Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Тема закрыта 
Автор обсуждения пометил сообщение как ответ на свой вопрос.
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
No, it really hasn't... are you old enough to know WHY Nintendo felt the need to slap their "Official Nintendo seal of Quality" on every single title released for their consoles?
A main reason for the video game industry crash of 1983 was the uprise of infamously bad games on the market, most notably E.T. for the Atari 2600, which was heavily advertised and consumers lost faith in the industry.
The very kind of nonsense you blame EA for is as old as the Atari. When Steam released their EA system to devs/consumers the market didn't crash, nor has it since. YoY growth is still on the rise.
Exactly!
Early access has, for better and worse, allowed a large amount of games to be developed that otherwise would not have. As gamers, we're in a golden age, with a wonderful variety of games and more new and inventive games than ever. It has its downsides, of course, but the upside is quite fantastic - and all that is required for avoiding the downside is a bit of buyer discretion.
To be fair, that's mostly what Dead LungS is advocating, except I think his concerns are a bit misplaced here.
Mark that as your answer OP. It's factually correct AND aligns with your opinion.
EA/DLC/Microtransactions are all just tools. In the case of Grounded, a Sandbox Survival, which tool would you prefer that they use? The devs have openly admitted there are no plans for paid DLC and I don't see any Lootboxes...
But couldn't Obsidian afford to develop this game on their own? Probably, the game would most likely suffer for it though. Besides, they have bigger IP's in the works to fund. In case you haven't noticed they're kinda busy setting themselves up to take over Bethesda's throne as they fall from grace.
You either die a hero or become the villain.
The game is made by a small group of devs inside Obsidian as a passion project. Companies don't just hand out money freely to whatever project some employees want to work on, that's a great way to go bankrupt. They are extremely strict and count every penny, especially in regards to unusual projects that aren't mainstream guaranteed successes. So the team for Grounded likely couldn't secure the budget they needed to fully realize the game, so they turned to Early Access for additional funding. It's the exact same reason many devs take Epic up on exclusivity offers, because the guaranteed minimum payout ensures that, worst case scenario, they don't go bankrupt.
We hear about these funding issues constantly when it comes to movies and tv, games are no different.
Or you know...let people do what they want? Some people really like the game even if it's just in early access.
It is definitely the best way to support developers. If they have to have a publisher, that is a bit more than it sounds. The publisher will front the bills, but as they take most of the risk*, they will take all the profits and then some. A developer who works with a publisher will never more than break even - they estimate their expenses, and that's all the payment they'll see. Unless the game does fantastically well, at which point they may see a couple of dollars. The only way to break out of that cycle is with EA or kickstarter games. It's rather annoying, really - even big-name developers are living mostly hand to mouth, because it's the publisher that takes all the profits if they do well. And if they don't... let's just say they have a big interest in not flopping. I'd like to see the creative minds rewarded, not the suits.
(*According to them. Of course, if the game flops, the developer is as often as not chopped up and sold for parts.).
So the term 'indie' means nothing then if 'most' developers work with other companies.
As i said before (to many others), there are only a few real indie games.
Thanks for the clarification :)
Well to be honest i prefer to play a good EA game where devs will place stuff in game that players actually ask for (like in Grounded) rather than buy AAA game that has some crap systems that i dislike.
That's not what I said, and nothing I said would support that statement, unless you misunderstood something. I'll happily help to clarify if you point out what caused you to interpret it that way.
With that said, Obsidian are not Indie. But if you see the interviews with Chris Taylor where he explains this stuff, you'll understand - Early Access is one of the ways a company, indie or not, can get a bit out from under the thumb of a publisher. That's a good thing.
I would object to someone demanding that players on principle SHOULD buy early access games, but I would also object to someone suggesting they shouldn't.
LOL not sure when that became a reasonable standard.
Spoiler: Your ROI is better with a prostitute.
I know that is not what you said, but that is what i am saying.
I never said that this was an indie game in the post and never pointed someone in a direction to think that way.