What happeed to this game?

[Jhonis]

No really, what happen?
Because I have no idea.

[Jhonis]

And workshop was removed without reason.
Still, that is rather sad...
So, have the developer dissapeared from the face of the planet?

[AtomicWoodchuck]

Originally posted by Jhonis:

And workshop was removed without reason.
Still, that is rather sad...
So, have the developer dissapeared from the face of the planet?

Dev is regularly online, but never posts on here. He appears to have abandoned the game, along with his paying customers. Last update was a couple of years ago.

Even at the current price, you're wasting your money. This one will never see the light of day.

[Jhonis]

Originally posted by AtomicWoodchuck:

Originally posted by Jhonis:

And workshop was removed without reason.
Still, that is rather sad...
So, have the developer dissapeared from the face of the planet?

Dev is regularly online, but never posts on here. He appears to have abandoned the game, along with his paying customers. Last update was a couple of years ago.

Even at the current price, you're wasting your money. This one will never see the light of day.

Actually I got it before this BS happen, so it was worth it at the time.

[Redrusty66]

so it's a hit and run abandoned scam as many others then. It does look very interesting but obviously never been updated or cared for by the developer. especially once it's seen the "dev" is around yet ignores the whole thing. Hasn't even tried to tweak, speak or polish the thing since release. shame steam is so full of these things. they have the 2 pack at bundlestars for 1.99...started to grab it for me and my son, but don't think it's even worth the bother,

[Redrusty66]

you did make one point, that is true. I would agree with the rest ONLY if your true point was done. "The scam part" as you called it only applies AFTER it has failed as you said but is then left broken, unfinished and abandoned WIHTOUT being removed from the store...which ANY developer can do at ANY time. Valve does not force any developer to leave their broken product on the store. Now since someone somewhere gets a check, no matter how small, to their designated payment source (Paypal, their bank account, whatever was arranged) from the key sites and or Valve itself, for any sales made. Then yeah, it becomes a scam to leave a broken, uinfinished and abandoned game on Steam when you have no intention of ever finishing it or making it playable. If this failed due to incompetence or lack of buzz or even lack of care..fine. Admit it, remove it and let it go...this way you are not SCAMMING future buyers expecting a working , supported or playable game when they bought it.

[Nugg]

Web site domain Jointhe509th.com linked from Steam was not renewed after Jan 2018. The 4gency.com web site shows that it has possible malware

[Recklessdvo]

It's dead. Could have been a fun little game but it never got updated and there is no workshop that I am aware of. Sad really

[Zemecon]

Are you guys missing the whole point that this game has already been officially released? That means the developers don't need to work on it anymore.

If a game is currently in Early Access, you will get that "Why Early Access?" box in the page description as well as the date the game was released on Steam in the Release Date field. If the game is no longer in Early Access, not only will you not see that Early Access box in the page description, the release date will also be the date the game was officially released rather than the date the game was released on Steam. See, release dates change after official release. Maybe Steam should do a better job of clarifying this. But still, did ANY of you guys take a look through this game's update history? Habitat is already in version 1.0 which means it is a fully released game.

If you are not satisfied with the current state of this game, atleast say that more could be added and/or fixed rather than that the developers have stopped working on it. Because of course they've stopped working on it - Habitat is a released game. Don't tell me none of the people who posted negative reviews of Habitate haven't realized this by now.

[Emily Howard]

Originally posted by Salinité:

Are you guys missing the whole point that this game has already been officially released? That means the developers don't need to work on it anymore.

If a game is currently in Early Access, you will get that "Why Early Access?" box in the page description as well as the date the game was released on Steam in the Release Date field. If the game is no longer in Early Access, not only will you not see that Early Access box in the page description, the release date will also be the date the game was officially released rather than the date the game was released on Steam. See, release dates change after official release. Maybe Steam should do a better job of clarifying this. But still, did ANY of you guys take a look through this game's update history? Habitat is already in version 1.0 which means it is a fully released game.

If you are not satisfied with the current state of this game, atleast say that more could be added and/or fixed rather than that the developers have stopped working on it. Because of course they've stopped working on it - Habitat is a released game. Don't tell me none of the people who posted negative reviews of Habitate haven't realized this by now.

Do you think it's normal that you leave your project completely behind just after you declare it's V1.0? Seems the dev didn't had any passion at all. If you take a look at Prison Architect for example, they continued to make new content, fix bugs and even one year after saying they felt, their game was complete they just released another content update out of sudden and began to work on the game again.

And being in an early access or released state doesn't mean anything today. There are more than enough crappy things in early access which are dead, there are "releases" that don't work. You can feel if a game's actual status keeps up with the declared one and it seems it doesn't in this case.

[Zemecon]

Originally posted by Emily Howard:

Originally posted by Salinité:

Are you guys missing the whole point that this game has already been officially released? That means the developers don't need to work on it anymore.

If a game is currently in Early Access, you will get that "Why Early Access?" box in the page description as well as the date the game was released on Steam in the Release Date field. If the game is no longer in Early Access, not only will you not see that Early Access box in the page description, the release date will also be the date the game was officially released rather than the date the game was released on Steam. See, release dates change after official release. Maybe Steam should do a better job of clarifying this. But still, did ANY of you guys take a look through this game's update history? Habitat is already in version 1.0 which means it is a fully released game.

If you are not satisfied with the current state of this game, atleast say that more could be added and/or fixed rather than that the developers have stopped working on it. Because of course they've stopped working on it - Habitat is a released game. Don't tell me none of the people who posted negative reviews of Habitate haven't realized this by now.

Do you think it's normal that you leave your project completely behind just after you declare it's V1.0? Seems the dev didn't had any passion at all. If you take a look at Prison Architect for example, they continued to make new content, fix bugs and even one year after saying they felt, their game was complete they just released another content update out of sudden and began to work on the game again.

And being in an early access or released state doesn't mean anything today. There are more than enough crappy things in early access which are dead, there are "releases" that don't work. You can feel if a game's actual status keeps up with the declared one and it seems it doesn't in this case.

There are no obligations after a game reaches version 1.0 and hits the store shelves. What you get in version 1.0 and onward should be what you get if you buy a physical copy from a store and nothing more than that. Since that is the case, any new content needs to come in the form of additional content that is either perchased separately or downloaded separately. That is what expansions and DLC's are for, respectively.

Any core content updates a game continues to receive after version 1.0 are bonus content that a developer releases because they chose to do so - obviously they still had more to add. That doesn't mean anything. All it means if you expect that sort of thing is that you think all games will continue to receive continuous updates until the developers themselves are literally in their graves. Which is very much false. I could point out so many games out there that are past version 1.0 and are no longer being updated. "Version 1.0" is even defined by game developers as content-complete, meaning they will not typically release their game in version 1.0 until there is nothing more they think they need to add to it or they are not interested in adding anything more.

The basic trend here on Steam seems to be that if players do not like the state a game is in after version 1.0 comes out then they will want more content added to that game, or they will want more fixed, and if they do like a game then they won't feel anything needs to be added. Or atleast they won't care. That says nothing about what you are entitled to. If you don't like the state a post-1.0 game is in then that is too bad. You should've done more research.

I am just disappointed that too many people who bought Habitat cannot seem to tell the difference between Early Access and Version 1.0 beyond the version number, if they even know what version it is currently in. I bet if you ask anyone complaining about Habitat what the version number for it is, they won't know. It is like asking them what Early Access means - they expect all Early Access games to be feature-complete by the time they appear on Steam, which is even more stupid. In any good videogame review, I hope to see an evaluation of what the game in question is like when I buy it, not what the reviewer was expecting to see from it in the future.

EDIT 1: Fixed lack of spacing in a few areas and added to comment.

EDIT 2: Fixed punctuation and added to comment.

[PublicNuisance]

Originally posted by Salinité:

Originally posted by Emily Howard:

Do you think it's normal that you leave your project completely behind just after you declare it's V1.0? Seems the dev didn't had any passion at all. If you take a look at Prison Architect for example, they continued to make new content, fix bugs and even one year after saying they felt, their game was complete they just released another content update out of sudden and began to work on the game again.

And being in an early access or released state doesn't mean anything today. There are more than enough crappy things in early access which are dead, there are "releases" that don't work. You can feel if a game's actual status keeps up with the declared one and it seems it doesn't in this case.

There are no obligations after a game reaches version 1.0 and hits the store shelves. What you get in version 1.0 and onward should be what you get if you buy a physical copy from a store and nothing more than that. Since that is the case, any new content needs to come in the form of additional content that is either perchased separately or downloaded separately. That is what expansions and DLC's are for, respectively.

Any core content updates a game continues to receive after version 1.0 are bonus content that a developer releases because they chose to do so - obviously they still had more to add. That doesn't mean anything. All it means if you expect that sort of thing is that you think all games will continue to receive continuous updates until the developers themselves are literally in their graves. Which is very much false. I could point out so many games out there that are past version 1.0 and are no longer being updated. "Version 1.0" is even defined by game developers as content-complete, meaning they will not typically release their game in version 1.0 until there is nothing more they think they need to add to it or they are not interested in adding anything more.

The basic trend here on Steam seems to be that if players do not like the state a game is in after version 1.0 comes out then they will want more content added to that game, or they will want more fixed, and if they do like a game then they won't feel anything needs to be added. Or atleast they won't care. That says nothing about what you are entitled to. If you don't like the state a post-1.0 game is in then that is too bad. You should've done more research.

I am just disappointed that too many people who bought Habitat cannot seem to tell the difference between Early Access and Version 1.0 beyond the version number, if they even know what version it is currently in. I bet if you ask anyone complaining about Habitat what the version number for it is, they won't know. It is like asking them what Early Access means - they expect all Early Access games to be feature-complete by the time they appear on Steam, which is even more stupid. In any good videogame review, I hope to see an evaluation of what the game in question is like when I buy it, not what the reviewer was expecting to see from it in the future.

EDIT 1: Fixed lack of spacing in a few areas and added to comment.

EDIT 2: Fixed punctuation and added to comment.

A developer may not have any obligation to work on a game past version 1.0 but unless they released a perfect game with no bugs then all they did was the bare minimum and that's how they will be seen. If the developer puts out another game after why should anybody buy it if they provided such poor post launch support as they did here ? They may not have an obligation but many developers provide post launch support and gamers should be giving their money to those who deserve it rather than those who do the bare minimum and call it a day.

[Zemecon]

Originally posted by PublicNuisance:

A developer may not have any obligation to work on a game past version 1.0 but unless they released a perfect game with no bugs then all they did was the bare minimum and that's how they will be seen. If the developer puts out another game after why should anybody buy it if they provided such poor post launch support as they did here ? They may not have an obligation but many developers provide post launch support and gamers should be giving their money to those who deserve it rather than those who do the bare minimum and call it a day.

If that is really the case then why aren't people criticizing the state Habitat is in right now? Why do so many of the reviews and forum posts assume that there was more promised to come when the update news clearly say Habitat is now in version 1.0 and hence should not be expected to update any further?

If a game on Steam is officially released into version 1.0 in a less-than-favourable state, you do not criticize the lack of updates it is getting - of course Habitat is not getting any new updates because it is already a released game. You criticize the state the game is currently in. Doing the former will provide a false and very misleading depiction of the game itself.

I should not have to look through the update history to make sure Habitat has in fact left Early Access. Players' comments and reviews should depict that.

EDIT: Split second paragraph.

[ΑΩ]

Too many gamers nowadays are over entitled pricks and this is justifying the gaming industry utterly ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ the rest us because of it, one of the reasons the gaming industry is moving in the 'gaming as a service' pattern is because people expect updates to keep happening to infinity, when the updates stop they start chanting 'abandoned' after a few months of not seeing a finished game being updated, so now the gaming industry hear this and think 'alright so here how we are going to profit, we'll keep updating games at infinite, but we'll also keep charging them money in a way or another at infinite' so infinite update in exchange for infinite profit.

People on Steam should understand that if their is an expectation that the Devs are going to keep working on the games, logically it mean their should be an expectation of them keep paying the Devs for the game, so unless they are willing to repay the Devs for every major updates they shouldn't be expecting the Devs to just keep working on a game for free indefinitely.

Me personally I rememeber how things used to be in the 90s, before Steam, you bought a game and that was IT, no updates you had the game you paid for final, later in the 00s you started to see updates to games being available on the internet, but those were few and small bug fixes mostly, no added content, those you had to wait and possibly buy an Expansion for, Steam appeared in the 10s early on it mostly worked like it did in the 00s but with Steam as a platform that ease the process rather than have to look online for patches, now you have DLCs, Early Access and Indie games that are all a thing... and people just seem to have forgotten entirely how things worked even a few years ago.

[PublicNuisance]

Originally posted by Lydia XIII:

Too many gamers nowadays are over entitled pricks and this is justifying the gaming industry utterly ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ the rest us because of it, one of the reasons the gaming industry is moving in the 'gaming as a service' pattern is because people expect updates to keep happening to infinity, when the updates stop they start chanting 'abandoned' after a few months of not seeing a finished game being updated, so now the gaming industry hear this and think 'alright so here how we are going to profit, we'll keep updating games at infinite, but we'll also keep charging them money in a way or another at infinite' so infinite update in exchange for infinite profit.

People on Steam should understand that if their is an expectation that the Devs are going to keep working on the games, logically it mean their should be an expectation of them keep paying the Devs for the game, so unless they are willing to repay the Devs for every major updates they shouldn't be expecting the Devs to just keep working on a game for free indefinitely.

Me personally I rememeber how things used to be in the 90s, before Steam, you bought a game and that was IT, no updates you had the game you paid for final, later in the 00s you started to see updates to games being available on the internet, but those were few and small bug fixes mostly, no added content, those you had to wait and possibly buy an Expansion for, Steam appeared in the 10s early on it mostly worked like it did in the 00s but with Steam as a platform that ease the process rather than have to look online for patches, now you have DLCs, Early Access and Indie games that are all a thing... and people just seem to have forgotten entirely how things worked even a few years ago.

A few months ? The game never got 1 single update after it was released over 2 years ago.

[AtomicWoodchuck]

Any fool can press the button which takes a game out of early access. That does not necessarily mean it is in any sort of releasable state.

I don't understand the point being made here.