I agree...when I see early access, I think the game should be mostly done (I'll settle on 50%). I understand the need for devs to get additional funding to finish up projects, but the game should be fully playable, and have a decent amount of content.
Actually that is what early access has been from the getgo. And when it "works" it's works great and making an audience that is into that "integral part of the dev cycle". (Remember Subnautica, and in what state that was when it entered early access? EA was basically "about 2 years off of what they thought of as 1.0" for a lot of successful games. Often atrociously in terms of running optimisation, and NEVER even close to feature complete (but what they have in common is solid foundations). So it's not a system that has been abused. This is what that was designed to be from the start. What DID happen is that AAA companies started using it for "preorder bonuses to get a 24 hour headstart" as well. The GDC postmortem of subnautica is a great start to watch about the concept. EA users are ALWAYS unpaid QA, that's by design.
@@theholkYES! early access is for players to test the game openly, while having full access, unlike a demo. It's a way for player input to affect how the game updates. Trailmakers is another good example as well as scrap mechanic. Early access games are rarely feature complete, because said features are added as player input updates.
I think steam needs to adjust how their EA works some ideas. Have a cap on how much a dev can charge for EA, say $10 then when they release the full game and want to charge say $40 you have to pay the 30 to get access. During that period of EA you should be able to refund when ever you want. No game should be able to stay in Early access for more than say 3 years. For everyone 1 successful game that goes through EA there are atleast 10 that just end up abandoned or dont deliver anywhere close to what they said.
I noticed the stuff you pick up like the utility has 2 options. It says choose one and you can scroll down. I'm the case of the utility the second option was blue if there's a rarity system might have been a better choice
The problem is that many people fail to recognize that their expectations are personal. What we want things to be and what they actually are don't always align. Early Access doesn’t guarantee a specific percentage of a game will be complete. Comparing what other developers have achieved in their Early Access releases is disingenuous. Steam has clear policies for when games can enter Early Access, and these policies permit the current approach. There is always a risk with Early Access-people claim to understand this, yet still impose their own expectations on the process. Again, this isn’t about you or anyone else. No promises were broken, and you weren’t tricked out of your money. Any expectations you bring to Early Access are your own, even if others share them. If a game isn’t playable or doesn’t meet your standards, you can refund it. If you’re uncomfortable with the risks of Early Access, wait for reviews or the full release. People could avoid a lot of frustration by focusing on what they can control, rather than insisting their expectations be met.
I think game should be playable day 1 I don’t expect it to be perfectly optimized but at least around 70 or 80 percent optimized. Negative reviews are justified especially if it’s as unoptimized as I hear it is. I bought it but probably won’t play for a week
Read the community post. YT did something that's f'ing up the ads today. Apologies, it's out of my control at the moment. Look up "youtube ads" on Twitter. It's so dumb right now.
Why are your standards so low? Games like Hades 2 & Ultrakill are in incredibly polished, feature complete states right now despite their early access status and even if what your saying is true those games got significantly more funding just by being good and letting word of mouth farm sales. God even Fortune's run, an early access game made by 1 person who just got sentenced to prison was in a better state day one than this dumpster fire. Please stop defending abysmal dogshit. The only thing releasing this game in it's current state has achieved is leaving a awful first impression on everyone that played it.
I have a toaster and I run better than your high end pc. And this happens with EVERY game that people complain about performance. The game IS playable so idk WTF people are on about. MOST early access consist of being like a quarter done. Missing features. Usually keybinds not available. Standard shit. But people expect more. And we're not gonna talk about games like POE 2 being EA and have tons of due. They're different. And we're not gonna let them be the ones who change the EA Norm and standards. If you don't like where it's at simply don't play it and just bomb it with negative reviews. That just hurts the game even more. Especially with people not coming back to change it.
It doesnt sound like the game was playable for a lot of people. You're just looking at your experience. If someone paid $30, and the game doesnt work well...they are well within their right to leave a negative review. Early Access or not, that's part of the system. Early Access doesnt mean you get to release a broken game.
@OHRyePlays I'd rather refund and come back later than leaving a negative reviews. I've had those experiences before. Some people might just overlook it just from seeing mostly negative and never take a second look once they see it as mostly positive. That's how I see these types of reviews. With the patch out the percentage barely went up 1% and I'm willing to bet a lot of the fixed issues aren't going to have some of these people change their reviews. They upped and left and said forget it.
“We’re not gonna talk about POE 2 having tons to do. Theyre different” lmao you realize you sound just like the triple A devs that were complaining about Baldurs gate 3 setting a standard.
@KnightmareOX I can't say much about bg3 but I didn't expect much from them not in a bad way. I just figured if divinity 2 was really good then bg3 will turn out well though I decided not to play it. But both poe2 and bg3 are obviously above the average when it comes to the States of their games in EA
The early access system has been hugely abused. It should be for games that are mostly feature complete. Not for selling tech demos.
I've played this game for about an hour earlier and I kinda agree with what you said
I agree...when I see early access, I think the game should be mostly done (I'll settle on 50%).
I understand the need for devs to get additional funding to finish up projects, but the game should be fully playable, and have a decent amount of content.
Actually that is what early access has been from the getgo. And when it "works" it's works great and making an audience that is into that "integral part of the dev cycle". (Remember Subnautica, and in what state that was when it entered early access? EA was basically "about 2 years off of what they thought of as 1.0" for a lot of successful games. Often atrociously in terms of running optimisation, and NEVER even close to feature complete (but what they have in common is solid foundations). So it's not a system that has been abused. This is what that was designed to be from the start. What DID happen is that AAA companies started using it for "preorder bonuses to get a 24 hour headstart" as well. The GDC postmortem of subnautica is a great start to watch about the concept. EA users are ALWAYS unpaid QA, that's by design.
@@theholkYES! early access is for players to test the game openly, while having full access, unlike a demo.
It's a way for player input to affect how the game updates. Trailmakers is another good example as well as scrap mechanic. Early access games are rarely feature complete, because said features are added as player input updates.
Tech demos is literally why EA was created. Nearly feature complete isnt early access.
Starts actually playing 8:16
I think steam needs to adjust how their EA works some ideas. Have a cap on how much a dev can charge for EA, say $10 then when they release the full game and want to charge say $40 you have to pay the 30 to get access. During that period of EA you should be able to refund when ever you want. No game should be able to stay in Early access for more than say 3 years. For everyone 1 successful game that goes through EA there are atleast 10 that just end up abandoned or dont deliver anywhere close to what they said.
I noticed the stuff you pick up like the utility has 2 options. It says choose one and you can scroll down. I'm the case of the utility the second option was blue if there's a rarity system might have been a better choice
The problem is that many people fail to recognize that their expectations are personal. What we want things to be and what they actually are don't always align. Early Access doesn’t guarantee a specific percentage of a game will be complete. Comparing what other developers have achieved in their Early Access releases is disingenuous.
Steam has clear policies for when games can enter Early Access, and these policies permit the current approach. There is always a risk with Early Access-people claim to understand this, yet still impose their own expectations on the process. Again, this isn’t about you or anyone else. No promises were broken, and you weren’t tricked out of your money.
Any expectations you bring to Early Access are your own, even if others share them. If a game isn’t playable or doesn’t meet your standards, you can refund it. If you’re uncomfortable with the risks of Early Access, wait for reviews or the full release.
People could avoid a lot of frustration by focusing on what they can control, rather than insisting their expectations be met.
Appreciate the insight. Good comment!
I think game should be playable day 1 I don’t expect it to be perfectly optimized but at least around 70 or 80 percent optimized. Negative reviews are justified especially if it’s as unoptimized as I hear it is. I bought it but probably won’t play for a week
Also I’m loving heroes of hammerwatch 2.
Ya, I'm ok with a few bugs here and there...but the game needs to 100% be playable.
4 ads before the actual gameplay.... Ridiculous
Read the community post. YT did something that's f'ing up the ads today. Apologies, it's out of my control at the moment.
Look up "youtube ads" on Twitter. It's so dumb right now.
Early Access isnt buying a game, its funding development of a game.
Why are your standards so low? Games like Hades 2 & Ultrakill are in incredibly polished, feature complete states right now despite their early access status and even if what your saying is true those games got significantly more funding just by being good and letting word of mouth farm sales.
God even Fortune's run, an early access game made by 1 person who just got sentenced to prison was in a better state day one than this dumpster fire. Please stop defending abysmal dogshit. The only thing releasing this game in it's current state has achieved is leaving a awful first impression on everyone that played it.
I have a toaster and I run better than your high end pc. And this happens with EVERY game that people complain about performance. The game IS playable so idk WTF people are on about. MOST early access consist of being like a quarter done. Missing features. Usually keybinds not available. Standard shit. But people expect more. And we're not gonna talk about games like POE 2 being EA and have tons of due. They're different. And we're not gonna let them be the ones who change the EA Norm and standards. If you don't like where it's at simply don't play it and just bomb it with negative reviews. That just hurts the game even more. Especially with people not coming back to change it.
It doesnt sound like the game was playable for a lot of people. You're just looking at your experience.
If someone paid $30, and the game doesnt work well...they are well within their right to leave a negative review. Early Access or not, that's part of the system.
Early Access doesnt mean you get to release a broken game.
@OHRyePlays I'd rather refund and come back later than leaving a negative reviews. I've had those experiences before. Some people might just overlook it just from seeing mostly negative and never take a second look once they see it as mostly positive. That's how I see these types of reviews. With the patch out the percentage barely went up 1% and I'm willing to bet a lot of the fixed issues aren't going to have some of these people change their reviews. They upped and left and said forget it.
“We’re not gonna talk about POE 2 having tons to do. Theyre different” lmao you realize you sound just like the triple A devs that were complaining about Baldurs gate 3 setting a standard.
@KnightmareOX I can't say much about bg3 but I didn't expect much from them not in a bad way. I just figured if divinity 2 was really good then bg3 will turn out well though I decided not to play it. But both poe2 and bg3 are obviously above the average when it comes to the States of their games in EA
Yes it kinda does otherwise they don't find out it's a issue to be fixed@@OHRyePlays