Can we just call this game 1.0 already?

[killjoy]

10 years in "EA" is a bit of a joke... just call it finished and then release patches/free expansions for it.

[Rook]

What would change

[Visions]

I don't understand why people care. Does it really bother you that much, that they don't use that magical number 1.0? Just be happy that they are stubborn enough to keep pumping new stuff in to the game for so long. At no additional cost.

I got my money's worth a long time ago, and I am getting even more. I don't want them to stop, it's the best zombie simulator out there!

[DerFinneAT]

The only relevant thing that would change would be for new customers to *not know* at first view on the store page, that they will buy into a dev-in-progress game.

There is a fine line between well maintained games, and those that get thrown on the market in an unfinished state.
And it is often not easy to tell, which part of the spectrum a given game falls.

But I absolutely prefer if a developer flags a game for me as a customer as "we are still tinkering around in save-breaking ways" with the EA-tag.

I am a bit fed up with the other kind of "Yeah - here is update 2.3.6d which will invalidate your games from 2 weeks ago, where we invalidated your games from 5 months ago, where we invalidated your games from before. Oh and also we have turned half the mechanics upside down, so this game basically is nothing like the product you payed for. " kind of games.

[Armagenesis]

What does that change aside from the versioning tag?

[The Great White Shiekh]

id rather this game stay in EA then release like 7 Days to Die.

[Shurenai]

Absolutely not.

[★Rainmaker★]

I'm starting to fully understand why the devs are tired of answering the exact same questions and criticisms for years, every couple of days. Here's the quote that answers your 1.0 talk, and you would've found it if you could take half a minute of your time to read a pinned discussion instead of posting yet another "why still in EA" discussion.

"It's still called "Early Access" because our game remains in active development and so to come out of Early Access would give just as much the wrong impression ("we're done working on this game") as remaining in Early Access ("this game will release shortly"). So whichever option we pick, it's not really the correct message unless Valve create some sort of "Active Development" banner you can attach to "released" games."

[★Rainmaker★]

Originally posted by killjoy:

Regardless of how condescending you are you still took the time to write this...

I've got loads of free time these days. :)

Writing one paragraph and copypasting another took me about 1 minute though. I wouldn't consider that a time investment.

[Marco]

Originally posted by ★Rainmaker★:

I'm starting to fully understand why [...]

And you are the reason these people can be millionaires without selling a complete product, I buy one copy expecting to see a final product one day, you buy a copy and expect nothing, I am sure devs love you more.
EA is an excuse to deflect criticism and fool people into buying a game on a promise.
Imagine this in another business, where you pay and the guy maybe will deliver, no ETA, he may or may not feel like it. You may be called fool for falling for that, but how would they call the guy ripping you off? Not game developer, there are other names for that kind of practice.

[★Rainmaker★]

Originally posted by Marco:

Imagine this in another business, where you pay and the guy maybe will deliver

The problem with this "logic" is that whenever you do pay for an EA game, you pay for exactly what's there and nothing else. Any possible future updates are a free bonus. That's what buying "as is" means.

Had I bought PZ during B40, I would've been absolutely blown away that in B41 the characters and zombies were suddenly 3D and all items had 3D models as well. Sneaking had it's own animation now, how cool, etc.

There's also this saying in my language about business that would roughly translate to: "It's not dumb for a seller to sell, but it may be dumb for the buyer to buy."

So, sucks for you if PZ wasn't what you wanted it to be. But you bought it "as is", and you're "entitled" to quite literally nothing else. It's still pretty rad that B42 is a thing that will happen during this century. I'll be enjoying it from my retirement home, lol.

[Marco]

Originally posted by ★Rainmaker★:

The problem with this "logic" is that whenever you do pay for an EA game, you pay for exactly what's there and nothing else. Any possible future updates are a free bonus. That's what buying "as is" means.

You bought an Early Access game, but you're talking about it like it was a complete game. So, why even calling it Early Access? You should be the first one agreeing with me.

I have a lot to say about your post, but I'll write a longer post later (or I won't, still not sure if it's worth it honestly).

[★Rainmaker★]

What's so silly about this whole topic is that the Indie Stone could do exactly what's asked. Just think about it.

Allright everyone, B41.78 is officially PZ 1.0! Enjoy.
B42 is now known as PZ 1.1

Nothing changes no matter what the devs do. You people would still be here, complaining about the same things, just using different terms.

[Animalman]

I am sick as a dog worst illness looking for a fun topic to distract me but its all just gash about the same sniz -_- AH-TRHUMPFFFT

[Marco]

Originally posted by ★Rainmaker★:

Allright everyone, B41.78 is officially PZ 1.0! Enjoy.
B42 is now known as PZ 1.1

Oh, be sure if they stop selling tomorrow they will, whatever they put aside for development (meaning other people that are doing their work) would end and the game would be dead.
But please, now imagine the fate of this game if it didn't sell that damn well...

[Higgs]

Originally posted by Marco:

Originally posted by ★Rainmaker★:

I'm starting to fully understand why [...]

And you are the reason these people can be millionaires without selling a complete product, I buy one copy expecting to see a final product one day, you buy a copy and expect nothing, I am sure devs love you more.
EA is an excuse to deflect criticism and fool people into buying a game on a promise.
Imagine this in another business, where you pay and the guy maybe will deliver, no ETA, he may or may not feel like it. You may be called fool for falling for that, but how would they call the guy ripping you off? Not game developer, there are other names for that kind of practice.

Why do you buy it then? You're explicitly told not to buy the game for anything mentioned in the future, by Valve on their Steam Early Access policy documentation. Why do you go against something explicitly consumer friendly when it's not what you evidently stand for? I'm here on all these topics trying to tell people *not* to do this, because if you don't understand Early Access you're buying into something that will end up being consumer unfriendly for you. Clearly we've provided value to you in the range of 10K+ hours, I don't know why that loses meaning because we're still developing the game. Did we not "deliver a playable game that's worth the value of the current build" when you've played that many hours?

You want to buy a game that's completed, buy a game that's completed. There's plenty of Early Access games I would like to buy, yet, I'm not confident they'd end up being what I want them to be, either not completed, or change direction of what they currently are (Examina, for example). I just don't understand any of the logic here.

This is incredibly useful to read through:
https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/6554-ED29-FBDB-1612