安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
To me it means Paying for acces to test a game to report bugs and mistakes, that a paid person should of done instead.
Why invest to much in game testers when you can make players do it and even earn on it?
One would think being part of testing an unfinish product would get you a good deal? well that dosent seem to be the case and any game is most likely to hit 15-50% sale eventualy if not more all games on steam seems overpriced at first
Finish the game and have my money, not have my money and *maybe* finish the game at some point.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/439950/
Like wtf is that seriously? hahahahaha
95% crap which will never be developed beyond its listing point, 1% potential gold (Kerbal Space Program) and 4% games that may be released in a decent condition.
When Early Access was first introduced the idea was to pay a low entry price to be part of the game's development and receive the finished product when it was released. That meant a $5-$10 entry price that gradually increased as the game got closer to release/preorder. It was a cool concept for supporting new developers and Indie teams and I much endorsed it. Kerbal Space Program was one of the early entrants which used the initial pricing model with a price of $5 when it was first listed on Early Access. Then the big studios and some well-backed KickStarter developers started getting involved and setting their Early Access prices at or above the eventual release price point. Planetary Annihilation was one of the most egregious examples of this where they posted their game up for Early Access at $90 and argued that it was only fair because their KickStarter backers had paid the same amount and it wouldn't be fair to offer it up for less (it eventually was listed for $60 at release). Since then all Early Access games have been listed at full release price. That wouldn't be so bad if a significant percentage of them were making it to full release. But the entire system has become a cesspool of student projects and greedy unscrupulous cashgrabs and even the ones that have interesting concepts rarely receive more than a handful of updates before being abandoned.
Nowadays I might mark an interesting Early Access game to my wishlist for purchase if it ever gets a full release but I won't spend a cent on any of them until they reach full release.
+1
"Don't buy this yet unless you're absolutely certain you want to throw money at the devs."
Note that this does not involve asking what kind of game it is.
It doesn't matter what kind of game it is. It doesn't matter how fun it looks. It doesn't matter how much I think I will love the game.
Unless I have a clear idea of how the devs work, I shouldn't buy an Early Access game.
Now, if it's a finished game, that's another story.
but if anyone is saying that gaming now is worse because of Early Access and that gaming was better before Early Access I would I have disagree for the exact opposite reasons as that person.