What happened?!?

[UtterBob]

I remember this game launching to some pretty huge fanfare from the regular factory game YouTubers and being pretty excited for it. Just stumbled across it again and the review history tells a pretty bleak story now. But the comment and reviews don't really explain why.

Just wondering, from any longer-term players, what the story is here?

[satans_favourite]

i can tell you what happend. the game hasnt been released yet its still in development. there was a demo and it was very popular. then they whent into playtesting/development. join their discord and you can see how alive the game and its community are. a massive new update has just been announced, and after that the 1.0 release is planned for later this year.

[UtterBob]

I mean, that's the stuff I can find. I'm curious about why the reviews bombed so hard?

[TrigMan59]

Why have developers adopted this early access model for people to pay to basically become alpha and beta testers? Why don’t they do this testing in house with a robust software quality control department, work out and fix all of the bugs and then release to us a finished stable version of the game? That’s the way it was always done years ago. As a consumer that’s only way developers are ever getting me to purchase their software.

[UtterBob]

Originally posted by TrigMan59:

Why have developers adopted this early access model for people to pay to basically become alpha and beta testers? Why don’t they do this testing in house with a robust software quality control department, work out and fix all of the bugs and then release to us a finished stable version of the game? That’s the way it was always done years ago. As a consumer that’s only way developers are ever getting me to purchase their software.

I agree, that's why I didn't purchase it when it came out in EA, I've been burnt 1 too many times.

But most EA maintain fair reviews, if they are slow, too buggy, too little content, etc. the reviews usually reflect that. Conversely, if they are moving along, getting things fixed in a timely manner, adding new stuff, etc. reviews tend to be reasonably forgiving of the EA state.

These reviews are not clear and I'm trying to ask why they are all negative, is this too buggy (even with the graces normally given to EA titles)? Too little content? Too few updates? What's actually upsetting people past the fact it's in EA?

[nothere41]

Originally posted by TrigMan59:

Why have developers adopted this early access model for people to pay to basically become alpha and beta testers? Why don’t they do this testing in house with a robust software quality control department, work out and fix all of the bugs and then release to us a finished stable version of the game? That’s the way it was always done years ago. As a consumer that’s only way developers are ever getting me to purchase their software.

I AGREE!!!!!!

[flacwby]

Originally posted by TrigMan59:

Why have developers adopted this early access model for people to pay to basically become alpha and beta testers? Why don’t they do this testing in house with a robust software quality control department, work out and fix all of the bugs and then release to us a finished stable version of the game? That’s the way it was always done years ago. As a consumer that’s only way developers are ever getting me to purchase their software.

I would like to agree but I can't. If developers could AFFORD such a development team they'd have to spend the first several years fund raising through various channels, such as venture capitalists, loans, etc. Then they'd have to budget the development team cutting costs on experienced developers, cutting scope of the project, etc. With this you'd have 1/10 the amount of new games you see like The Crust which would most likely not have ever been developed. You'd be left with only the 5 major game development studios with maybe 1 or 2 new ones trying to pop-up each year, only to close before they could release any game.

Point is there's a pro and con to early access. Without EA you'd have very few games in circulation, however the games you did have would be more tested, less bugs and maybe, just maybe a bit higher quality, but you'd only have a handful of development studios producing a handful of a games a year.

So fewer choices, but hopefully better quality (although quality isn't guaranteed) or tons more choices with some having a long road to final release and some never making it out of EA.

[AugustusTirion]

Originally posted by TrigMan59:

Why have developers adopted this early access model for people to pay to basically become alpha and beta testers? Why don’t they do this testing in house with a robust software quality control department, work out and fix all of the bugs and then release to us a finished stable version of the game? That’s the way it was always done years ago. As a consumer that’s only way developers are ever getting me to purchase their software.

Where have you been for the past couple decades?
'Pay for beta' has been around a long time now.
I railed against it too, way back when. Mostly because back then it was still nothing but major gaming studios.
But this new model has opened up a wonderful new door... Small, indie, studios are now a significant part of the game market.

That 'robust QC dept' you're demanding.... that takes money, alot of it.
Small studios can't afford that.
So they spend what they've got to get the game as ready as they can and go for the Early Access release. That (hopefully) gets them the money they need to take the game the full length of what they've envisioned.

If it's not a model you're comfortable with. That's fine. Just move along, nothing to see here (and please avoid EA releases).
But whining about something being *exactly* as advertised (an Early Access) it's just plain silly.

[flacwby]

Originally posted by AugustusTirion:

Originally posted by TrigMan59:

Why have developers adopted this early access model for people to pay to basically become alpha and beta testers? Why don’t they do this testing in house with a robust software quality control department, work out and fix all of the bugs and then release to us a finished stable version of the game? That’s the way it was always done years ago. As a consumer that’s only way developers are ever getting me to purchase their software.

Where have you been for the past couple decades?
'Pay for beta' has been around a long time now.
I railed against it too, way back when. Mostly because back then it was still nothing but major gaming studios.
But this new model has opened up a wonderful new door... Small, indie, studios are now a significant part of the game market.

That 'robust QC dept' you're demanding.... that takes money, alot of it.
Small studios can't afford that.
So they spend what they've got to get the game as ready as they can and go for the Early Access release. That (hopefully) gets them the money they need to take the game the full length of what they've envisioned.

If it's not a model you're comfortable with. That's fine. Just move along, nothing to see here (and please avoid EA releases).
But whining about something being *exactly* as advertised (an Early Access) it's just plain silly.

Just to add on I do agree with the OP that EA titles are now grossly over populated with as much as 90% or more of game offerings and I've gotten numb to them to the point that as soon as I see "Early Access" I move on, but occasionally one like "The Crust" grabs my attention and I reward the devs with a purchase.

[sgt.greywar]

Long EA periods without MAJOR updates and a very brisk pace tend to lose hype fairly quickly.

It is a trend for sure.

In my head I refer to it as "Biskuping" a game since the first time I saw opportunity lost this way on a game was back in ADOM's nascent heyday.

Not sure this game is in that territory yet, but it is easy to slide into it. Just like not going to the gym... starts slowly and then all at once you are doing nothing.

[TrigMan59]

Why have game developers adopted this early access model for people to pay to basically become alpha and beta testers? Why don’t they do this testing in house with a robust software quality control department, work out and fix all of the bugs and then release to us a finished stable version of the game? That’s the way it was always done years ago. As a consumer that’s only way developers are ever getting me to purchase their software.

[Klandor]

Originally posted by TrigMan59:

Why have game developers adopted this early access model for people to pay to basically become alpha and beta testers? Why don’t they do this testing in house with a robust software quality control department, work out and fix all of the bugs and then release to us a finished stable version of the game? That’s the way it was always done years ago. As a consumer that’s only way developers are ever getting me to purchase their software.

Why don't you get a life, @TrigMan, and stop posting the EXACT SAME COMMENT multiple times in the same discussion...

...Sorry, just returning the favor...