安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Walk through an Idea? Seriously, are you high?
Source code..nightmares? Doom? I think you're in the wrong thread, let's stick to the OP, eh?
* Until the Mid 90's it was actually fairly uncommon for games to every be patched. Because there was no reliable way to inform owners of the existence of the patch, let alone get it to them. It wasn't until Internet access became ubiiquitous that the practice became feasible.
* COnsole and cartidge based games weren't patchable at all and many have legendery glitches and bugs that are storied to this day, some of them quite game breaking.
While it's fine for you to say 'Most' as you did, you are more showing that your experience in gaming is limited compared to others.
On this they agree. It is the devs choice. and sometimes they basically go with silence is better. RUmblings of the past are oft forgotten in the present and all that rot. ANd there's the simple fact that months of We're still working on addressing the memory leak for 12 months is going to have players mad anyway. The sort of players that would understand will generally understand the implications of your most recent post., Those that would interpret it to seuit whatever bias they want, will still be mad and complaining and putting the game down because you've spent 12 months on the same problem,
Not saying devs shouldn't strive for some middle ground but what that middle ground is varies depending on the developer, the game anbd the audience. The devs have a greater understanding of all these factors than anyone so the decision onsuch things is left up to them.
The simple point we come back to is there is a very explicit meaning to the game still being in Early Access. That is that the developer intends to go forward. SO as long as that blue banner is there... that is an explicit communication from the developer of intent. Unless you're the kind of person who has already decided that because things are not progressing as they think it should then it must be abandoned, etc. No amount of communication a dev does will ever satisfy these sorts.
As it stands.
- Early Access games are sold as-is. Meaning the only thing the developer is cobntractually obligated to provide you with is the current public development build. Nothing else.
- ANy prospective buyer can check a games update history before buying.
- Any interested part can choose to simply wait for the completed build of the game before buying unless there is some intinsic value the buyer finds in the Early Access state. Some experience or benefit or utility that can only be extracted during the early access phase.
- The prodoct is clearly labled as being unfinished. Warnings are given that the game may or maybot change. Prior to purchase in prominent display.
These four things taken into consideration mean the only person anyone has to blame for being dissatisfied with an Early access purchase is themselves. After all. They have access to the same information that caused others in the same situation to opt-out of purchase.
The buyer not taking the time to understand and consider the four points listed is basically their own fault and a sign that they place more emphasis on the act of purchasing than what they are purchasing. At least that's my read on the matter.
Pointing out the gaps in your reasoning and the truth of where faulty lies is not defending anything, it's just pointing out that the fact that you stubbed your toe on a bookshelf was not some grand conspiracy by Ikea, but just you being careless.
You choose to buy a game in Early Access. That means the object of your desire is an unfinished game. Why then complain if the game stays unfinished for a long period of timee?
I agree in full with this post and would also like to add and point out my particular take on the whole EA debacle, that is namely Valve/Steam have created these very grounds and conditions for customers to be potentially ripped off and it looks like they don't give a damn as long as they get their cut of the money, everything is good. I bet they'd bleat loudly if it was coming out of their billions though.
Do you know what the difference between 'being ripped off and not 'being ripped off'?
Being smart enough to understand what's on the table. Every time there's one of these threads it seems to always funnel down to a misinderstanding about what was being purchased. People blinded by what they want to see.
The product is clearly labled. All the information needed to come to buying decision that suits your own interests is there to be seen. Any dissatisfaction can only be as a result of one's error in iterpretting and weighing the information presented.
Yes I do know what being ripped off is and how not to be 'potentially' ripped of, I'll even furnish you with a classic and pertinant example in keeping with this thread in fact. To avoid being potentially ripped off, DO NOT BUY INTO EA. There you go. *I'm not just smart enough to see the table and its contents, I also see the goons and conmen sitting around it.
* Metaphorically speaking.
I'm done.
This is quite silly. it should not need to be stated "most developer's in today's market"as this should already be understood based on the context of the conversation being centered around the industry in the present time. Frankly, his questioning of whether your intent is just to put him down is justified, because your reading comprehension is demonstrably of the level that you can recognize he's talking about the market at present and not of a bygone era.
if you decide to ignore it and buy a game based on "promises" or "plans" thats on you, not Valve and not the Developers..
Thank you Sleepy Yoshi, someone that doesn't read a post with blinkers on. I think it went over his head so I'll just leave the thread.
Which is why its actually harder to sell a game in early access than it is to sell one outside of early access.
if a company is telling you not to buy something if you are not comfortable with it, then you can't really say they are being shady as they are being entirely upfront about it at the time of purchase..
if you bought a discounted recliner sofa, they told you the left recliner doesn't work anymore and you get home and the left recliner didn't work, would you say the store was being "shady"? no, they were upfront with you about it at the time of purchase
"its easy to tell" oh yea, just check out Code}{atch...♥♥♥♥♥♥ over Starforge to add revenue to their second game
It isn't really as 'explicit' as it should be though, it should warn the customer, you potentially lose, whilst we i.e. Valve and any 'dodgy' Dev team can keep the money and run, instead of seducing money out of the customer with the promise you 'might' get a finished game, no refunds. It's all a bit too greasy for me anyhow, that's why I won't touch EA, even with a 15 foot long pole covered in crap. Don't get me wrong, a way of helping along games being made is a good thing, but the way EA is set up on Steam? Nah.
I'm well aware of that and this has already been discussed, buying into EA is not the issue, it's the fact that the game is left in limbo at times for years with the players having no idea what's happening with it, if the devs know that development has finished then say so, if it's not finished then do the same but at least let players know what's happening. Everyone knows where they stand then and it avoids any confusion or misinformation being posted that might not be true but because the dev doesn't confirm or deny it, nobody knows what's going on except the dev who's silent and disappeared with no word at all.
...and where does it say they are allowed to revoke all access to said program with no refund ? If the guarantee is as is then they are not even doing that part of their own guidelines .
Because that is what Daybreak is doing and Valve is hoping this goes away unchallenged I bet .