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
50 hours sounds great for EA, thanks.
I'd overwhelmingly recommend it right now.
This is sort of incorrect?
I'm a playtester, which means the playtest branch is continually being updated with new versions, and so my save transfers between many builds of the game - and I have yet to even encounter a crash.
As for the main branch, it is generally recommend to restart your save between major updates (such as the mines for example), especially as major updates tend to revamp areas / mechanics / interactions outside of the main content addition. However, it is not generally a *requirement* - but, as is the nature of games that have updates, there is indeed always a risk of instability.
When purchasing an early access game, you're signing up for the fact the game experience will change and grow over time, and thus bugs are no doubt certain to appear over time as the game is fully completed. However, crediting update / version-change bugs to making the polish level downgrade feels a little unfair, when the actual gameplay and experience *is* polished.