Does admitting unfixed bugs make my game look bad?

Generally the opposite. Transparency about known issues signals competence and care, while a player who hits an unlisted bug wonders whether you know, care, or are concealing things. Since every game has unfixed bugs anyway, openly acknowledging the ones players encounter turns frustration into patience and builds more trust than hiding them, which tends to breed suspicion.

Should I Tell Players About Bugs I Haven't Fixed?

Q: Should I tell players about bugs I haven't fixed?

Yes, for bugs players are actually hitting. Acknowledging known issues builds trust (players are far more patient with a bug you've admitted than one they think you're hiding) and deflects duplicate reports (players stop reporting an issue they can see is known). You don't have to list every trivial bug, just curate to the ones players encounter and keep the minor long tail internal.

Q: Should I list every known bug publicly?

No, curate. Acknowledge the bugs players actually encounter, the ones generating reports and frustration, but you don't need to publish every trivial, rarely-hit issue, which just creates noise and an alarming-looking list. Keeping your full bug list internal while publishing a curated set of known issues gives you the trust and deflection benefits without overwhelming or worrying players.

Quick answer: Yes, for bugs players are hitting, acknowledging known issues builds trust and deflects duplicate reports. Players are far more patient with a bug you've admitted than one they think you're hiding. You don't have to list every trivial bug, just the ones players encounter.

Telling players about bugs you haven't fixed yet feels like admitting weakness, but it usually does the opposite. For bugs players actually encounter, acknowledging them openly builds trust and reduces support load. The instinct to hide unfixed bugs is understandable but generally counterproductive.

Acknowledging Builds More Trust Than Hiding

Players are dramatically more forgiving of a bug you've openly acknowledged than one they suspect you're concealing. "We know about this and we're working on it" turns frustration into patience, while a player who hits an unlisted bug wonders whether you know, care, or are hiding things. Transparency about known issues signals competence, not weakness.

Bugnet's public tracker and known-issues view let you acknowledge unfixed bugs easily. The goodwill from openness usually far outweighs the discomfort of admitting imperfection, which every game has anyway.

It Deflects Duplicate Reports

Telling players about a known bug also saves you work: when an issue is publicly acknowledged, players stop reporting it repeatedly, they see it's known and move on. An unlisted bug, by contrast, generates a stream of duplicate reports as each player discovers it and assumes you don't know.

Bugnet's public known-issues view absorbs these would-be duplicate reports, so acknowledging a bug actively reduces your support load. Disclosure isn't just good for trust, it's practical.

You Don't Have to List Everything

There's a sensible limit: you don't need to publish every trivial, rarely-hit bug, that just creates noise and an alarming-looking list. Acknowledge the bugs players actually encounter, the ones generating reports and frustration, and keep the long tail of minor internal bugs to yourself. Curate what you disclose.

Bugnet lets you keep your full bug list internal while publishing a curated set of known issues, so you control what's shown. So: yes, tell players about the unfixed bugs they're actually hitting, it builds trust and deflects duplicates, but curate to the issues players encounter rather than dumping your entire bug list.

Yes, for bugs players are hitting, acknowledging builds trust and deflects duplicates. Players forgive admitted bugs more than hidden ones. Curate to issues players encounter.