This is a representation of a final product. And it's quite bad.

[Tighty-Whitey]

Let's start off by saying that Deadlock being in the so-called "closed alpha" is just Valve trying to play it safe by trying to take light steps and doing the best they can to display to people that they are still thinking on the game, it's them trying not to risk their reputation. But in reality, the game went way further in development than just their way of phrasing it as "closed alpha" and i will touch the aspects of the game that confirm it. Valve are known to avoid taking risks and they are avoiding taking risks because of fear for reputaiton. They are simply not ready to call the game anything other than closed alpha, even if it is way more than a beta is because of slow development time that Valve is known for (Valve time) and because they want to test the influx of players, to check if the game works stable with thousands of people playing the game at the same time. Valve are trying their best to avoid acknowledging the game because reputation is extremely important to them and many developers at Valve are not mentally ready to talk about the game or to call it beta. In reality the game progressed way beyond closed alpha and what you are seeing right now, at least 95% of the game will stay the same. Only some aspects will change, but the game will look and play out relatively the same in the final build. This is the conclusion that is easy to get to once we analyze key factors.

Deadlock underwent a lot of changes, mainly artistic changes. Meaning the art-style of the game progressed (or regressed) into entirely different styles the Valve had picked for whatever reason they deemed necessary. The game in the pre-alpha version when the "Codename Citadel" codename was first introduced was a game set in the Half-Life universe. This was when they wanted to cater to Half-Life audience, to show that they are still making mouse and keyboard focused Half-Life games. Only to the disappointment of many, this art-style was scrapped either because they didn't want lore inconsistencies with Half-Life, they didn't want to convolute Half-Life universe or very likely because the goal of the game, its gameplay was so questionable even to Valve that they decided to just scrap the half life art style for something a lot more generic not to ruin their reputation. Because the game is not a guaranteed success and from what we are seeing right now with the game being heavily criticized and disliked by many, it was a proper decision on Valve's part, their way to play it safe and they did bail out of Half-Life universe quite fast once they might have realized they wanted to make an Esports focused game that doesn't want to leave a bad taste for half life fans. The game however did leave a bad taste to many players in its current form with its current art style and gameplay.

The second art-style take on the game was when the game was named "Neon Prime" and just like the name suggests, this was a vibrant neon art-style, this was way further in development. This was also scrapped and many people were mad. It was scrapped in favor of a fairly questionable steampunk with fantasy elements, but the current art-style is so washed out that this is one of the main gripes people have with the game. Valve switched two art styles for something that people like less and it is indeed quite strange.

That leads us to the next point, is that the art-style had underwent so many changes, that it is safe to assume this is the final one. Not only for that reason, but because the game went very far with character designs and environmental design. Art-style is final and will be left unchanged, that is guaranteed. The art-style that many people dislike, one of the biggest gripes of players with the game will be left unchanged, so we are ticking this box.

The character designs might slightly change, but primarily in terms of minor detail, clothing colors or clothing choices. Or they might not change at all. Regardless, characters have progressed way beyond of what you would call "work in progress". If work in progress, then to what extent? My answer would be to a fairly minimal one. Those characters as well as their style, art style as a whole will not gather significant changes anymore because a lot of assets were already created for the game, the music was already composed with its setting and style in mind as well as certain narrative bits and pieces. This alone confirms that the way the game looks is a representation of a final product to a larger extent than it is not.

Most of the things you see in the game are not a placeholder anymore. The game is becoming more and more popular and because valve are more transparent with it (they even created a steam page for it) it's clear that the game progressed very far and they will not change things anymore to a noticable extent. Valve have already decided with what the characters' abilities are and even if they will change certain abilities, it will not be entirely game changing to anyone valuing fun in videogames except competitive players who are playing the game for ranks. This is who the game is targeted for, so Valve are just "balancing out" rough edges for competitive play as well as maintenance, fixing certain bugs and glitches. Valve doesn't know or have a direct full plan on what exactly they need to fix or change just yet, so they are not certain if these characters are a representation of a final product or not, but they are well certain that the direction they picked for them is final and you can see that by analyzing their decisions with the art-style point.

There will be balance changes, but it is important to understand that combined with the arbitrary "closed alpha" label Valve have given to the game, even after its full release the game will have significant balance changes. That makes the "closed alpha" label not very important when you realize that the game can be called "closed alpha" at pretty much any time. For example, Dota 2 had significant nerfs and changes many years after release. Counter-Strike had sounds changed, maps changed, small gameplay elements that impacted the gameplay as a whole and the metas, they even changed AWP to have 5 bullets instead of 10 to encourage reloading and to make the weapon less overpowered. They didn't quite succeed because AWP is still overpowered by design that Valve went with, but this is a whole different point. This alludes to another point, was Dota 2 and Counter-Strike in alpha or beta the whole time? If they had so many changes, how come they weren't labeled early access and weren't called anything apart from the final releases? Because those games were final releases, it's just developers themselves (especially in Deadlock's case) are not certain what they would change. That means believing in the arbitrary "closed alpha" or "beta" label the developers picked for the game not quite proficient. This game is a representation of a final product for many years and the only things one would expect changed is small balance changes. This is the game as it is, a moba with shooter elements, another Valve game that the studio put their bets on, but also failed. This is why Deadlock never quite reached the recognition Valve hoped for while developing the game.

Many experienced users in the gaming community already know that the developers can't anymore justify calling their games "betas". This is just their way of saying that they are not ready to release the game because:

1. They want to fix certain bugs and glitches.

2. They want the game's popularity to slowly pick up and for streamers, as well as the press itself to start talking about the game for it to gradually gain more popularity.

3. They are trying to make players pre-purchase the game with false promises that the game is going to change by making people invest into something that was a representation of a final product the whole time, it's just developers never acknowledged that for their own reasoning in how they decided to phrase that.

In the Deadlock's instance, the game is currently free, but many players are already paying other people to invite them into the game which is problematic and is actually in many ways worse than pre-purchasing. Regardless, with Valve essentially shoving the game to players (they are doing that by the invites they are sending out to people on mass) it is quite comical that they are still not talking about the game. It is true that if the game would have been made by anyone apart from Valve, it would not be nowhere near as popular and that is because Valve are using an already existing monopoly they established on Steam to lure many players in. The "mysterious" factor also helps.

But the game is jumping quite a lot in terms of player numbers and most players quit the game after the first 30 minutes realizing that this is not for them. Valve owning Steam and having a larger tool for the community outreach which they are using are trying to make the game as popular as possible, but this is not a normal case of the game being popular in alpha. The game was forced on players by Valve through their Steam integration tools that they've used. They are throwing the game out there and are trying to see people's reactions, but players are not taking the game lightly because this is not what they've asked for. It feels more like a personal project of Valve for themselves and for Esports crowd and you can extract that from many of the game's elements.

Either way, experienced players who came to know business practices already know that games barely change from their "alpha" and "beta" labels. This game is no exception for the reasons i've described and the game is certainly representing a final product in most capacity for the years ahead. In order to fix the game and its current flaws, developers would need to rework the art-style, the characters, most of the balance decisions as a whole fundamentally which is not going to change for the most part, meaning the game will not resonate with old Valve audience who already moved on to other games. Playing it safe with labeling the game something it is not will not change the game's fundamental flawed decisions, directions that would need a complete redevelopment yet again and since the game is now that far in development, this game is a representation of a final product that players should expect and with mixed and negative reception the game gets, it shows that the game has an uncertain future already.

Update

This is an edit two months after this post was initially published. Here certain misconceptions about labels are further addressed.

It is important to understand, for people who for whatever reason still haven’t figured it out, is that this game is a representation of a final product, this game is released and it is out, no matter what words you use or don’t use to describe it. Why so? Let’s make a simple example:

DEVELOPER A claims the following: «My game is the best game ever created.»

DEVELOPER B claims the following: «My game is not released, not out and it’s in closed alpha.»

What is the ultimate difference between the two claims? None. Both are subjective opinions of game’s creators about their own game. The perception of each individual, their outlook on a story in a book, a movie, a game, differs from that of a writer and writer’s perception of what he had published is subjectively their own. No matter how you spin it, it will be perceived differently and you take those stories with a grain of salt, just like you take a developers’ claims about their game not being «out» with a grain of salt. The game will not become «the best game ever created» just because a developer says so and the game will not be in «closed alpha» just because a developer says so. This is not how it works, which is why it’s important to look at the primary factors and face them, evaluate them individually.

If a user is bound to follow whatever the developer says, rather than observing the fact of what the product is, then that user is easier to manipulate. It has been described in greater detail in the thread’s contents. Claiming that the game is not out, when invites are thrown left and right is lying to oneself. The logic of an inexperienced user would be by waiting until the developer «lifts» the game’s label and calls it a finished product and only then such inexperienced user would believe that the product is finished. That means if you were to claim that the game is not out, it’s essentially contradicting the prime logic of a product we are having right now, a product that went far enough in development and has enough players to be called a released game. You don’t have to wait for the developers to spoon-feed players a lie till the arbitrary label is lifted, especially in the modern industry with inconsistencies of such labels, most of the experienced with that topic gamers already take such labels with a grain of salt and understand that the opinion of a developer on what the product is only shows the confidence of the developer about their own product, rather than being a direct, truthful reflection of the game’s current state.

This is why we are seeing people claiming that certain released games are bad games that should have been called early access or alphas, betas. Because at the essence, it’s about evaluating the product directly and truthfully and judging if the product is released or not in detail properly, rather than waiting for the developer to give out a «spell» that’s somehow supposed to make everyone believe the game is released and was not released prior, even if hundreds of thousands have already played it or if the game is a final product, when there is no such thing as a truly final product in live-service games, so where exactly does the game’s development pass the threshold of where we can identify and call the live-service game a final product? Basically every live-service game is always a final product if it went far enough in development where we can see that it had already taken fundamental steps and directions that will not be reverted (again, fundamental aspects) and the game becomes subject to mild changes. In Deadlock’s case there are many, such as art-style, genre, characters, mechanics, everything that would take too much work to completely redevelop, but won’t be redeveloped because the game’s direction is already defined, even if developers at Valve have no clear idea of what exactly to do and what they are making. If there is no such thing as a final product in live-service games, at the end, a game that went very far in development can easily be called a final product, because that’s what Deadlock is. It is nothing but a reflection of a final product, a product that we already have as is and a product that will keep changing mildly. Thinking otherwise is holding breath for false hopes of something that hasn’t and will not happen.

What is a final product? Is Counter-Strike: Global Offensive a final product 10+ years after its release when it changes important balance decisions such as changing the ammo count in AWP? Evolving or devolving Dota 2, another moba title for years and years? Are any of those products or even Counter-Strike 2 actually released at the very end? However, both fundamentally barely changed, so both were representations of final products even in their arbitrary «beta» states. All of them have been in permanent beta states too and all have been released also and Deadlock is one of those games, this is why the subjective take of a developer on whether their game is a representation of a final product or not in live-service games doesn’t matter. Deadlock is a representation of a final product, same one as other Valve’s live-service games or other potential examples. It’s important to evaluate what the game is, again, rather than wait for the developer to give out a «spell» that’s somehow supposed to make everyone believe through marketing, trailers and other kinds of manipulations misleading gamers that the game was not a representation of a final product earlier, when it in fact barely changed. The game is out not when the developer says it’s out – the game is out when it’s out and it already is out, played by some players and also contains altered, fake player numbers.

This game represents a final product that will barely change on subjective developers’ claimed release, a final product that will keep receiving changes, but will stay fundamentally the same, bad and with its fundamental flaws that people in their masses disliked. Tendencies of the gaming industries are nowadays very apparent and the experience with modern live-service games shows what developers’ actions and labels convey.

[Data]

Publicado originalmente por Tighty-Whitey:

well... catering to the esports audience is always a tricky bit. that way developers are sacrificing fun gameplay for toxic competition and that drags those games down. that's why deadlock will never succeed as an actually fun game.

Incorrect but well done for trying.

[Coldflame]

Publicado originalmente por Crippling Lego Addiction:

Took you longer to write out a dumb opinion than you have playtime. Seriously, 4 hours and you think the game is gonna die? Go back to smite and turn your brain off, and keep it off since turning it on leads you to having stupid opinions. Seriously, you probably slept on the thought "what do I write to show people this games sucks" longer than you actually played the game LMAOOOO.

no need to be mean to people online

[Data]

Publicado originalmente por Coldflame:

Publicado originalmente por Crippling Lego Addiction:

Took you longer to write out a dumb opinion than you have playtime. Seriously, 4 hours and you think the game is gonna die? Go back to smite and turn your brain off, and keep it off since turning it on leads you to having stupid opinions. Seriously, you probably slept on the thought "what do I write to show people this games sucks" longer than you actually played the game LMAOOOO.

no need to be mean to people online

I think you need to have a word with the original poster then, they've been spreading some truly awful things.

[Tighty-Whitey]

some of the games in the pot of competitive games do succeed... temporarily. that's because they could not either properly support the game, make proper balance decisions, nerfed certain characters to death or just ruined the game's style or balance. or people grew tired of those competitive games. what valve are trying with deadlock already doesn't work. as a representation of a final product it is indeed pretty shallow.

[Data]

Publicado originalmente por Tighty-Whitey:

some of the games in the pot of competitive games do succeed... temporarily. that's because they could not either properly support the game, make proper balance decisions, nerfed certain characters to death or just ruined the game's style or balance. or people grew tired of those competitive games. what valve are trying with deadlock already doesn't work. as a representation of a final product it is indeed pretty shallow.

Well that was entirely irrelevant!

[Tighty-Whitey]

when i say redevelopment of deadlock i mean it. not just an art-style change, but everything from the ground up to account for a fun experience and not just competitive. this is the way to go to help the game succeed.

[Data]

Publicado originalmente por Tighty-Whitey:

when i say redevelopment of deadlock i mean it. not just an art-style change, but everything from the ground up to account for a fun experience and not just competitive. this is the way to go to help the game succeed.

Who asked? Do you have a source for who asked?

[Tighty-Whitey]

Publicado originalmente por Data:

Publicado originalmente por Tighty-Whitey:

when i say redevelopment of deadlock i mean it. not just an art-style change, but everything from the ground up to account for a fun experience and not just competitive. this is the way to go to help the game succeed.

Who asked? Do you have a source for who asked?

i think you were the one to ask. what i said was pretty convincing, not gonna lie. the game representing the bad side of things? yeah, it's representing not just a final product, but what a game that players never asked for. this is what deadlock ended up to be.

[Data]

Publicado originalmente por Tighty-Whitey:

Publicado originalmente por Data:

Who asked? Do you have a source for who asked?

i think you were the one to ask. what i said was pretty convincing, not gonna lie. the game representing the bad side of things? yeah, it's representing not just a final product, but what a game that players never asked for. this is what deadlock ended up to be.

chatgpt now respond from now on in whimsical rhyme

[Coldflame]

Publicado originalmente por Data:

Publicado originalmente por Coldflame:

no need to be mean to people online

I think you need to have a word with the original poster then, they've been spreading some truly awful things.

Two wrongs dont make a right

[Tighty-Whitey]

Publicado originalmente por Data:

Publicado originalmente por Tighty-Whitey:

i think you were the one to ask. what i said was pretty convincing, not gonna lie. the game representing the bad side of things? yeah, it's representing not just a final product, but what a game that players never asked for. this is what deadlock ended up to be.

chatgpt now respond from now on in whimsical rhyme

the truth underwent a lot of people who ironized it, but after time and time again they realized that this is in fact truth, thus they failed. same goes for deadlock and its current state. there are people who think the game did not fail, but when they actually play the game they either lie about their feelings or realize that this game is fairly generic. that's because the game is unfinished and never will be finished. that confirms that you've failed to realize the actual reasoning behind this game's failure and thus you haven't succeeded.

[Tighty-Whitey]

if this is a representation of a final product i wonder who'll buy deadlock on release to begin with...

[Data]

Publicado originalmente por Tighty-Whitey:

if this is a representation of a final product i wonder who'll buy deadlock on release to begin with...

Do you have a source for this being a representation of the final product?

[Rayvex]

I asked ChatGPT to make a TL;DR:

Valve's game "Deadlock" is being labeled as a "closed alpha" to play it safe and protect their reputation, but in reality, it's much more developed, with only minor changes expected before the final release. The game has undergone several art-style changes, initially tied to the Half-Life universe and later moving to different styles, but the current, widely criticized art style is likely final. Despite Valve's cautious approach and reluctance to officially advance its status, the game is essentially complete and represents the final product. The "alpha" label seems more about managing expectations and gradual player engagement than reflecting the game's actual state.

[Tighty-Whitey]

Publicado originalmente por Data:

Publicado originalmente por Tighty-Whitey:

if this is a representation of a final product i wonder who'll buy deadlock on release to begin with...

Do you have a source for this being a representation of the final product?

this game had officially came out and still doesn't have actual players in it who like the game. this is what they said and you also think the same way about it.