How is this still early access?

[DirkPrime]

I mean I have owned the game for 8 years.

[Quineloe]

So?

[TJAY]

Originally posted by Quineloe:

So?

The question is absolutely justified. The game has been available for purchase for nearly a decade.

[Orange Joe]

because of reasons like this "We have such amazing and peskily talented modders out there, we know fine well that as soon as we released this tech within their grasps, we would end up seeing extremely powerful NPC mods appearing, using our NPC tech heavily, before we had the pleasure of seeing this hard work paid off with our own NPCs"
They know the modding community can do it better and don't want to be overshadowed by more talented people. It's like not even playing a baseball game because you know you'd lose. Honestly they should bugfix the last "non-rushed" content and release the game because at this point it's more annoying having them say they're still "working hard" than actually admit they've been lollygagging for years.

[jerrypocalypse]

Because they are still making regular updates.

[Ashley]

Originally posted by DirkPrime:

I mean I have owned the game for 8 years.

Then you should know why if you've been here for it's development cycle

[Lorin]

Originally posted by Unix:

Originally posted by Quineloe:

So?

The question is absolutely justified. The game has been available for purchase for nearly a decade.

No, it's not. As long as the devs feel like they can still add features and don't cosider it done, it can be in early access for 10 more years. Being early access does not change anything except puting a label on it that says the devs don't cosider it done.

[TJAY]

Originally posted by sanctus2048:

Originally posted by Unix:

The question is absolutely justified. The game has been available for purchase for nearly a decade.

No, it's not. As long as the devs feel like they can still add features and don't cosider it done, it can be in early access for 10 more years. Being early access does not change anything except puting a label on it that says the devs don't cosider it done.

Considering proper mainstream gaming has been a thing since the 80s (so roughly 40 years now) a nearly ten year development cycle is a big ass chunk. I am sorry that you can't see that this is horrible when comparing it to all other advancements that have happened in the same time period these devs have been chilling.

[TJAY]

Originally posted by EnigmaGrey:

Originally posted by Unix:

Considering proper mainstream gaming has been a thing since the 80s (so roughly 40 years now) a nearly ten year development cycle is a big ass chunk. I am sorry that you can't see that this is horrible when comparing it to all other advancements that have happened in the same time period these devs have been chilling.

Probably going to become more common once the resurgence in quick app-style games dies off again, given it’s the only way you’re going to get ambitious projects with a hundredth of the resources in the indie sphere.

Don’t have the people or money? Time gets sacrificed instead of parts of the game.

See: most of the indie survival genre.

I agree with your statement. But I don't agree with sanctus2048's opinion that it's not a justified question. He's an idiot. The same way a stockholder can ask about his investment a customer can ask well.

[Quineloe]

Originally posted by Unix:

Originally posted by Quineloe:

So?

The question is absolutely justified. The game has been available for purchase for nearly a decade.

Can you tell us what number of years is correct and can you show where it says that on steam?

[DirkPrime]

You can release a game and still update it

[Big Ram]

It's funny what a lose-lose this is for developers.

If you "complete" your game, people whine and cry that you've abandoned your game; took their money and ran; dead game; abandonware; worst developers; you're everything that's wrong with Early Access.

If you keep developing your game, people whine and cry that the game isn't done; still Early Access, come on, you suck; scam; development hell; worst developers; you're everything that's wrong with Early Access.

[SpiffyGonzales]

Originally posted by sanctus2048:

Originally posted by Unix:

The question is absolutely justified. The game has been available for purchase for nearly a decade.

No, it's not. As long as the devs feel like they can still add features and don't cosider it done, it can be in early access for 10 more years. Being early access does not change anything except puting a label on it that says the devs don't cosider it done.

I have to disagree actually.
11 bit studios went from some randoms who made a mobile game about surviving war to a full on studio who's now making a successor to the insanely popular frostpunk game, TaleWorlds put out bannerlord, Iron Tower Studios has created a game that rivals and in some aspects surpasses Fallout 2, and theres a whole plethora of people who were just a couple guys with dreams of big games who did more in less time with the same or less people and resources.

I'm not trying to diss the company. But I also remember when they were legit banning people left and right who dared question why the animation rework was taking forever. Back then I put up a negative review stating that it was a dead game being propped up for cash. And even though I deleted it and think others should get it now, Im still not 100% sure they aren't.
A HUGE part of this companys problem is that they dont communicate AT ALL with their fanbase and are STILL straight up hostile to negative feedback or even constructive criticism.

It's without a doubt the most realistic zombie game i have ever played, but you would have an insanely difficult time trying to convince me that a question like "why is it still in early access" isn't justified after all the actions they took against their own fans during the animation phase as well as how they continue to stay quiet about what they're actually working on today.

On top of that, as ive stated, small companies have profitted greatly doing more with less and built games bigger than even they had hoped while still staying true to their original selves. Wouldn't they profit FAR more if they finally added NPCs and mod support, got out of Early Access, make the profit, then use those new resources to either improve this game or make a second one?

I'm not judging their decision, but I also would like to know why they choose to stay in early acces.

[Quineloe]

Originally posted by Unix:

Originally posted by sanctus2048:

No, it's not. As long as the devs feel like they can still add features and don't cosider it done, it can be in early access for 10 more years. Being early access does not change anything except puting a label on it that says the devs don't cosider it done.

Considering proper mainstream gaming has been a thing since the 80s (so roughly 40 years now) a nearly ten year development cycle is a big ass chunk. I am sorry that you can't see that this is horrible when comparing it to all other advancements that have happened in the same time period these devs have been chilling.

Dude, you have a Civ 6 avatar. A game that was released as "finished" at an AAA price even though it was just 50% done and then they added all the missing pieces as paid DLC, yet you are *here* to whinge about horrible business practices???

[SpiffyGonzales]

Originally posted by EnigmaGrey:

It’s not done yet, as it says on the Steam page. Until it’s feature complete, releasing it would be wronging everyone that bought it, regardless of how long it’s taken.

It also serves as a warning for people to moderate their expectations because it’s not complete.

Has nothing to do with whatever Roger is going on about. The modding community is amazing, but has nothing to do with staying in EA. How does someone even twist our recent blogs into that?

Like this right here ^
"whatever roger is on about" "how does someone even twist our blogs into that" "it serves as a warning t moderate their expectations"
Thats not professional. Its dismissive at best and outright hostile at worst. And it doesn't answer the question. We all KNOW it isn't feature complete. But thats just a general statement.
Why NOT let modders in on it? Why not ask around the modding community and say "hey we can't pay you but if you want to help us work on the game..."? why not go in depth with what is being worked on? It's all too generalized to serve as a real answer.

Again, I like the game and dont dislike the devs anymore. But this is very much a legitimate question.

[TJAY]

Originally posted by Quineloe:

Originally posted by Unix:

Considering proper mainstream gaming has been a thing since the 80s (so roughly 40 years now) a nearly ten year development cycle is a big ass chunk. I am sorry that you can't see that this is horrible when comparing it to all other advancements that have happened in the same time period these devs have been chilling.

Dude, you have a Civ 6 avatar. A game that was released as "finished" at an AAA price even though it was just 50% done and then they added all the missing pieces as paid DLC, yet you are *here* to whinge about horrible business practices???

I have a "Civ 6" avatar because I like Roman history. I don't even own the game.. In fact I would argue I have a Caesar avatar. Talking about being pretentious af. You wield a weak argument. And how the hell do you not know where to find a game's release date on its store page?