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.
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 3 weeks ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to games@lemmy.world
Comments
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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.
inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago
It feels like it’s a license to disappoint customers with how some studios use it.
teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
I can’t believe Valheim just left EA. It’s literally been over 5 years!
ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
7 Days to Die made it a few months shy of 11 years in Early Access
Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
ButteryMonkey@piefed.social 2 weeks 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?
sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Slay the Spire 2 is like this also.
Honestly it feels like a full game already, with some things just unlocking on a real-time unlock timer (some of the flavor text art assets aren’t done yet, but the placeholders are charming, and new ones are added all the time).
I don’t think it would be as fun as a finished product, where the balance didn’t change every few weeks, and you have to relearn what cards do and what enemies are like.
P.S., RIP Doormaster Boss! You were too cool for this world
ButteryMonkey@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Yeah! I’d much rather be part of early access rebalancing than come across it on live full paid servers, too.
WoW, in the years following the first expansion, was constantly rebalancing stuff because all the new content was… well.. not properly balanced at all. I stopped playing two expansions in when it got to be just constant clownshow shit with every patch, but if that was all happening as part of a beta? Fuck absolutely sign me up for the constant nerfs.
flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
And tons of people said exactly that would happen the day it was announced.
Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
I think “early access” is more informative to non-techy people than “beta” is. Though an even more informative term would be “unfinished.”
mohab@piefed.social 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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.)
Kaligalis@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Honest advertising can fix the perception problem. Just outright tell people that it has crashes and/or other bugs and misses content right from the start. Provide a playable demo of the current state. Or relax the refund period to GOG’s 30 days-no-questions-asked.
Early Access is great for games which are already fun to play but unfinished. For that the game needs to be in alpha or beta.
Funding the alpha is what Kickstarter is for.echodot@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
It depends how you use it.
If you put out a game that works but hasn’t got all its art assets yet then it looks like you’re basically just releasing the game early.
If you put out a game which only has its first two levels and upon completion of level 2 it has some text that says “more to come” people understand that’s an early access.
But there’s way too many of the first example and not enough of the second example. None of this is helped by games like No Man’s Sky, Cyberpunk 2077 and Starfield that released in buggy states, making people think that early access just means broken.
Brkdncr@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
What does “early access” provide?
What aren’t shortcomings?
How should it be fixed?
mrmisses@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 3 weeks 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.
PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’ve treated many games in early access like normal games and had lots of fun - which I would call successful purchases. To me EA means that not all content is there, the game is unfinished but playable. It works better for some games than others:
Timberborn in EA was playable completely and since its a sandbox, hard to notice missing content. Similar with Factorio, Valheim and Rust (I actually miss EA Rust a bit).
Hades, Baldur’s Gate 3 were story heavy games so they did rely on being complete. Maybe a little less so for Hades. They were good experiences, but I kept playing them at a minimum and waited for full release.
myyass@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Early access is like a Gachapon. You may get something you like, you might get trash. The trash might become great years later or on the contrast you might hate what you liked beforehand with final-ish changes. It’s a gamble, even triple A companies do this. Games like Fallout 4 or WoW changed the game to prepare for their new games or dlc that’s to be released.
tachikoma@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Early Access, Beta, 1.0 release… It’s all just a stay of mind to me.
Now-a-days software is either being actively developed; Or it’s sunsetted and ends up in the hands of retro enthusiasts.
No reality is not so black and white and there are exceptions. Yadda yadda yadda…
Dnb@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 2 weeks ago
Iirc that’s good as it allows for a full refund at release
psx_crab@lemmy.zip 2 weeks 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.