Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
For an early-access title, Valheim is fully stable. In 600 hours or so I never had any bug or crash.
I prefer developers who work slowly but steadily to create a game based on a unified design and with sufficient time for testing and debugging.
Then ofc the opportunities are limitless for expansion, as they could use existing portal tech at the end of the world and whisk people away to a completely new alternative reality with new biomes, but thats more of a v2.0 dream anyway
- Star Wars Squadrons: about 3 years
- Mass Effect 1: ~4 years
- Sims 2: about 4 years
- Kenshi: 12 years total, 5 years in Early Access
- Rimworld: 5 years in Early Access
- Minecraft Dungeons: about 5 years
- Fallout 3: about 4 years with Bethesda, +2 years with Interplay
- Don't Starve: about 3 years
- Astroneer: ~3 years in Early Access
- Diablo 3: ~10 years
- Team Fortress 2: ~9 years
- Owlboy: ~10 years
- Valheim: Early Access February 2021 (about 2 years and 4 months)
With that out of the way, two more biomes are missing: ashlands and deep north. Also, numerous content revisions/updates, bug fixing, and QoL.
Christmas 2024 I would Guess.
That would give them a similar amount of time to do Deep North the way they want it and sync with a major Holiday for max new sales.
I don't see the need to rush though there is a marvellous Modding community if you cant wait for variety (Use at own peril! Not official, doom Doom DOOM! - ok I said it?) that I have personally been impressed with but you do you.
why would you think it's okay to say it's complete in the state it's currently in?
there's going to be a lot more added to the game and then they have to optimize it all, it just takes time considering the size of the team working on it.
Bad experience I had with another game called "Diplomacy Not an Option". Too long to wait for interesting content. Diiferent genre than this one, but both are still in early access.
I'm the type of guy who buy base game plus all DLC, except cosmetic DLC. I've played NMS for 400+ hours. Got bored. Not interested to try out the newly released contents. So I prefer to have all contents in place before I start playing it.
But based on your experience, then I think I'll have to wait for next year. Thanks for the input.
Because... it's not. It's still being worked on.
It's playable in it's current state - as stipulated by Steam's rules for early access.
It's in a very satisfying playable state - bonus for us players.
There are regular updates and it's not abandonware- we're winning.
Buying an EA game is not buying a promise of a finished game.
You can buy the game on HB for about $17. Considering the depth of content currently available to play as an EA game, it's good value. If you pull 100 hours from it (and most do), it's worth the money.
Agreed. Purchasing an EA game is almost like investing in an IPO. Sometimes you win sometimes you lose. There are fully released games that I have played for a fraction of the time that I've played Valheim so I'd call it a win.
I understand where you coming from but I got well over 1000 hours on file and am by NO MEANS in the top percentile of the folks you have played the most.
There is plenty of content and repeatability but I totally get your point of view
I'm in his camp. Got some trepidation about what this is and isn't and how much enjoyment I'll get out of it.
That said, it's $12 right now and that is the average cost of a fast food combo meal these days. I bought it because I'm rich like that, yo. Got that #4 with extra mac sauce money.
I think it would be fair to say it would take a normal playthrough 40 - 80 hours at this state of development.
The game is developed in a additive manner, that is to say most of the new content is added to the 'end game', though some is added to earlier biomes occasionally.
For the asking price you will get value for money if you like this type of game as it stands and more is coming so the value increases.
I've played Valheim about as long as I played Elden Ring (about 240 hrs) before I gave up on Elden Ring. I'm not done playing Valheim, as I've only found/explored 2 of the biomes at this point. There's lots to do and enjoy in this early access game. (I keep reading EA as Electronic Arts.) So, I've gotten more play from Valheim than I did from a fully finalized game.
This isn't a game you play with intent to complete. It's an experience. Like most survival games. Like Minecraft or Terraria, the games with extremely similar gameplay loops that Valheim is clearly based on.
I understand the psychological need to have a true, finalizing ending to a game, but not every game is about that. MMOs go on forever, for instance. Minecraft's attempt at an ending is basically an inside joke that there isn't a damn ending.
The question shouldn't be "is this complete?" The question should be "how much fun is there to have?" And that's been answered several times here: Hundreds of hours.