2 years in EA?

[Adidas]

I bought Prison architect in the first alpha and was not disapointed, however, since then, I only had problems with "long term" EA games. Some NEVER seem to get out of EA - and this one, with 2 years in EA, feels like another one.

Am i off base here? Is the game planned for release? What's stopping them from releasing now?

Thank you!

[daggaz]

>them

[daggaz]

I mean, imagine being such a stud that you gamed your way up the steam totem pole to "community ambassador" (ooh lvl 28!) AND then you dont take five seconds to read up on the game you are curious about to quickly realize that it is a one-man-team, all at the same time as making yet another copy-paste i-poo-on-EA-games post whinging about why its not finished yet before you even buy it let alone try it.

Lol. Why even bother.

[daggaz]

Free [constantly updated] Demo, even. I mean, come the ♥♥♥♥ on.

[daggaz]

Im not trying to be a troll here. I am just curious and brutally honest. I am barely a level 13 (lol for what its worth, which imho is zero), I buy a TON of games, and I am active on teh forums. I take the time to investigate them before squealing (such that my squealing would be justified hopefully), and I am familiar with the typical forum posting styles.

I cant even imagine making the O post. I have to believe you are just trolling. And if you arent, dude... how hard is it even?

[an entire Roman legion]

Originally posted by Adidas:

Am i off base here?

Thank you!

yes you are. the game could be sold as "done" and it would have more content than most other games.

[Adidas]

Thank you Albob - that answers my question I appreciate it. So it's just a long running EA thing. I wish games didn't do that. For example Caves of Qud started in EA in since 2015 and could easily be released. Just is a bad feeling buying the game knowing it's not finished or at least not being sure. Anyways.

[Yonan]

The game is amazingly fun as-is. Even if it ended up as a perpetual early access game it's not a problem as it's already better than the release state of most games imo. And it will only get better.

You're not wrong to worry about that though (lol Project Zomboid... but still an amazing game too), but if you look back at the update history of the game you'll see every few months a large patch drops. That was a big part of what sold me on it - after being very interested when I saw Arch and Ambiguous Amphibian playing it on Youtube.

[an entire Roman legion]

If I'd play this game not knowing it's ea; I wouldn't notice.

and that's all that matters to me.

for example PZ is, despite being 10yrs in ea, THE BEST zombie sim.

[Retro]

I am in the minority here i find it WAaaayyy better for a game to be in EA it means the game still has potential to grow and add more things with feedback rather then just be complete..some of my favorite games of all time are in EA because they always seem to be getting better lol

[an entire Roman legion]

Originally posted by 🅾:

I am in the minority here i find it WAaaayyy better for a game to be in EA it means the game still has potential to grow and add more things with feedback rather then just be complete..some of my favorite games of all time are in EA because they always seem to be getting better lol

exactly

[UltimateTobi]

Originally posted by 🅾:

I am in the minority here i find it WAaaayyy better for a game to be in EA it means the game still has potential to grow and add more things with feedback rather then just be complete..some of my favorite games of all time are in EA because they always seem to be getting better lol

At some point it should be done though.
I hate it when I play the game and see the next, big, juicy update on the horizon, which makes me not want to play the current version, because there'll be a better one "soon[TM]". It's a devilish cycle in which I buy a game and never play it.

I am not against EA, but I am against games being indefinitely held in development. (This doesn't apply to SOS obviously, since 2 years is way below the reasonable development time of a game; especially of such scale.)

I miss the days of games being done, functional and mostly bug free with 1-2 bug fix and QOL patches (yes, back then they were called patches). Which doesn't mean I also don't appreciate the ability for indie devs to have ongoing support for their dream project (but that's a different topic anyways).

I think the worst offender of this that comes to mind is Star Citizen and its still missing singleplayer campaign Squadron 42. And I've been a defender of it for a long while.
I pledged for this game in 2013(!), and it had already been in development up until that point. This was 9 years ago.

[Retro]

Originally posted by UltimateTobi:

Originally posted by 🅾:

I am in the minority here i find it WAaaayyy better for a game to be in EA it means the game still has potential to grow and add more things with feedback rather then just be complete..some of my favorite games of all time are in EA because they always seem to be getting better lol

At some point it should be done though.
I hate it when I play the game and see the next, big, juicy update on the horizon, which makes me not want to play the current version, because there'll be a better one "soon[TM]". It's a devilish cycle in which I buy a game and never play it.

I am not against EA, but I am against games being indefinitely held in development. (This doesn't apply to SOS obviously, since 2 years is way below the reasonable development time of a game; especially of such scale.)

I miss the days of games being done, functional and mostly bug free with 1-2 bug fix and QOL patches (yes, back then they were called patches). Which doesn't mean I also don't appreciate the ability for indie devs to have ongoing support for their dream project (but that's a different topic anyways).

I think the worst offender of this that comes to mind is Star Citizen and its still missing singleplayer campaign Squadron 42. And I've been a defender of it for a long while.
I pledged for this game in 2013(!), and it had already been in development up until that point. This was 9 years ago.

I mean you can just wait for it to fully release too

[UltimateTobi]

Originally posted by 🅾:

Originally posted by UltimateTobi:

At some point it should be done though.
I hate it when I play the game and see the next, big, juicy update on the horizon, which makes me not want to play the current version, because there'll be a better one "soon[TM]". It's a devilish cycle in which I buy a game and never play it.

I am not against EA, but I am against games being indefinitely held in development. (This doesn't apply to SOS obviously, since 2 years is way below the reasonable development time of a game; especially of such scale.)

I miss the days of games being done, functional and mostly bug free with 1-2 bug fix and QOL patches (yes, back then they were called patches). Which doesn't mean I also don't appreciate the ability for indie devs to have ongoing support for their dream project (but that's a different topic anyways).

I think the worst offender of this that comes to mind is Star Citizen and its still missing singleplayer campaign Squadron 42. And I've been a defender of it for a long while.
I pledged for this game in 2013(!), and it had already been in development up until that point. This was 9 years ago.

I mean you can just wait for it to fully release too

Sure.
My issue was that some games just never release. And it seemed that was what you were celebrating as a "minority".

[Lil' Lily]

Originally posted by daggaz:

Im not trying to be a troll here. I am just curious and brutally honest. I am barely a level 13 (lol for what its worth, which imho is zero), I buy a TON of games, and I am active on teh forums. I take the time to investigate them before squealing (such that my squealing would be justified hopefully), and I am familiar with the typical forum posting styles.

I cant even imagine making the O post. I have to believe you are just trolling. And if you arent, dude... how hard is it even?

#Triggered.

[A boy named Sue]

FARMS

Hunter gatherer gets old fast.