What's a Good Crash-Free Users Rate?

“What's a Good Crash-Free Users Rate?” is a fair question, and the honest answer is less about a magic number than about a target you defend and a trend you watch. High — often 99%+ — but watch how widely individual signatures spread across your players. What matters is whether the number is high, stable, and improving — and whether the individual failures behind it are getting fixed. This guide covers how to think about crash-free users and act on it: track crash-free users alongside sessions and rank signatures by affected users.

How to think about crash-free users

The useful way to think about crash-free users is as a target and a trend rather than an absolute. High — often 99%+ — but watch how widely individual signatures spread across your players. A single number in isolation tells you little; the same number rising or falling across your builds tells you almost everything, because it reflects whether your releases are making the game more or less stable.

It is also worth remembering that an average can hide a serious problem. A healthy-looking overall crash-free users can still contain one signature hammering a slice of your players, which is why you pair the headline number with a ranked list of individual failures.

Turning a pile of crashes into a ranked worklist

Raw crash data is overwhelming if every occurrence is its own line. The trick is grouping: identical failures, fingerprinted by their stack trace, collapse into one issue with a count. Suddenly the question “what should I fix first?” answers itself, because the bug hitting the most players sits at the top with the biggest number next to it.

That ordering is what makes a small team effective. You are never going to fix everything, but you do not have to. Fixing the top few signatures usually removes the large majority of real-world failures, and prioritising by frequency means your limited hours always go to the bug that matters most right now.

The silent majority who never report anything

For every player who files a report, a large number simply hit the problem, sigh, and close the game. They do not owe you a bug report, and most will not write one. The failures that churn the most players are therefore the ones least likely to ever reach your inbox, which is a deeply unfair feedback loop: the worse the bug, the quieter it tends to be.

The only way out of that loop is to stop depending on goodwill. When every crash is recorded automatically, the silent majority become data. You finally see the failure that is quietly costing you installs, ranked by how often it actually happens rather than by who happened to be patient enough to complain.

Why “it works on my machine” is a trap

Your development machine is the single least representative device your game will ever run on. It is the one configuration guaranteed to work, because you built and tested the game on it. Your players live out on the long tail of GPUs, drivers, operating-system versions, resolutions, and background software, and that long tail is exactly where the failures you never reproduce are hiding.

This is why local testing, however thorough, has a hard ceiling. You cannot own every device, and you cannot imagine every combination. Field data closes that gap by letting the failures come to you with the configuration attached, so a crash that only happens on one driver version stops being a mystery and becomes a one-line filter.

Setting and defending a target

To act on crash-free users, track crash-free users alongside sessions and rank signatures by affected users. Pick a target you are willing to defend, measure it per build, and treat a drop as a signal to investigate rather than a number to explain away. That turns crash-free users from a vanity figure into a release gate that actually protects your players.

Underneath it all is the same foundation: capture every failure with full context, group identical ones so you can rank by impact, and tie each to its build so you can see which release moved the number. With that, crash-free users stops being an abstract benchmark and becomes something you steer.

This is where a tool like Bugnet earns its place. Its SDK captures every failure automatically with the full stack trace plus device, OS, memory, build, and game-state context, folds identical failures into one grouped issue with an occurrence count, and ties each to the build it happened on. The result is that the abstract idea above stops being theory and becomes a ranked list you work down — the worst problem first, verified fixed when its signature disappears from the next release.

The players who hit the worst bugs rarely tell you. Capture every failure automatically and you stop flying blind.