Why is the Developer listed as "Intercept Games" - that company has been shut down.

[MashMash]

This is surely false advertising?

[Sparkled]

Intercept was the company who developed the game. All indications are that the game is no longer being developed. This is like any other game whose developer no longer exists, it's a statement of who did the work bot that the work is on going.

[sandokanski]

The one thing that can be false advertising is "Early Access" label, which means the game is still in development. As far as I know the original studio was shut down and the publisher company was sold by Take-Two to unknown buyer.

The only way this is not false advertising is if the new owners decide to continue the development. But I very much doubt it. Maybe there will be KSP 3 in the future with the IP sold.

[Lisias]

Intercept Games *WAS NOT* shutdown. They fired everybody and sold all the physical assets (like chairs), but the thing still exists as a Legal Entity.

It's just a legality, but still, if you are talking about false advertising, legalities are all what matters.

Almost surely Intercept Games, right now, is just a folder with some documents, tape backups and contracts, stored on some cabinet in a rented storage space with the name "Private Division" on it.

Not saying I like this situation, but I'm not a Judge neither a Legislator - Laws don't require your agreement, only your compliance.

[phoneticdecay]

Ah yes. The legal ease in this situation does mean that the corporate entity is still "alive" ... that is a far cry from "under development" by said entity.

Without any physical bodies listed in the corporate roster, that would mean there is some fallacy to what is being promoted.

[Lisias]

Originally posted by phoneticdecay:

Ah yes. The legal ease in this situation does mean that the corporate entity is still "alive" ... that is a far cry from "under development" by said entity.

Without any physical bodies listed in the corporate roster, that would mean there is some fallacy to what is being promoted.

And exactly how do you think we would fix this fallacy by committing another one?

Look, besides not looking like, I agree with you. I don't like the present situation, and I'm disgusted that the real responsibles for this ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ managed to walk from the consequences.

But yet, they walked. Worst, we allowed it. Even worst, we are deciding to do something **JUST NOW** when the real responsibles are definitively shielded and any backslash will hit exactly the one that it's footing some money on this mess and, perhaps, **MAY** be willing to do something about.

Exactly **WHY** this outrage just now, and not 6 months ago?

Don't you feel like being played? Again?

[phoneticdecay]

Originally posted by Lisias:

Originally posted by phoneticdecay:

Ah yes. The legal ease in this situation does mean that the corporate entity is still "alive" ... that is a far cry from "under development" by said entity.

Without any physical bodies listed in the corporate roster, that would mean there is some fallacy to what is being promoted.

And exactly how do you think we would fix this fallacy by committing another one?

Look, besides not looking like, I agree with you. I don't like the present situation, and I'm disgusted that the real responsibles for this ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ managed to walk from the consequences.

But yet, they walked. Worst, we allowed it. Even worst, we are deciding to do something **JUST NOW** when the real responsibles are definitively shielded and any backslash will hit exactly the one that it's footing some money on this mess and, perhaps, **MAY** be willing to do something about.

Exactly **WHY** this outrage just now, and not 6 months ago?

Don't you feel like being played? Again?

My outrage is mostly spent.
So now my efforts are spent at directing it toward steam reform and taking offense when people attempt to use "as is" for their almighty shield.

I have a strong moral dislike fallacious claims. Attributing Early Acess on a defunct publisher and imaginary develope foots the bill.

How does someone else owning the game now mitigate the fallacies of the store page or situation. If this unnamed entity were to come out of the woodworks I might change my opinion.
As it stands two wrongs doesn't make it right?
That's a poor stance to justify a grand stage being set for this becoming a new standard

[PopinFRESH]

Originally posted by phoneticdecay:

Originally posted by Lisias:

And exactly how do you think we would fix this fallacy by committing another one?

Look, besides not looking like, I agree with you. I don't like the present situation, and I'm disgusted that the real responsibles for this ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ managed to walk from the consequences.

But yet, they walked. Worst, we allowed it. Even worst, we are deciding to do something **JUST NOW** when the real responsibles are definitively shielded and any backslash will hit exactly the one that it's footing some money on this mess and, perhaps, **MAY** be willing to do something about.

Exactly **WHY** this outrage just now, and not 6 months ago?

Don't you feel like being played? Again?

My outrage is mostly spent.
So now my efforts are spent at directing it toward steam reform and taking offense when people attempt to use "as is" for their almighty shield.

I have a strong moral dislike fallacious claims. Attributing Early Acess on a defunct publisher and imaginary develope foots the bill.

Steam doesn't need reforming. People who'd spend $50 on an empty and completely broken sandbox, as an early access launch of a product that all of the prior developer discussions regarding 3+ years of delays had a tone and tenor of launching a feature complete game, need to go buy a mirror instead of the next early access game.

Stupid threads like this one really trying to stretch to reach for that "false advertising" claim is hardly in good faith or based on any rational thought.

[Lisias]

Originally posted by phoneticdecay:

As it stands two wrongs doesn't make it right?

It never does.

Originally posted by phoneticdecay:

That's a poor stance to justify a grand stage being set for this becoming a new standard

There's this curated list:

https://store.steampowered.com/curator/41065531-Abandoned-EA-Games/

On it, there *WAS* a game called OpenTDD. The game was update early 2024 December, but the game was still listed there, so until someone fixed the problem, a good, in active development game was tagged as "Abandoned" on this list until yesterday. And I know because I found this list yesterday, and found it listed there.

So a single dude developer got his work tagged as abandoned because he have a life and could match the expectations of some people, delivering updates and posting nonsense just to be there, pushing away people from a otherwise healthy (but slow) project.

THIS IS NOT how a Indie friendly store should behave.

Originally posted by PopinFRESH:

Steam doesn't need reforming.

I respectfully disagree, there're improvements to be made. But **this** is not one of them, no doubt.

Welcome back, by the way - I had noticed you were banned yesterday, reviewed your last your posts (here and in other forums) and didn't found anything remotely fishy, so I concluded the obvious.

[matze1967]

If nobody ever got gaslit we would not have any gaslighters. As true as this is logically, this is only a thing in a normative world. A world full of ‚this is the way it should be‘ instead of the faulty reality. Reality is full of gaslighting, and people fall for it for a variety of reasons.

The problem with the normative view on the world is the troublesome logic that ends in all of a sudden blaming the victims and trying to make them perpetrators. One of the reasons why dictators often proclaim the normative world as their own.

[sandokanski]

Originally posted by Lisias:

THIS IS NOT how a Indie friendly store should behave.

Well, an indie friendly store can take into account that some games are indie and some are not. KSP2 is not an indie game. It is (or was) property of a corporation Take-Two Interactive, which works with billions.

[Lisias]

Originally posted by sandokanski:

Originally posted by Lisias:

THIS IS NOT how a Indie friendly store should behave.

Well, an indie friendly store can take into account that some games are indie and some are not. KSP2 is not an indie game. It is (or was) property of a corporation Take-Two Interactive, which works with billions.

On this, I **FULLY** agree and it's the reason I disagree above about steam not needing being reformed.

I would had supported this movement when TTWO was still owning this thing.

Now?

[sandokanski]

Originally posted by Lisias:

On this, I **FULLY** agree and it's the reason I disagree above about steam not needing being reformed.

I would had supported this movement when TTWO was still owning this thing.

Now?

I think they have all the tools required to deal with such situations. They can remove Early Access label. They can tag the game as abandoned. And they can remove the ability to purchase the product.

They just need to get sober after Christmas and do their jobs.

[PopinFRESH]

Originally posted by Lisias:

Originally posted by sandokanski:

Well, an indie friendly store can take into account that some games are indie and some are not. KSP2 is not an indie game. It is (or was) property of a corporation Take-Two Interactive, which works with billions.

On this, I **FULLY** agree and it's the reason I disagree above about steam not needing being reformed.

I would had supported this movement when TTWO was still owning this thing.

Now?

Both of you are implicitly suggesting that Early Access is for the purpose of funding the development of such projects. While that might have been true in regards to the spontaneous "early access" originally done by very small independent developers in conjunction with, and as a method of, crowd funding their projects; this is not what "Steam Early Access" is; as explicitly laid out in the Steamworks documentation.

Originally posted by Valve:

What Early Access Is Not

Early Access is not a way to crowdfund development of your product.

You should not use Early Access solely to fund development. If you are counting on selling a specific number of units to complete your game, then you need to think carefully about what it would mean for you or your team if you don't sell that many units. Are you willing to continue developing the game without any sales? Are you willing to seek other forms of investment?

Early Access is not a pre-purchase

Early Access is not meant to be a form of pre-purchase, but a tool to get your game in front of Steam users and gather feedback while finishing your game.

Early access is for soliciting feedback from the target player base during development of the project. That has nothing to do with the bank account of the entity doing the development or who's publishing it. There is no reason a larger AA or AAA studio shouldn't be able to involve their target audience in their development process using early access. I.e. Larian with Baldur’s Gate 3; Larian being a relatively larger AA studio that had the backing of a multi-billion dollar partner in Hasbro for the project. Why aren't all of you crying about this with Inept Games being backed by Take Two out there storming the Baldur’s Gate 3 discussions decrying their use of Early Access too?

[sandokanski]

Originally posted by PopinFRESH:

... out there storming the Baldur’s Gate 3 discussions decrying their use of Early Access too?

I mean, that's obvious. BG3 doesn't use EA tag currently. I wouldn't be here if this game had this tag removed.

[PopinFRESH]

Originally posted by sandokanski:

Originally posted by PopinFRESH:

... out there storming the Baldur’s Gate 3 discussions decrying their use of Early Access too?

I mean, that's obvious. BG3 doesn't use EA tag currently. I wouldn't be here if this game had this tag removed.

Ah, so just a bad faith argument then; I see.

Why weren't you all storming their discussions when they were in Early Access? Why was it ok for Larian to use Early Access but not for Inept Games to use it?

You implied the claim that Early access shouldn't be able to be used by studios that have the backing of an entity that "works with billions"; so why do you hold a double standard in regards to Larian?