Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
And I don't purchase EA products...this idiot tried it twice and was twice burned...hence this discussion. Understand that I'm not griping so much about my experience as questioning the "program." Car manufacturers make sure their car is driveable before they sell it to the public through adequate testing. There is no "program" whereby you buy a car (or cereal, or appliance, etc) that doesn't work, nor should there be even if the manufacturer warns you that its not gonna work right. What is wrong with play testing a game to see if it works before selling it to the public? Didn't that used to be common practice? "Deregulate" is and always has been the cry of industry, understandably so, but that doesn't make it right.
I too put them on my wishlist and wait til they are fully released. In fact, I usually wait for some time after a game is released so that bugs are worked out before I try it. So I learned my lesson with EA and will never do it again, ok?
Please read my #12 comment. I'm more interested to know how all this works than being told "if you don't like it, don't buy it."
You may have found some of the rotten games that end up being some sort of early access cash grab that taints the name.
Some devs just don't understand how important bugfixes and polish is. I believe ARK, as popular as it is, never fixed most of its early access complaints and instead went full steam ahead into DLC without ever fixing its broken state.
Software works different in this. In the past various games that now go through the Early Access program simply used to be called finished and got released. A game like Big Rigs is a major example of such. Or they never would have been made in the end. Or they ended up being a project like Duke Nukem Forever.
A program like Early Access is brilliant for up and coming developers, who can't make the deals with publishers to get the money to finish their project. By going through the Early Access program, they can gain some extra money, market the game and collect feedback from people willing to do so. People who purchase the Early Access games aren't required to provide feedback, nor is it part of the deal. It's an option that seems to be very interesting to lots of people, though.
Keep in mind that Early Access is not a substitute for playtesting. Playtesting is a whole different beast, where you don't play the game but replay certain parts (sometimes only fragments of levels) to reproduce a bug. Lots of Early Access games still have closed beta versions, for example.
Games like the ones I mentioned wouldn't have come out if they hadn't gone through the Early Access program. Game developers even stated that. The market has changed quite a lot. Nowadays the tools to create games are much easier to reach and understand(Unity and RPGMaker, for example), but there is also a lot more competition. In the meantime, the publishers have changed roles from being the party that handles the distribution to the one writing the cheques, though they've also become rather picky who they work with and press more deadlines. Early Access is for the small developers who cannot commit to the deadlines and pressure of the publishers, or who simply aren't in sight of them.
There is nothing wrong with the practise, as people tend to forget that most of the complaints people have about it can be said about "fully finished released games" as well. As I said, in that Early Access is the most honest program there is, as it actually labels itself for what it is. Yet people like to say that Early Access is bad cause the games are buggy messes, but do excuse the many games that don't go through Early Access but are buggy messes as well. At least with Early Access games you know it's being worked on.
One of the major things, however, that people tend to forget is that game development isn't something that goes fast as many games are years in development. A game that stays in Early Access for 4-5 years before it becomes a fully fledged game is actually normal.
The one complaint I personally have regarding games in Early Access is communication. But that's an issue for companies as a whole. I mean, Valve as well is terrible at it. But with Early Access games it would take away a lot of the complaints if game devs learned to better communicate with their players and provide regular news updates. Not saying anything for 3 months can be perceived as bad. Saying twice in that period what you're working on and showing some things will be perceived as good.
Early Access most honest ? Nah. Not even close.
EA comes with a minimum implied promise of, usually, extra content or bug fixes and too many don't get those improvements.
At least with a buggy mess completed game you aren't wishing on a star for the game to be completed.
S.x.
There is no promise. There are plans, but plans can change. But the moment you purchase an Early Access game, you purchase what it is at that moment. And you should accept that it might not change anymore.
People who get angry because their expectations weren't met have an issue with managing their own expectations. It's why I said that Early Access games aren't for everyone.
I remember the Accolade Co...they made one of the first amer football games and it was really good. And Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe. And Command and Conquer...I can't believe we thought it had such great graphics back then. lol
But I still think EA is a bad idea and will go back to my policy of waiting for some time AFTER a game comes out in full release before I give it a try. Good discussion and thanks to all for your comments. Stay safe.
On the positive part I've gotten quite many games that made it successfully out of Early Access.
Portal Knights, Subnautica, Slime Rancher, Besiege, Deep Rock Galactic, The Forest, Space Engineers, Unturned...
And some which although haven't made it to full release I'm still pleased with and enjoy them. 7 Days to Die, Empyrion.
And the few ones that went south weren't really a surprise for me (Interstellar Marines, GRAV) I knowingly took the risk so no harm when they didn't turn out as expected.
I have to say I DO take my time before buying into an Early Access project. I follow the games for a fair ammount of time to see if and how they evolve before buying any. Sometimes a deal is worth the risk of jumping in blind (I got Interstellar Marines on a $1 Bundle... Quite small loss if the game doesn't evolve)
My personal take about Early Access is it's based on two fundamental stones.
-Knowledge of software development cycles:
Early Access has only brought in front of gamers one of the sour realities of software development: In the real world most of the projects don't make it to the finish line. The average gamer wasn't aware of it. Sure we got some news here and there of 'game X' project being canned. But for the most part the bulk of projects that routinely suffer that destiny were pretty much invisible.
Early Access changed that. And IMHO beign aware of such a reality makes a difference in how these projects are perceived. Most of those will never make it to the finish line. But hey! you now get to own and play the game as it is. Instead of never ever getting to play or know it, buried in a drawer of a software company.
If you've ever wanted to read a never filmed script, an unfinished book or the original vision a director had for his film... You have a thing for Early Access games.
The second one is even more personal.
-Management of expectations:
This one is a very scarce one amongst regular gamers but it becomes even more crucial when dealing with Early Access titles. If one is prone to overhype oneself about a new game (reaction which usually results in dissapointment) you're going to have that even worse for Early Access titles.
Early Access have to be approached with the 'What you see is what you get and you're not guaranteed more than that'... If you approach an Early Access title thinking or hoping on 'what the game will be' you BETTER not touch the game right now and wait for that to happen (IF it happens)
If you're fine playing it as it is now, and welcome further development IF it happens. You're more in the correct mindset to join in the party.
Early Access didn't invent anything that wasn't there before. It has just opened the eyes to many of how things are really made. You're no longer in the butcher where meat is processed and you simply buy a steak. You're in the slaughterhouse following a piece of a cow that has that steak (which may or may not be of the expected quality).
Not everyone wants to go that far for a steak. Not everyone needs to.
To build on top of that. Software development has faced the same changes lots of other content-based businesses have faced.
Democratization of content-creation tools.
It's NEVER been that easy to create content. We have cameras of incredible quality at the tip of our fingertips, customer-level software to make music that can rival with professional tools. There's lots of development tools to make as easier as it never was to develop games and software.
And the distribution channels have never been so avaiable for everyone to release, publish, sell and advertise their own content to the world.
Gaming has faced what the movie industry faced with the VHS. Suddenly a lot more people could make movies. And just like happens with gaming now it meant a LOT of low value content was published, but it also meant a lot of talented people whose barrier of entry was economic or academic had those barrier removed and that new talent could develop.
Otherwise, I stay away from EA games. I don't love single games as much as I do gaming. I want to spend my time (and money) on a worthy gaming experience. Paying to test the game isn't my kettle of fish. Hell, I wouldn't even want to get paid to test a game as I got a job and want to spend my gaming time getting entertained, not working.
I remember willingly buying another EA game: Postal 4. Not because I want to help shaping, I merely want to express my support for Postal 4. Still, did that for the love of Postal 2.
All in all, I think EA is for die-hard fans and morons. The second group of people is apparent on the forum, buying a game explicitly labeld as unfinished, under development, then complaining about the saves becoming incompatible. That's quite moronic indeed.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the typical gamer though. I won't spend hundreds upon hundreds of hours on a MP game (unless it's got a fantastic core gameplay loop, i.e. Killing Floor 2 and Payday 2, long-term gains in terms of gear or rank don't motivate me as much as they do the more typical gamer) and early testing a singleplayer game isn't as motivating for me either as I'm not big on replaying SP games several times, again something IMHO way more common outside of my weirdness.
I agree with this. If you are satisfied with the game's current state and want to support the devs.
Should be no more than $10