And tons of people said exactly that would happen the day it was announced.
Palworld lead worries Steam early access has "lost its meaning": players treat it like "a normal game" and the program has been "abused for a lot of reasons"
Submitted 23 hours ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to games@lemmy.world
Comments
flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
The biggest, issue I have is with devs releasing games for full price in early access then to never finish it (like ksp2) or just spam it with new content instead of fixing bugs (like Ark). In most cases it’s not the player base treating it like it’s a finished game, it’s the devs selling it as a nearly finished game then to move on onto a new project as soon as sales drop leaving it unfinished, scamming the players.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Yeah, IMO they should either be priced cheaply because anyone who buys is essentially testing the game. Then it’s an ok gamble IMO, cheap game that might never get better and could be full of bugs.
Or they should be priced higher to attract people who specifically want to support the idea and avoid review boms from people who expect a full game even though it says “early access”. But this model then puts a requirement for communication and transparency with those who did support it, as well as a commitment to release what they did produce as open source if they end up abandoning the project.
Though I think there should be some buyer beware involved. Read reviews before you buy, especially negative ones, and look for trends (to avoid being overly influenced by one reviewer’s bias). It’s impossible to predict which will continue being developed and which will fail (and out of those that fail, which ones intended it from the start and which ones were trying to make a great game in good faith but it just didn’t work out), so buy early access games for what they currently are rather than what you hope they’ll be. Even if they do get finished, that final product might not be what you’re hoping for.
Other than banning the account after it happens, I can’t really see any way to punish the bad faith actors without catching people with low resources just trying to make a game despite the system being stacked against them.
teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 4 hours ago
I can’t believe Valheim just left EA. It’s literally been over 5 years!
ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
7 Days to Die made it a few months shy of 11 years in Early Access
inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Personally I treat early access like kickstarters at this point, I just avoid them by and large because of the rampant issues with delivery.
Unless the policy changes for early access and allow me to request a full refund if the game is abandoned and allow for something like a week of evaluation after 1.0 to determine if crap was released, I doubt I would buy most early access games at this point.
Zomg@piefed.world 15 hours ago
It feels like it’s a license to disappoint customers with how some studios use it.
ButteryMonkey@piefed.social 12 hours ago
I find that playing early access as a normal game, for some genres, is.. idk, good? Better?
Like games like timberborn and whiskerwood and other base-building or colony-building games that I obsess over. Getting to try those in their early stages is awesome because people start modding them early just for a change of pace over what they already play. Then a lot of those mods end up being features in the game, which sort of makes the whole thing a group project, which is genuinely awesome. Probably also helps push them to 1.0.
If you happen to be a sort who likes mods, and like those sort of games, getting into them early can be a decent opportunity to influence the development path of the game, even if its only in a small way. And if you aren’t a modder, its low-key fun to watch how new features get added to the game as new versions come out.
As long as they are playable enough to mod, everything else can (and probably will) be added by the player base, even if the project gets abandoned, but that requires people playing them as if they were done - why would you mod a game you wouldn’t want to play for hundreds of hours?
mohab@piefed.social 18 hours ago
I currently have 5 early access games in my library and I’m happy with all:
- Genokids
- Spirit X Strike
- Counterclocking
- Kings of Hell
- Dead as Disco
All 5 were a “proof of concept” when they started and are building on top of it. I bought these games understanding they may take years to get to 1.0, but I also was conscious of the 2-hour refund window when I bought them and decided they offered me enough to keep them and look forward to their full release.
I also looked up everything I could about their developers and publishers and how they communicate with the community just to be safe.
It’s not an ideal scenario for either: the developer, provided they’re honest, or the player; however, extreme conditions demand extreme responses. Not many developers make this kind of action game any longer, so if the player needs to shoulder some of the risk, that’s only fair.
dunyol@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 hours ago
I am very happy with having bought Paralives when it debuted in Early Access. I had followed their work online ever since the first videos the creator posted back around eight years ago and the team seems really dedicated on making a good game.
Virtual dollhouse-style life simulators are full of moving parts and I understand that there’s still a lot to grow from what’s currently on the game (even more so considering the size of the dev team), and with the frequent game updates they’ve been shipping I can’t wait to see where they take it.
(them wresting the life sim monopoly from EA’s hands is a nice bonus.)
Brkdncr@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
What does “early access” provide?
What aren’t shortcomings?
How should it be fixed?
mrmisses@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
It usually means the game is cheaper than the release price. So it’s like getting it on sale. And you can play it while it’s still undergoing changes and testing. That’s all I know
sukhmel@programming.dev 11 hours ago
I’m not even sure in that, some Early Access games seem to have a pretty substantial price tag. But those also usually don’t feel as unpolished
plaztek@piefed.ca 19 hours ago
Early access means getting access to the game prior to its 1.0 release. It also usually means you can provide feedback to the dev(s) and help shape the game’s development. EA games can also be priced less than their 1.0 launch price.
Shortcomings of the system are mainly that there’s no guarantee the game will be finished or the dev may just slap 1.0 on it and call it done, despite it being in an unfinished state.
I don’t know if there’s a way to “fix” the system and I think it works well for the most part. I think people need to not buy into hype so quickly and also be aware that they’re buying an unfinished product that has no guarantee of actually being completed.
Dnb@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 hours ago
As they should tbh
They shouldn’t buy it based on future expectations that may never arrive
They should buy and okay it for what it is.
If it gets even better. Great. If not, they know what they paid for going in.
gnate@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
I see a lot of games that should be “early access” that instead opt for a less functional “full” release.
Dnb@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 hours ago
Iirc that’s good as it allows for a full refund at release
psx_crab@lemmy.zip 16 hours ago
Yeah, i guess successful people tend to be out of touch. People don’t buy EA simply for the promise, people buy EA because of what they’re able to play now and the potential it has, the current behaviour is basically people done getting scammed by dev that abandoned game, and there’s shit tons of EA games being abandoned. Pocketpair also ditch Craftopia in favour of Palworld, and now only decided to finish it. If Palworld doesn’t give them fuck you money you bet they will also ditch Craftopia and Palworld and move on to newer and shinier project.