Early Access Is Ruining PC Gaming and Steam.

[Morisato]

So i've been thinking this for awhile So many Games now On Steam and we only get a Finished game Ocassionally, Developers sit in Early access for years On years and We Buy the game play it In A Pre alpha State get bored and Likely never ever touch it again.

Really Early Access is One of the few reasons I refuse to convert to PC fully At least My Cruddy Console games are Fully Finished and Not missing critical content.


So Folks weigh in Is Early Access the Bane of all pc gamers? has Steam made a huge error allowing so many? myself i think a game in early access should be in a Open Beta stage Anything not to that point Should not be allowed on steam as EA Perhaps we need a New Moniker for those kinda games... Say We Call it Prealpha? I mean I see people making game bones and tossing up crap that has like no Content and crashes half the time...

[Start_Running]

BlackSpawn eredeti hozzászólása:

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

Statement makes zero sense when the item being sold is actually a complete game.

Well, lets try to stay honest here.

If its a complete game, it should not be on Early Access.

We are talking about early access alphas for sale.

Is an Alplha an unfinished game? Yes. So where in lies the problem?

Issues ranging from abandoned alphas, alphas used as a market test, alphas tagged as full release, monetization abuse including addition of DLC and microtransactions ON TOP of Early Access, misleading statements and misrepresentation of the title / content / compatibility, abusing Steam voting mechanisms, etc....

Monetization is not an abuse. Neither is DLC. At no point does any game, Eacc or otherwise, promise not to alter it's monetization scheme. Same for DLC. Monetization options ironically make the game more available to customers, and dlc allows for more content.

Are you against more content and greater accessibility as well?

As for Misrepresentation. Well if you find an actual case of that you're welcome to bring it to Valve's attention. They actually come down pretty hard on that. Though some how I get the feeling that like most of the words you use. misrepresentation does not mean what you think it means.

Lamont eredeti hozzászólása:

I don't really think any customers are buying into EA to get ripped off, seriously, if that were the case there wouldn't be anyone complaining in the first place. I bought one EA game, Killing Floor 2, because I was keen to help and support a small(ish) studio (TWI) fund a follow up to a game I put a lot of time and had a lot of fun with (Killing Floor) I like many others felt totally betrayed when TWI added Valve's cancerous gambling scheme (Crate and Keys) into the game 7.5 Months into the EA and yes, I felt ripped off and disgusted.

Why? because they added a game element you didn't like?
That's a reality of game development.

Would I have shelled out if there was prior warning? No way. So, no, EA isn't giving exactly what they (the customers) want.

Actually it is. EVen by your own example. You state that:

I bought one EA game, Killing Floor 2, because I was keen to help and support a small(ish) studio (TWI) fund a follow up to a game.

So what you wanted was a chance to support the devs finnancially in their new project. And you were able to thanks to Eacc. Later regretting that you did is not them not giving you what you wanted, it's you realizing that what you wanted did not make you happy.

It maybe giving Valve exactly what they want, more money for little effort though, as well as providing con artists a vehicle to line their pockets and run with the money of trusting indivuals as well.

And yet the game has 30K happy customers. So you're clearly in the minority. Might surprise you that the feature they added is actually something many gamers like. This also something you're warned about prior to purchase.

That you actually label a game that was not only well received but that also completed EAcc development as ana example of it being done wrongl. Says that maybe you had the wrong mindset going in.

[BlackSpawn]

The problem has been described.

The loose terms of Early Access that allow for multiple misuses and abuses of the program by incompetent and/or unscrupulous developers alike.

Some developers use early access well and with good results.

Many dont, and therein lies the problem.
Monetization abuse is most definitely a thing.
An Early Access alpha should not introduce ANY additional monetization or paywalled content before finishing the actual incomplete early access title that has already been paid for in the first place.

The meaning of misrepresentation is on the dictionary.
That is the one I go by.
You can look it up if you have any doubts.
And that is something that happens under the guise of Early Access with alarming regularity in order to generate a sale.

The complete lack of accountability and responsibility from the storefront, developer and publishers past the launch alpha.
That is what needs to be addressed.

[-OrLoK- Слава Україн]

Sorry to interrupt but of course i have Tron 2.0. A physical copy from yesteryear.

Now, where did i leave my bit?

[Oointah_Duane]

Satoru eredeti hozzászólása:

Oointah_Duane eredeti hozzászólása:

My last post was deliberately antagonistic to test whether the same names came back to defend themselves. I see nothing wrong with that but you, like me, have a vested interest so how could we ever agree?

If you basically admitted to trolling the thread and then wondering why people did not respond positively then basically come back and say that your pre-determined outcome proves something is intellectual dishonestly of the highest degree. Not to mention the pure hypocracy of it.

I am open to actual discussion

I am not open to being trolled then you making excuses for that trolling and then passing that trolling off as an excuse for your conclusions.

There is no discussion here. Every consideration is being boiled down to the addage of choice or buyer beware. Therefore using tactics to expose conflicts of interest in the hope of unity was in order. You call it trolling, but I call it "a choice in how I delivered a point". And I didn't think you were opposed to choice?

[Start_Running]

Oointah_Duane eredeti hozzászólása:

There is no discussion here. Every consideration is being boiled down to the addage of choice or buyer beware.

And? You're just saying you can't 'win' in a battle of logic and reason so you turn it into one about politics and emotion.

The simple truth is, it's not even as far as buyer beware. it;s buyer be aware. It seems alot of of the complainers aren't really aware of what they're actually buying.

herefore using tactics to expose conflicts of interest in the hope of unity was in order.

But that of course the brings up the problem that the potential for conflict of interest exists on both sides. Remember that rule of math: Whatever is common to bothe sides, is irrelevant to the equation.

Being faced with an arguement that you cannot get around more or less means that one must acknowledge a shortfall in one's own reasoning.

Much as there are multiple options for buying anything from cars to TV's, from Homes to PC's, so too exist multiple options for games.

Each option offers benefits that the others do not. Whether the option is good or bad depends on the circumstance of each buyer. Just as nsome will purchase a fridge via cheque, another will purchase with cash straight up and another person will go for hiire purchase.

No one option is objectively better. Waiting for the game to finishe is a good uption, but that means you will never experience the incremental development and changes. You can wait for the game to hit 80% off on a sale, but let's be honest. By that time most games don't have much of a community left and people have moved on. Pre-Order, yeah sure you get some nice bonuses and sometimes they even throw in a beta version. But you're essentially buying blind with no chance of seeing any reviews or lets plays to properly inform you.

Every option carries its own ups and downs. Hence the choice thing. A choice comes where one is faced with multiple options each offering their own unique blend of pros and cons which are subjective and situational to each person making the decision. If there is always an objectively best answer, then it's not really a choice, but a calculation disguised as a choice. COnsumers are free to choose the option that offers them what they want at the lowest risk/cost. And as with any choice, one must accept responsibility for the outcome, good and bad.

Buyer beware, is simply good advice, that just because risks and drawbacks always exist and one should not simply ignore them in favour of the pros and positives. ANd my favourite, buyer be aware, is just that you should pay attention to the prompts , disclaimers and most importantly, the contract you're signing.

Make sure that what they're delivering is actually what you wnat.

You call it trolling, but I call it "a choice in how I delivered a point". And I didn't think you were opposed to choice?

What point bwere you delivering?
All the tactic seems to do is point out one's lack of a point to be made.

[AussieBobby]

-OrLoK- eredeti hozzászólása:

*sigh*

The logical fallacy that those who disagree with me must be a troll.

[BlackSpawn]

Oointah Duane is probably referring to the fact that many of the individuals that routinely and persistently advocate for and defend the anticonsumer practices and the many abuses and misuses of EAG with the absolution of developer and publisher accountability past delivering the launch Alpha are involved in one way or another in Early Access endeavors, have links to them and/or are involved in the gaming industry themselves.

For example,

Nina and Orlok: DayZ forum moderators (An early access game)

Blaze McKnight: formed part of the devving team of an early access game and used to moderate a forum for an early access game (Dayz, I presume)

Start Running: Software programmer with interest in video games, by own admission worked on a handful of games within my library

Satoru: Forum moderator for Early Access games Darkest dungeon and Endless Space 2

etc...

Customers and potential customers are concerned about anticonsumer practices.

Individuals that stand to gain from said anticonsumer practices, work for and/or represent companies that stand to gain from said practices (even if voluntarily and unpaid), certainly have some interests in the equation that are to be considered.

[Oointah_Duane]

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

Oointah_Duane eredeti hozzászólása:

There is no discussion here. Every consideration is being boiled down to the addage of choice or buyer beware.

And? You're just saying you can't 'win' in a battle of logic and reason so you turn it into one about politics and emotion.

The simple truth is, it's not even as far as buyer beware. it;s buyer be aware. It seems alot of of the complainers aren't really aware of what they're actually buying.

herefore using tactics to expose conflicts of interest in the hope of unity was in order.

But that of course the brings up the problem that the potential for conflict of interest exists on both sides. Remember that rule of math: Whatever is common to bothe sides, is irrelevant to the equation.

Being faced with an arguement that you cannot get around more or less means that one must acknowledge a shortfall in one's own reasoning.

Much as there are multiple options for buying anything from cars to TV's, from Homes to PC's, so too exist multiple options for games.

Each option offers benefits that the others do not. Whether the option is good or bad depends on the circumstance of each buyer. Just as nsome will purchase a fridge via cheque, another will purchase with cash straight up and another person will go for hiire purchase.

No one option is objectively better. Waiting for the game to finishe is a good uption, but that means you will never experience the incremental development and changes. You can wait for the game to hit 80% off on a sale, but let's be honest. By that time most games don't have much of a community left and people have moved on. Pre-Order, yeah sure you get some nice bonuses and sometimes they even throw in a beta version. But you're essentially buying blind with no chance of seeing any reviews or lets plays to properly inform you.

Every option carries its own ups and downs. Hence the choice thing. A choice comes where one is faced with multiple options each offering their own unique blend of pros and cons which are subjective and situational to each person making the decision. If there is always an objectively best answer, then it's not really a choice, but a calculation disguised as a choice. COnsumers are free to choose the option that offers them what they want at the lowest risk/cost. And as with any choice, one must accept responsibility for the outcome, good and bad.

Buyer beware, is simply good advice, that just because risks and drawbacks always exist and one should not simply ignore them in favour of the pros and positives. ANd my favourite, buyer be aware, is just that you should pay attention to the prompts , disclaimers and most importantly, the contract you're signing.

Make sure that what they're delivering is actually what you wnat.

You call it trolling, but I call it "a choice in how I delivered a point". And I didn't think you were opposed to choice?

What point bwere you delivering?
All the tactic seems to do is point out one's lack of a point to be made.

I tried logic. Feel free to go through the hundreds of pages where I try to rationalise words by breaking it down into definitions and meanings.

I tried facts. Pulling information from different sources to identify problems and concerns.

They led to the same outcome. So I tried emotion and anger, some define it as trolling. I define it as trying something else because logic and fact failed to sink in.

What is the saying, "insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results"?

And you're right, I cannot win this discussion because the response always returns to the consumer fault or no problems, or choice. It's not a debate, it's repetition.

So, I will take said logic, facts and emotion in a different direction because I don't just care about gaming, I care about the people gaming.

Good day and good luck in your respective projects.

[AussieBobby]

BlackSpawn eredeti hozzászólása:

I dont think Oointah Duane is / was trolling, nor did he admit to that.

He is probably referring to the fact that the many of the individuals that routinely and persistently advocate for and defend the anticonsumer practices and the many abuses and misuses of EAG with the absolution of developer and publisher accountability past delivering the launch Alpha are involved in one way or another in Early Access endeavors, have links to them and/or are involved in the gaming industry themselves.

For example,

Nina and Orlok: DayZ forum moderators (An early access game)

Blaze McKnight: formed part of the devving team of an early access game and used to moderate a forum for an early access game (Dayz, I presume)

The Dayz forums are famous for all the wrong reasons.They do allow constructive criticisms
eg: Why did God make us wait for so long before sending down DayZ
Anything other than that is blasphemy and dealt with the ban hammer.

They now ban you for belonging to this group
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/dayzplayerrefundgroup/discussions/0/537405286637970477/?ctp=36#c135510669597062948

Its not only EA thats wide open to abuse,its the store front/forums as well

[BlackSpawn]

AussieBobby, when you paid for Early Access you paid to provide feedback and for the title to evolve along with said community feedback.

If you did not violate Steam Community Guidelines, you may have a case in getting that ban removed by Steam Global Moderation / Steam Support.

I suggest you speak with DayZ moderation first; through your ban notification message.
Be respectful and courteous yet be direct and provide your reasons.
If they are not amenable to discussion, escalate to Valve Moderation / Support and submit a ticket.

Good luck.

PS. Spread the word about how to address moderation abuse (especially on an Early Access title) if this is actually a common practice on the forum.

"What is Early Access?

Get immediate access to games that are being developed with the community's involvement. These are games that evolve as you play them, as you give feedback, and as the developers update and add content."
http://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/

[Nina]

BlackSpawn eredeti hozzászólása:

Oointah Duane is probably referring to the fact that many of the individuals that routinely and persistently advocate for and defend the anticonsumer practices and the many abuses and misuses of EAG with the absolution of developer and publisher accountability past delivering the launch Alpha are involved in one way or another in Early Access endeavors, have links to them and/or are involved in the gaming industry themselves.

For example,
Nina and Orlok: DayZ forum moderators (An early access game)

-snip for length-

Individuals that stand to gain from said anticonsumer practices, work for and/or represent companies that stand to gain from said practices (even if voluntarily and unpaid), certainly have some interests in the equation that are to be considered.

I'm aware that's what he's talking about (but for some odd reason doesn't want to mention it), but the fact that I'm a moderator for one game that is in Early Access is not enough to make me defend Early Access as a whole with no disregard for anything bad that happens within it. No game is worth so much wasted effort.

I've bought games like StarForge and Towns, games that have been literally abandoned and haven't received updates for years (with Towns having a post from the dev in their news section saying they've stopped developing).

I never even tried to get my money back for those games, nor posted hateful comments on their forum. It sucks, but that was a reality of Early Access even back then. (Not to mention refunds weren't available in the first place back then.) However games in such instances as those should be pulled, instead of still remaining in Early Access. THAT is truly anti-consumer.

I stand to gain nothing from DayZ being in Early Access. I would hold the same opinions regardless, and everything I say I apply even to games I don't personally like.

When people ask me about Early Access, I say "don't buy Early Access," for exactly the reasons I've explained before. (tldr it's choice but you're still buying unfinished games) This includes DayZ. I've owned the game since December 2013 but to this day I only have roughly 50 hours in-game, because I'm waiting for it to leave Early Access so I can properly enjoy it. Until then I am there for the community.

[BlackSpawn]

The curent lax terms of Early Access allow for such misuses and abuses at the moment.

Practices that are and were considered LITERAL scams a few years ago now are trying to be pulled of as the "risk" of Early Access.

Which, frankly, is unadulterated ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

And some of those initial Early Access titles did receive time limited refunds (of course, many users didnt get their refunds), either through Valve or the developer, because some were literal scams!

Stomping Lands: https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2yn7be/woot_got_a_refund_of_the_stomping_land_from_steam/

StarForge: https://steamcommunity.com/groups/RARSF/discussions/0/492378806373456114/

I am not aware if Towns received time limited refunds or not.
It appears that they did not.
And it wasnt even an early access title!

But the fact of the matter, literal scam practices from a few years back are now being "sold" as if they were an expected part of the Early Access package. Bold faced BS!

The misuses and abuses of the platform need to be addressed in a meaningful manner.
The anticonsumer practices cannot go unabated within the umbrella of a legitimate storefront.

I agree, that abandoned Early Access games need to be addressed in a meaningful way.
Either by removing them from Early Access and tagging them as what they are, an abandoned alpha or by removing them from the store altogether.
They shouldnt be sold indistinctly as if they were a functional "Full Release" without further disclosure.

[-OrLoK- Слава Україн]

As to Aussie and his ilk, feel free to escalate any claim of abuse to Steam.

If we're wrong or hasty we'll gladly review/overturn a ban.

Just dont waste the Steam Mods time.

Ps at least one of your group is a current frequent poster on our forums.

[Tito Shivan]

BlackSpawn eredeti hozzászólása:

Oointah Duane is probably referring to the fact that many of the individuals that routinely and persistently advocate for and defend the anticonsumer practices and the many abuses and misuses of EAG with the absolution of developer and publisher accountability past delivering the launch Alpha are involved in one way or another in Early Access endeavors, have links to them and/or are involved in the gaming industry themselves.

Which is as much as to assume that many of the individuals that routinely and persistently call Early Access as a nest of consumer abuses and scams bought into an Early Access haha and were burned by some way that didn't delivery their expectative somehow and have an interest are for blood or revenge.

It's a by the book strawman argument. Which shouldn't happen to begin with.

So let's focus on the arguments and not on the people making them.

[BlackSpawn]

Not strawman at all.

Factual statements that reflect our shared reality.

And 100% honest and verifiable, even if it may make some uncomfortable.

Whether a particular individual was victimized by an early access title or not is irrelevant, because the misuses and abuses of Steam's Early Access are an independent reality that remains unaddressed.

And individuals that stand to benefit from the laxity of the terms of Early Access and or work for / represent companies that stand to benefit from it do in fact have a documented vested interest in perpetuating those practices.