time you could spend on what matters. Deciding well comes down to weighing impact against cost, with data rather than gut feel. Here's how to tell whether a given bug is worth your time.

Weigh Reach: How Many Players Hit It

The first factor is reach, how many players actually hit the bug. A bug affecting thousands is almost always worth fixing; one affecting two or three in rare conditions usually isn't, regardless of how dramatic it looks. Reach grounds the decision in how many people you'd actually help.

Bugnet counts how many players each grouped issue affects, so reach is a number you can see. Knowing a bug's real reach, rather than guessing from how loudly it was reported, is the foundation of telling whether it's worth fixing.

Weigh Severity: How Bad It Is

Reach isn't everything, severity matters too. A bug that affects few players but catastrophically (deleting saves, blocking all progress) can be worth fixing despite low reach, because the harm to those it hits is severe. A cosmetic glitch seen by many may be worth less than a rare data-loss bug.

Bugnet distinguishes crashes from minor reports and shows each issue's context, so you can weigh severity alongside reach. Combining the two, how many and how bad, is what makes the worth-fixing decision sound rather than one-dimensional.

Weigh It Against the Cost to Fix

Finally, weigh impact against cost. A high-impact bug is worth fixing even if it's hard; a low-impact bug that would take days usually isn't. A bug that's both low-impact and costly is a clear candidate to defer or mark won't-fix, that's good prioritization, not negligence.

Bugnet's impact data lets you see which bugs are genuinely low-value, so deferring them is an informed decision. Knowing if a bug is worth fixing is weighing reach and severity against cost, fixing the high-impact ones and confidently letting the rare, minor, costly ones go.

Weigh reach and severity against cost to fix. High reach or severity makes a bug worth fixing; a rare, minor, costly bug usually isn't. Use impact data, not how loud the bug is.