Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Well I like the idea of EAG, but it seems to me that some companies abuse the system. Should Blizzard charge people to test their next expansion? No way. If you are trying to develop something you want to make money off, let people who want to spend their time helping YOU make money, do it for free.
EAG should be about funding games that would otherwise have a very hard time getting published, not to boost the income of major already-rich companies.
On the other hand i like the part that we have couise, if we like to get the game early we can and if not then not, i do some what agree that maybe a company that can afford dose not need to ask to pay for there EAG, but over all these did start as a closed beta (i was there) and closed alpha that were given out for free, these i guess is there open Beta stage, before the game will go out soon
If people cannot be bothered to read the EAG disclaimer than they need to be wearing a helmet and only have supervised internet time. Promised features are irrelevant as it cleary says you are buying the game as is and features can be changed or emoved at whim.
There are reviews and forum sections for actual users to voice whether the quality,speed, and promises of a developer is up to expectations.. If people Can't read the EAG disclaimer then they likely can't be bothered to read those vote talies. The mandatory two week updates is meaningless as each one could be something as simple as a tyo fixed. The this game is going tobe finished button would be way too proned to abuse. Look at all the complaints about DayZ and its development, despite since being released last December with a warning that it would be at least a year at the earliest before it even enters beta, people still complain about it being buggy and unfinished. Or look at Rust it was progressing decently and went through several design changes. Ultimately it was not meeting developer expectations and rather than build on what they considered a sub-par base, they decided to scrap the game for the most part and rebuild it from the ground up for a better game/user experience. This will undoubtedly cost them a lot as well as keeping potential buyers waiting even longer to purchase. I'm sure both these games would have the its never going to be completed button pressed until it breaks.
Yeah refunds are a dicey issue, and I'm on the side of EAG games should be sold at a discount of the planned release price (as some already do). Steam should take action against any extremely misleading/exploitative titles and in some rare cases they do. The EAG system is less than a 1.5 years old. It takes awhile to develop games especially for these smaller developers that don't have an influx of cash from publishers or the staff and resources of the big name guys using the same engines and resources to pump out yearly franchise entries.
If anything Early Access has the oppurtunity to break the cycle of lackluster and uninventive games. I find the game market very similar to what the film market has become since videogames have become so mainstream.. You rarely see a big name quality title that is willing to break the mold and try something new. The big name studios want to minimize risk so they focus on tried and true formulas and sequels, while you see indie film/game makers experimenting/innovating but are obviously unable to match the high budget production values the major studios employ. With the sheer number of titles it seems harder and harder to do something that is new and amazes.
Early Access games have the potential to turn the system on its head. It gives the consumer even greater choice. New game ideas the big names wouldn't dare to try are a staple of indie games. Consumers can put their money where their mouths are and support new ideas that they accuse the industry of lacking. Early access allows those developers to not only get large amounts of valuable feedback ut also additional funding allowing them to enhance their titles to rival traditional developers and publishers. Yes the system is new and has the potential for abuse and failures, but like any successful system it will be refined over time and consumers will better learn how to choose which titles to support. If anything Early Access has the ability to bring in a renaissance for the game industry ushering a new age of opportunities once thought impossible.
As for AAA Companies doing Early Access? Hell yeah. I'll trade the complete black hole of information we used to get from AAA companies for the complete transparency of the state and condition of a game that comes with Early Access.
It's the difference between an AAA game coming out with in-house testing *but* none of us having a clue about the actual state of the game till release day. (both gameplay and bugs),
VS
voluntary testing, and possibly still in-house testing, and complete transparancy of the state of the game, what the game is like as well as how buggy it is before it even comes out of Early Access.
No, it doesn't amount to using Steam as a 2nd kickstarter campaign, they're entirely different things. Kickstarter's asking for money to get a game idea off the ground. And unless a certain limit is hit you don't even pay anything. It also doesn't necessarily come with a copy of the game depending on how much you pay.
Early access is buying an early copy of the game, with entrance to alpha/beta tossed in.
We disagree a lot here then. I'd personally say the amount of people seeing an Early Access game and going "Oh boy! I'm gonna find me some bugs and report them!" is absolutely miniscule to the amount who just liked the concept and can't wait to play it so they buy it already (or just as likely, see a famous Youtuber play it and get hyped up to buy it)
The bulk of testing happens because people *play* the game and then complain when they run into bugs, which is something people do with new games and early access games alike. The amount of people purposely trying to find bugs is generally a minority at best. Heck, go to the forums of any Early Access games and you'll find a mass of people complaining the game isn't finished/plays like a beta etc (the ignorant ones, of which there are many)