Subnautica 2's Go Play Sons of the Forest Scandal
Just days after its early access release, Subnautica 2 faced a crisis that could have ruined its entire success. Players demanded the ability to kill aggressive predators. One of the developers responded on Discord with a phrase that instantly went viral and garnered millions of views: "We're not making a killing game. Go play Sons of the Forest if you want to kill." A scandal erupted, players massively left negative reviews, and the community split into two camps. How the developers managed to put out the fire, why they didn't back down from their position, and what they promised to change - we'll explore in this article.
How it all began: the phrase that set the internet on fire
Subnautica 2 was released in Early Access on May 14, 2026, and instantly became a hit. Within the first few hours, the game gathered hundreds of thousands of concurrent players on Steam. But with success came the first complaints.
The main problem players faced was that aggressive predators could not be killed in the game. No weapons. No knife, no harpoon, no speargun. Only running away, hiding, and using stun flashers. For many, this was a shock — especially for those accustomed to survival games where base defense and threat elimination are an integral part of gameplay.
Tension peaked in the official game's Discord server. One player asked the developers: "Why can't you kill creatures in Subnautica 2? It makes no sense. If you don't add this feature, modders will do it for you."
Level designer Artem "Artie" O'Reilly's response was short and sharp:
"We're not making a killing game. Go play Sons of the Forest or something if you want to kill."
The phrase instantly spread across Twitter, Reddit, and news portals. Memes about "Subnautica 2's weak protagonist" and "Sons of the Forest's alpha male" flooded social media. Players began massively changing their reviews to negative — the game dropped from "very positive" to "mixed" on Steam.
Community reaction: split into two camps
The developer's phrase divided players into two irreconcilable camps.
The "against" camp: players who want to defend themselves
Opponents called the developer's response "arrogant," "dismissive," and "unprofessional." Their arguments were quite logical:
- "Early access exists to gather feedback. And the developer just sends players to another game. This is not a dialogue."
- "If you can't defend your base from aggressive leviathans, gameplay turns into a frustration simulator, not enjoyment."
- "Most marine life in the game actively tries to kill you. But you're not allowed to fight back? Where's the logic?"
- Comparison with the first part: in the original Subnautica, you could at least stab a predator with a knife or use a stasis rifle to freeze it. The sequel doesn't even have that.
Some players even threatened that modders would do the developers' job for them and add weapons themselves once protections were removed.
The "for" camp: defenders of the philosophy
The other half of the community sided with the developers:
- "Subnautica was never a killing game. If you don't like it, why are you even here?"
- "The lack of weapons is what makes the game unique. You're not the king of nature, you're just a guest on this planet."
- "Players who kill leviathans in the first part destroy the entire atmosphere of the region. It should be impossible."
- "The game already provides tools for survival. You don't need to kill - you need to be smarter and faster."
One Reddit user expressed the general sentiment of this group: "You're not supposed to be at the top of the food chain. And that's okay. It makes the game fair."
The numbers of the scandal: how it affected the game
The scale of the scandal is impressive:
- 2 million copies were sold within the first day of release. Despite the negativity, the game became one of the most successful releases of the year on Steam, reaching a peak of 467,582 concurrent players.
- However, after the Discord incident, the game's rating on Steam dropped. Players started leaving negative reviews, citing precisely the absence of the ability to kill predators and the developer's "arrogant response."
- According to review tracking services, about 17% of negative reviews in the first week after release were specifically related to the lack of weapons and the developer's response. Other complaints concerned technical problems of early access (bugs, optimization).
How developers put out the fire
Unknown Worlds Entertainment did not sweep the problem under the rug. They released an official statement that can be called a model of crisis PR in the gaming industry.
Step 1. Apologized for the tone, but not for the position
In an open letter to the community, the developers wrote:
"We also understand that some recent comments from our team have made players feel ignored or dismissed. We are sorry. Early access is meant to be a dialogue with our players, not a one-sided explanation from the development team."
They did not make excuses or shift blame. They admitted a mistake in the form of delivery, but not in the content. This is an important nuance: they apologized for "how," but not for "what."
Step 2. Explained why they are not changing their philosophy
In the same letter, the studio confirmed that it would not be adding weapons:
"We have heard the request for more direct ways to deal with hostile creatures, including the ability to kill them. We understand where this request is coming from. When evasion and mitigation methods don't work, players naturally want a more decisive solution."
However, they explained that Subnautica has always been built around vulnerability, exploration, and survival, not traditional weapons. Lead Game Designer Anthony Gallegos previously stated on Discord:
Our Services for Streamers
Our Services for Content Creators
