ติดตั้ง Steam
เข้าสู่ระบบ
|
ภาษา
简体中文 (จีนตัวย่อ)
繁體中文 (จีนตัวเต็ม)
日本語 (ญี่ปุ่น)
한국어 (เกาหลี)
български (บัลแกเรีย)
Čeština (เช็ก)
Dansk (เดนมาร์ก)
Deutsch (เยอรมัน)
English (อังกฤษ)
Español - España (สเปน)
Español - Latinoamérica (สเปน - ลาตินอเมริกา)
Ελληνικά (กรีก)
Français (ฝรั่งเศส)
Italiano (อิตาลี)
Bahasa Indonesia (อินโดนีเซีย)
Magyar (ฮังการี)
Nederlands (ดัตช์)
Norsk (นอร์เวย์)
Polski (โปแลนด์)
Português (โปรตุเกส - โปรตุเกส)
Português - Brasil (โปรตุเกส - บราซิล)
Română (โรมาเนีย)
Русский (รัสเซีย)
Suomi (ฟินแลนด์)
Svenska (สวีเดน)
Türkçe (ตุรกี)
Tiếng Việt (เวียดนาม)
Українська (ยูเครน)
รายงานปัญหาเกี่ยวกับการแปลภาษา
กฎและแนวทางปฏิบัติในกระดานสนทนา
รายงานโพสต์นี้
I regret supporting Stormworks development, firstly because devs got to 1.0 without all promised features (game was really 0.7 at that time) and not only ignored many customer complaints but they silence people both on steam and discord, to create a more positive overall community while barring anyone who is more critic of their work.
But that is not enough a reason for me to want Steam to ban ALL early access games. Just because many abuse this feature does not mean there are those who actually use it properly to fund their games while still in development. Look at Dead Cells.
If anything, Steam should be more active and hold some standards instead of just opening the gates to this stupid amount of scams
Two Early Access games of all the ones I own I could consider them 'flops':
-Interstellar marines. I actually bought it when it was already apparent it would likely not reach the milestones it promised. But I paid $1 for it in a bundle. At that price it was no big loss if it finally flopped.
-GRAV. Another one I bought when it appeared it wasn't going to be one of the successful ones. Again I got it really cheap, so no big loss if it flopped. And I got several hours of entertainment from it. So I consider the expense covered in this case.
The rest? Released (Subnautica, Portal Knights, Slime Rancher...) or in a good shape (7DtD)
Thing is games take a LOT of time to be made. One of the problems Early Access has is it has put in display how software development work. In essence, Early Access games are not that different from 'regular' ones, but on regular games people don't get to see the process.
It's like a magic box:
Cow gets in -> Sausages come out
But with early access people get to see the process... And most of it is neither fun nor pleasant.
And just like in regular game development not every project ends up released. End up in an alpha or beta stage, in some forgotten drawer. Again the difference being making the player an spectator of the process
That's another thing to account for in regards Early Access: It's something it would have happened regardless of Steam.
The old forums got weekly request for Minecraft to be in Steam. It was so requested Notch himself had to make an statement about. People wanted to buy these kind of games. And where there's a will, there's someone willing to facilitate it.
And it's not just Steam doing it, other stores also feature Early Access titles under different denominations (And these places can piggiback off Steam's heavy lifting and offer just the most popular ones. Otherwise they'd have to play at 'guess what the next big thing will be')
So If not in Steam it would have happened elsewhere, and in that scenario the threads here would be 'Why they're not in Steam?' as it was before the feature even existed.
Why should early access be made illegal? It's one thing to say you don't want Steam or another store to sell games under that format, but to make the entire concept illegal? You'd be shutting down entire websites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, places where independent creators and makers were able to get funding for their projects that they never could have otherwise, all because you're disappointed that not every project manages to be completed or that some people decide to scam others? The scams should be illegal, crowdfunding shouldn't.
What bothers me is that this process is using players desire to play those games which do not exist yet.
And is based on trust.
1) Based on natural selection rules, the better ones should survive.
If a developer gets money in advance, as long as that works, he has no pressure to hurry and finish the game. The system encourages to work as slowly as possible when money flows in.
2) If a developer is overconfident, he will fail to reach his targets. On a market where developers would try to sell after the game is ready, their failure would punish them or the investors. In this case they learn but players bear the loss. The developer just walks away, maybe even with a small profit.
3) The emotional impact of the process. If you say that enjoying playing games a lot is OK, if you get information about the game in advance, you have wait until is ready. By the time you get the game, you may have learned to wait and you will not care anymore. You might play a different game and just enjoy that a game you funded has a succesful release. Even worse, you might get early samples full of bugs which ruin the enjoyment of playing the game.
If you say that enjoying playing games a lot is bad and addiction should be punished by taking peoples money away (that's what this whole entertainment industry is doing - and is legal) then Early Acces does a good job.
When those people end up dissapointed, we like to tell them "You do not know what Early Access means"
Why do any of these potential issues mean crowdfunding should be made illegal? Do you think a publisher or developer taking down multiplayer servers should also be illegal, since players who bought the game now no longer have access to the product they originally paid for? What about updates to a game that is not early access that still dramatically change how the game is played, such as adding microtransactions or removing levels?
Why loot boxes are not seen with good eyes? Why microtransactions are bad? Especially if at P2W?
You gave your answer already.
Also, What about updates to a game that is not early access that still dramatically change how the game is playe. ...
Even if they do not add microtransactions, they can change the game and you may not like it. You payed for a product, you should be able to have that exact version you payed for. Steam doesn't allow that anymore. You are forced to upgrade. That is unfair.
Regarding multiplayer i'll answer in a separate post.
I wanted to add a point to those 3 above.
4) MMOs have a lot of grind. You can still enjoy it because in a guild you chat with people. You have that comunity feeling. Meanwhile chat in games moved to discord. When your guild moves to another MMO, you remain part of the guild.
Early Access developers build similar comunities on discord, with people willing to feel part of that community and to receive attention from the dev. Those are the white knights we see on forums. It is another form of addiction, not to the game but to help testing and receiving developer's gratitude.
Can't win everyone that the simple fact of life, but here the thing, if they make promises, it could hurt them if they don't hold up their end of the deal, remember no man sky? That wasn't early access, it was release as a finished game... Then got thrown back into R&D, and rework as EA for awhile.
That's always been the case despite it being EA, or not for how a game can survive, or not. Yes if given money in advance, they can work in their own pace, but at same time, if there lack of funding, it may impack on the outcome, another thing is not everyone got all kinds of money to just whip out things on the fly to start up their project if they hire people, and paying for things to make help make their project. So giving it in advance is not always bad. I mean games get pitch to publishers to get approved for funding to make it, those that didn't make the cut end up not being made, and that just only one few of the problems in the industry.
Yes it can lead to game fail if not careful how things are handle, because with finished game, that what you get, just a fixed topping pizza, say order pizza, and not given choice how the outcome will be, you get Hawaiian pizza didn't like, well that was it, you got Hawaiian pizza, enjoy, there nothing can do that just the outcome they just walk away like you said, customers that bought get burn. For EA it's haven't been fully finalize, so never know what going to get at the end, so it can be meat lover pizza, cheese pizza, who knows, it can come out good, or bad depending how things goes, and could always make suggestion to affect the outcome as well, for all know could turn from pepperoni pizza, to a Deluxe pizza, to meat lover, who knows.
It's always an emotional impact of the process may it be EA, or not. You rip that box open for finish product, and wow you didn't like it, I know crazy. That why can't win everyone, and the fact there no way of knowing how things goes from start to finish of a game, I mean could watch whole wallkthrough of the game, but if did that, just ruin your own experience, and spoilers, which point of seeing just bit of gameplay was to get an ideal, and anymore beyond that would ruin it for yourself.
You could wait for game to come out of EA, or try it out during EA, and etc, and the point of being in EA is to get to see what vision of they want to make their product before finishing it, by the time it finished, you would either enjoy the trip, or hated give, or take. It just like in the past, where demos used to be very common that would cost time, and money to make demos, and demos don't end up matching what the finish product, yeah that basically almost like EA, but you get whatever the outcome going to be, that can be affected by the community if driven by support for it. There are good EA games, and there bad EA games, it all varies how the devs, and community handle the outcome really.
Don't forget, even finished games can get added crap like microtransactions, or such to slap ontop of the game. Can make it P2W, or such, can look at example Ubisoft where they're pushing for microtransactions in a single player game...
Hold up, so you're saying it's bad for people to reamin part of the community even if some people moved onto another game? Do realize just because part of a community doean't mean it's a bad thing, there no unspoken rules that need to move onto another game just because someone moved on, that never been the case, people choose what games to play, and may even stick around playing same games as long they want, whenever as well, even being part of that community there no unspoken rules must leave it, or stay as it's your own choice.
Most communities have known lifers...EA or not. Games like Dwarf Fortress and Project Zomboid are very dependent on those types of community members. They're a knowledge base that knows the game's history and past issues, they help other gamers with gameplay questions and some devs rely on them for quick gameplay tests and accurate feedback.
Also, these community members are incredibly important for older games. Beneath a Steel Sky and Bladerunner now are playable again because of those people. They deserve the kudos they get.
I'm sorry but this "complaint" reads like sour grapes because someone didn't gell well with the existing community dynamics.
Edit: This actually reminds me of people shouting down Bethesda forum regulars, claiming everyone is a "White Knight", when in reality the game's fine, they've just installed all 492 of their mods incorrectly and are looking for someone to blame.
That is about as blatant a disclaimer as you can get so I see no reason why they should do away with it simply because people ignore that. It doesn't matter what the developers promise. Steam is clearly telling you that you are making a purchase AS IS so you can either accept that fact or just not make the purchase. It's not that hard.
Also what is the definition of a "complete" game? If I made a game that consisted of an open field that you can walk around in and nothing else would that be a complete game or not? If I released that game as a complete game and then added content later would that be different than early access?
Early access is meant to help developers who may have the funding to start off but not necessarily to finish. It allows them to demonstrate a product and get the support they need. Some abuse it for sure, but they'll do that anyway. There are plenty of games that are in similar or even worse states than some early access titles that are sold as complete games. Getting rid of early access wouldn't stop that. It would just get rid of the disclaimer. At least as it is now you are warned to only buy it if it is currently in a state that you think is good enough.
If they don't buy it, then the matter is over.
The problem here then is their own twisted perspective. They are aware of them and do not choose to engage. That should be the end of it.
There would be no legal grounds for them to do so if you read that, because finishing the game is NOT a condition.
This is a common fallacy.