Selling DLC while in Early Access is Wrong. Peroid. Step up Valve, and do something please.

[RTX 5080 FE(Mr Happy)]

Game devs are now selling dlcs in early access and this is not going to end well for gamers.

We buy a game, taking a chance for a finished product, to support the devs, and before the game is finished, they are now selling dlcs, to add content. I paid for a game with intentions of it one day being finished.


Not it becoming a DLC cash machine.


Valve should add something to prevent early access titles from selling dlcs.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1377380/Night_of_the_Dead/

[Wolf Knight]

your a little late to the party when complaining about game dev's selling DLC while in Early Access (years late)

if you dont like how a game developer is behaving, stop buying from that developer.

[xBCxRangers]

It's a good point actually. If the game isn't even officially released, how do they come out with dlc? Idk, this Steam is getting nuts. More regulations needed.

[Wolf Knight]

Put game into EA, make DLC, switch game from EA to Complete, sell DLC

see the problem yet?

[Mad Scientist]

Cosmetics, completely optional. Not an issue whatsoever.

[Tito Shivan]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

It's a good point actually. If the game isn't even officially released, how do they come out with dlc? Idk, this Steam is getting nuts. More regulations needed.

Spoiler: It's not uncommon to work on future content while the main content is still being worked. In and out of Early Access.

Imagine Activision going gold with their last CoD, having their devs being paid for twiddling their thumbs for months because god forbid them to work on anything else BEFORE the game releases. Or not writing a line of code of the content update for next year because the one to release six months from now is still in progress.

It's kind of charming to see people astonished at what's software development 101.

And beware what you wish for.

[xBCxRangers]

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

It's a good point actually. If the game isn't even officially released, how do they come out with dlc? Idk, this Steam is getting nuts. More regulations needed.

Spoiler: It's not uncommon to work on future content while the main content is still being worked. In and out of Early Access.

Imagine Activision going gold with their last CoD, having their devs being paid for twiddling their thumbs for months because god forbid them to work on anything else BEFORE the game releases. Or not writing a line of code of the content update for next year because the one to release six months from now is still in progress.

It's kind of charming to see people astonished at what's software development 101.

And beware what you wish for.

You know Tito, it's dawned on me there are folks here, that would have us look at a mere nickel, and try to convince us it's fifty cents.

The premise it would seem to me, is simple. Come out with the finished game, and THEN put out the dlc.

OR, keep your incomplete, broken, dead, non playable money grub in EA indefinitely, while having junior charge his dads card, for a dlc that is as broken as the game itself.

"And beware what you wish for".

What i wish for is NORMALCY and fairness, in the gaming industry for it's consumers.

[Start_Running]

Nothing wrong for it. No more than selling appartments in a building that hasn'tg been completed yet.. IIf you think it's wrong. Fine. You can opt to not buy it OP. That's your choice. Others are free to make different choices.

[Mad Scientist]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Spoiler: It's not uncommon to work on future content while the main content is still being worked. In and out of Early Access.

Imagine Activision going gold with their last CoD, having their devs being paid for twiddling their thumbs for months because god forbid them to work on anything else BEFORE the game releases. Or not writing a line of code of the content update for next year because the one to release six months from now is still in progress.

It's kind of charming to see people astonished at what's software development 101.

And beware what you wish for.

You know Tito, it's dawned on me there are folks here, that would have us look at a mere nickel, and try to convince us it's fifty cents.

The premise it would seem to me, is simple. Come out with the finished game, and THEN put out the dlc.

OR, keep your incomplete, broken, dead, non playable money grub in EA indefinitely, while having junior charge his dads card, for a dlc that is as broken as the game itself.

"And beware what you wish for".

What i wish for is NORMALCY and fairness, in the gaming industry for it's consumers.

Optional cosmetics are normal these days and often fund additional development, just like the game the OP posted about, so it's completely cosmetic and completely optional which wont impact gameplay

DLC for some games is also normal if they want to make content aside from any promised or planned content.

Apps like American Truck Sim, the States are DLC as they actually travel, take photos, make models and put a fair amount of dollars & time into such work. In other words, it cannot be a base ie included portion of the app as they do not have enough information, expense spent or other material to try replicating the areas without more effort aforementioned expenses.

Other games make DLC while still in Early Access as they're not part of the planned Roadmap and the Dev came up with the idea either much later naturally, or from player feedback and some players do suggest making specific DLCs, which become the new DLCs.

People are free to vote with their wallet.

Make sure you're aware that this thread is in regard primarily to that game "Night of the Dead", and cosmetics which is again, completely optional. Most of the games people complain about in regard to DLC are cosmetics, and not expansions.

[ShelLuser]

I really fail to see the problem with any of this.

I mean, you know what you're buying into when you grab an Early Access game, so... why shouldn't that developer be able to provide DLC for it as well? Especially because those sales can also help 'm to fund the whole development process.

If you don't like it... then... I dunno, don't buy their product(s)?

Why should it affect the people who do appreciate all this? Just because you don't like something doesn't automagically mean that it's a bad thing in general. Not to mention that, as others also pointed out, this has been going on for years already and... the doom for gamers is still to happen :P

I'll take a free market where gamers can make up their own opinion about such games over a strictly regulated one any day of the week.

[ezwip]

Project Zomboid has been in early access for 11 years so I just have no love for the idea. It's a money grab by design.

[Chika Ogiue]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

while having junior charge his dads card, for a dlc that is as broken as the game itself.

There's your problem right there. Why is dad letting his kid buy stuff on his credit card without vetting the purchase first? Accept some responsibility of your own before demanding corporations and government protect the children from normal business practices, eh?

Also learn the concept of game development. Different teams work on different things. When a game goes gold, they have to freeze development on certain parts for various reasons: production, platform certification, rating certification, etc. But that doesn't mean and shouldn't mean you cannot retask parts of your workforce to concentrate on additional content that could then be shipped on release -- which could be months down the line from going gold depending on a range of things (release scheduling by platform holders is still a thing, too, and they don't always offer up the same dates worldwide).

And once again, people are forgetting they are WARNED what Early Access is. If dad didn't bother to read that message when first letting his kid use his credit card, that's on him, too.

[Pierce Dalton]

Yes, it is wrong. But you know what's even more wrong? Buying it

[( ( < < <🤖> > > ) )]

i dont support ea...
but i enjoy people that want to feel ripped off and pay for ea to do it..

if you read the warning and are supporting ea... support it all...

its not like the money is doing anything in your pocket....

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

Yes, it is wrong. But you know what's even more wrong? Buying it :WH3_greasus_rofl:

Its like pre-ordering at this point when you think about it, in an odd way its buying something before its even out or paying out 200$+ more dollars to get a fancy sparkling golden hardhat with a rubber nob on the front of it.

Bad example yes but its just a meme hat for 200$+. How many do you think will buy it? Fallout 4 has taught me that many will..

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Spoiler: It's not uncommon to work on future content while the main content is still being worked. In and out of Early Access.

Imagine Activision going gold with their last CoD, having their devs being paid for twiddling their thumbs for months because god forbid them to work on anything else BEFORE the game releases. Or not writing a line of code of the content update for next year because the one to release six months from now is still in progress.

It's kind of charming to see people astonished at what's software development 101.

And beware what you wish for.

You know Tito, it's dawned on me there are folks here, that would have us look at a mere nickel, and try to convince us it's fifty cents.

I agree. They usually also have you look at lawsuits about storing account data for those under 13 and say that it's about loot boxes.