Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
If it's for a beta, in which you need to provide reliable feedback for the main release, I think it's alright to lock it down tight, so you don't go chasing "bugs" that are introduced because of mods and not something that is in the main game. Main branch? Yeah sure, mod away.
They should, because OTHER paying customers want the bugs ironed out quickly, and don't want to pay for the developers to be chasing false bugs caused by people modding the beta build and breaking it.
This. So much this.
Lock the Beta, but *unlock* the release version. Simple, everyone gets what they want.
I'll revisit this occasionally to see if the position changes. Perhaps, on final release, it will.
The game is still in early access. So the choice is really:
- beta branch build
- alpha version of the next beta branch build
Hopefully the release (ie not early access) version will have an unencrypted save but for now the developers are doing the right thing by preventing inaccurate bug reports.
But must I remind you to NOT edit tech, because it will mess things up?