Too many Early Access games

[c0n_art1st.tv]

I was on the store home page and about 75 percent of what I saw were Early Access and Open Beta games. Come on, Steam. I'd rather purchase games that have been fully finished or pre-purchase fully finished games. I have DayZ on the grounds that I had the mod so I was aware of what I was getting, but I still feel like we're handing over tons of cash for something that may NOT be finished. DayZ even states that the beta probably won't be out in 2014.

I'd like to see a lot more polished games or finished on the main page and maybe have a link to Early Access sort of like Greenlight has. It's just getting out of hand.

[Zefar]

引用自 2point4：

引用自 Zefar：

A total of 4 users have been banned from that section. All of them are completely valid. Most users did troll the forum too btw.

I should have quoted the part of your post I was responding to.

It wouldn't matter which part you quoted. When you claim he's on a banning spree and only 4 valid users show up as banned in total you are just wrong and spreading false rumors.

引用自 2point4：

I didn't mention anything about any other users or how they were acting. And regardless of how they are posting in that subforum, that developer is still out of line. For instance, because you misunderstood my post. as customers of that developer have misunderstood what they were purchasing. am I now OK to start a new thread and title it "Trolling Zefar"? Probably not, right? That's what he did, though.

At this point the game and developer are taking so much heat because of how the situation is being handled. It's bigger than any issues people might have with the game now.

Sorry, I know this is OT for this thread but I just wanted to clear that up.

Misunderstood your post? You made it quite clear what you wanted to say about the Developer. Claiming power abuse right away due to some users who trolled like mad being banned.

引用自 Freyar：

It isn't so much just Earth Year 2066, but the obvious result of having such a system in place. Earth Year 2066 may have a plan in the future, but the combination of it being FAAAAAAAR too early for it to be presented to the public with stolen art assets for promotion and the fact that it's developer has been practically insulting the Steam Community with his behavior is where the problem lies.

This developer is also suspected of abusing Kickstarter as well, which doesn't help either side.

I see Early Access as something for Betas and Alphas. It's the time you can influence the game on because when it's nearly finished the game developer is not going to listen to you anymore.

Not sure about the abusing of Kickstarter but there are risks involved when funding people on that site.

引用自 Freyar：

I'd beleive that if the game wasn't as bad off as it is. Realistically, one year for this game to get where it's supposed to be is rediculous. It's not believable at all and what is shown is not indicative of an actual game.

It's post-apocalyptic? Great.. what mechanics is there supposed to be?

While the goals could be a bit unreal it's not impossible. I have though seen worse titles on Steam that full releases.

引用自 Freyar：

This is a similar problem with a Kickstarter called Cult County. There's not enough substance to warrant it's presence in a space that is asking for money. The difference here is that Kickstarter requires a certain threshold in order to hand over money whereas Earth Year 2066 is asking for money up front.

Well that may be true but with Kickstarter pretty much anything goes imo. This is basically peoples fault for actually trying to fund that game. They should know that Kickstarter is a risk.

引用自 Freyar：

I expect a game to not be using base Unity assets. I expect a representation of technical competence that isn't present in this game. I expect there to be a layout (and an in-game example) of mechanics intended to be implemented for this game. I expect there to NOT be stolen assets used to promote the game. If he weren't asking for money at the present time, that'd be fine as then all that's used is time and wouldn't really damage the reputation of Steam's storefront.

Stolen assets are bad, that I agree with but for the rest of the game. Well I see Early Access as something for Alphas and Betas. Which can be in quite the early stage. It has a warning and if people still want to fund it then that is fine imo.

If it doesn't work out it won't.

引用自 Freyar：

This is compounded by "Muxwell's" behavior in his own forum too. You are a moderator and I understand the difficulty involved with trying to deal with things like this, but for Muxwell to give a digital middle finger to people who rightly ask "what the ***" in response to his asking for $20 for a game that has absolutely zero substance to it, then go on to harrass the community by making announcements such as a special "$100 Jim Sterling" version. While he may be trying to joke about it, he's already in the notorious bucket along with Surgey Titov.

I wouldn't put him on par with Surgey Titov just yet. He hasn't gone on a banning spree.

For the price tag I'm not too bothered by it. I'm more bothered that a new game like Elder Scrolls online charge the hell out of those horses and one of the races. While being utterly crap.

[Turk]

need my achievements ( sry for posting )

[Freyar]

引用自 Zefar：

I see Early Access as something for Betas and Alphas. It's the time you can influence the game on because when it's nearly finished the game developer is not going to listen to you anymore.

Not sure about the abusing of Kickstarter but there are risks involved when funding people on that site.

Early Access is for alpha and beta software, however most cases those have some direction for what they're intending to do. The problem with EY2066 is that it has no direction, no plan, no intent shown and has made no headway towards those goals before asking for money. That is where EY2066 runs afoul of this whole system. MANY developers would have loved to be on Steam, but now we've got people that try to put out things like this and say "This has enough to warrant asking for money."

In the case of Kickstarter, risks are involved though there are some protections and even then people on Kickstarter expect said risks. Steam is a platform to sell games and because Early Access titles are published as "New!" along side retail titles that have gone gold, there's no doubt there's going to be some ire or frustration here.

DayZ gets away with it simply because the developer has shown technical competency with what he has. He has shown a vision that warrants the asking price and is fairly good about communicating what he intends to do.

DayZ is certainly alpha in design as it lacks feature sets that are intended to be there, has numerous bugs and polish issues, but ultimately still has enough of a core mechanic to be fun and enjoyable.

EY2066 does not and this is why EY2066 is getting all the flaming.

While the goals could be a bit unreal it's not impossible. I have though seen worse titles on Steam that full releases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfsSA6_GrE
Oh sure. I still remember Stalin vs. Martians, but at least that game had some level of actual game to play with a direction. EY2066 doesn't have to be good (though bad games do reflect badly on Steam as a storefront), it just have to have purpose and by that I mean it has to have mechanics in place to make it a game in the first place.

With how "Muxwell" is presenting himself, I can't take his development time-table seriously at all. It is impossible to get this developed to a point where it would be good enough to be a final game.

引用自 Freyar：

This is a similar problem with a Kickstarter called Cult County. There's not enough substance to warrant it's presence in a space that is asking for money. The difference here is that Kickstarter requires a certain threshold in order to hand over money whereas Earth Year 2066 is asking for money up front.

Well that may be true but with Kickstarter pretty much anything goes imo. This is basically peoples fault for actually trying to fund that game. They should know that Kickstarter is a risk.

Remember that one of Kickstarter's safeguards is that a project must reach it's goal before getting funded. Cult County doesn't look like it'll make that. However, the prospect of Buyer Beware (Link Contains: Strong Language) on Steam for Early Access is something that is really deeply disturbing and an easy thing to say in an effort to sweep these kinds of issues under the rug.

Stolen assets are bad, that I agree with but for the rest of the game. Well I see Early Access as something for Alphas and Betas. Which can be in quite the early stage. It has a warning and if people still want to fund it then that is fine imo.

If it doesn't work out it won't.

While it has a warning, the developer hasn't even seen fit to fill out the entirety of his Early Access pitch as well which is ALSO a red flag here. Even then, the idea of a failed Early Access game isn't something that has been tested by ValvE yet, and as the Early Access process continues, we're getting closer and closer to that precipice. Sadly, I have a strong feeling that this means that members of our community are going to get burned and burned hard as a result of things like this.

Yes, Alpha can be an alpha, but even alphas have something to represent what the end product will be.

I wouldn't put him on par with Surgey Titov just yet. He hasn't gone on a banning spree.

For the price tag I'm not too bothered by it. I'm more bothered that a new game like Elder Scrolls online charge the hell out of those horses and one of the races. While being utterly crap.

He may not have been going on a banning spree, but he certainly is doing his damnedest to insult the Steam Community with his 'Early Alpha' product and his behavior.

Elder Scrolls Online is one I'm not too keen on either, but it's design and technical accomplishments are significantly above and beyond what Muxwell is up to, and there's even a game there in the first place.

You can argue business if you want, but at least ESO had a competent product with core mechanics in place before they started asking for money.

[tolshortte]

引用自 Freyar：

snip

seems to me you just dont like EA titles. thats fine. dont buy them. if you dont trust the devs or dont want to take the risk i wouldnt buy it.

but your use of strong language screams prejudice against the system. best way to counter it is to not buy into instead of trying to convince those willing to take that risk to not buy.

your assumptions of the intentions of the devs from the game you seem to harp on about is hilarious. im not convinced you are right nor am i 'insulted' by anything he has done. its about time devs respond to the lack of intelligent remarks from the Steam community imo.

you talk of 'getting burned' as if it is somehow only restricted to 'unfinished' games. games being finished are not exempt from being crap or 'scams' and being 'finished' shouldnt be an acceptable excuse for it if you truly are agianst the practice. biased is biased, and you clearly are.

[2point4]

引用自 Zefar：

It wouldn't matter which part you quoted. When you claim he's on a banning spree and only 4 valid users show up as banned in total you are just wrong and spreading false rumors.

Not sure where I claimed, or even insinuated, anything close to that. Would you mind letting me know which part of my post gave you that impression? I didn't mention the word "ban" a single time.

Misunderstood your post? You made it quite clear what you wanted to say about the Developer. Claiming power abuse right away due to some users who trolled like mad being banned.

What I said about the developer is factual. He's being hostile towards the community, regardless of the circumstances, and any regular member of the community would be banned if they were doing the things he has been doing.

[Acimomo]

They need money

[Dumpy Baby Man]

Dear lord. How in the name of Beelzibub is there Earth 2066 on Steam? What in the name of funk is so incredibly wrong with Valve, that they would okay a game that is just a map and a character model at this point?
LJN had better quaility control on their crap games than Valve does anymore. "Lets just open the flood gates and see how many people switch from Steam to Origin?"
I haven't bought but two early access games, one better than the other, and the other is workable, it just wasn't worth the money at this point in the development of it, so I'm rather sour at the whole experience of "Early access"
But how on Earth does a "game" called Earth 2066 get on there with literally nothing going for it, it's not even what I'd call "early access" so much as it is "We made a map and a character model. Can we sell it for 20 bucks?"
I haven't touched the game, just saw about it, and thought anyone and everyone should know to stay away from it.

[WhiteKnight77]

Those of us who think there is no reason to hide Early Access games (there already is a built in filter for them as well as games that have gone gold) have repeatedly stated that such games are buyer beware. If the dev has not explicitly explained what is happening in the clearly marked light blue box, then that should be a warning sign. If the developer hasn't released many updates (though that isn't a good metric to go by), then one should think about it. Read through the forums and see what users and the devs are talking about. We keep saying buyer beware and do your research. If you are just willing to buy, then it is your fault for not checking into it.

If gamers do not buy into a particular developers Early Access game, one of two things will happen (this goes for large developers and publishers too honestly), one, the developer will start to make a better plan of development and listen to the gamers or two, they will have to close down.

To keep painting all those developers who are using Early Access as a way to fund the development of the game they are working on as dishonest just makes you seem even more dishonest than the ones who may be trying to "work the system," especially when you make such wild claims with no proof of any of it.

[WhiteKnight77]

引用自 Freyar：

引用自 Zefar：

I see Early Access as something for Betas and Alphas. It's the time you can influence the game on because when it's nearly finished the game developer is not going to listen to you anymore.

Not sure about the abusing of Kickstarter but there are risks involved when funding people on that site.

Early Access is for alpha and beta software, however most cases those have some direction for what they're intending to do. The problem with EY2066 is that it has no direction, no plan, no intent shown and has made no headway towards those goals before asking for money. That is where EY2066 runs afoul of this whole system. MANY developers would have loved to be on Steam, but now we've got people that try to put out things like this and say "This has enough to warrant asking for money."

In the case of Kickstarter, risks are involved though there are some protections and even then people on Kickstarter expect said risks. Steam is a platform to sell games and because Early Access titles are published as "New!" along side retail titles that have gone gold, there's no doubt there's going to be some ire or frustration here.

DayZ gets away with it simply because the developer has shown technical competency with what he has. He has shown a vision that warrants the asking price and is fairly good about communicating what he intends to do.

DayZ is certainly alpha in design as it lacks feature sets that are intended to be there, has numerous bugs and polish issues, but ultimately still has enough of a core mechanic to be fun and enjoyable.

EY2066 does not and this is why EY2066 is getting all the flaming.

While the goals could be a bit unreal it's not impossible. I have though seen worse titles on Steam that full releases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfsSA6_GrE
Oh sure. I still remember Stalin vs. Martians, but at least that game had some level of actual game to play with a direction. EY2066 doesn't have to be good (though bad games do reflect badly on Steam as a storefront), it just have to have purpose and by that I mean it has to have mechanics in place to make it a game in the first place.

With how "Muxwell" is presenting himself, I can't take his development time-table seriously at all. It is impossible to get this developed to a point where it would be good enough to be a final game.

Well that may be true but with Kickstarter pretty much anything goes imo. This is basically peoples fault for actually trying to fund that game. They should know that Kickstarter is a risk.

Remember that one of Kickstarter's safeguards is that a project must reach it's goal before getting funded. Cult County doesn't look like it'll make that. However, the prospect of Buyer Beware (Link Contains: Strong Language) on Steam for Early Access is something that is really deeply disturbing and an easy thing to say in an effort to sweep these kinds of issues under the rug.

Stolen assets are bad, that I agree with but for the rest of the game. Well I see Early Access as something for Alphas and Betas. Which can be in quite the early stage. It has a warning and if people still want to fund it then that is fine imo.

If it doesn't work out it won't.

While it has a warning, the developer hasn't even seen fit to fill out the entirety of his Early Access pitch as well which is ALSO a red flag here. Even then, the idea of a failed Early Access game isn't something that has been tested by ValvE yet, and as the Early Access process continues, we're getting closer and closer to that precipice. Sadly, I have a strong feeling that this means that members of our community are going to get burned and burned hard as a result of things like this.

Yes, Alpha can be an alpha, but even alphas have something to represent what the end product will be.

I wouldn't put him on par with Surgey Titov just yet. He hasn't gone on a banning spree.

For the price tag I'm not too bothered by it. I'm more bothered that a new game like Elder Scrolls online charge the hell out of those horses and one of the races. While being utterly crap.

He may not have been going on a banning spree, but he certainly is doing his damnedest to insult the Steam Community with his 'Early Alpha' product and his behavior.

Elder Scrolls Online is one I'm not too keen on either, but it's design and technical accomplishments are significantly above and beyond what Muxwell is up to, and there's even a game there in the first place.

You can argue business if you want, but at least ESO had a competent product with core mechanics in place before they started asking for money.

Some of your responses in this post as well as others leads me to believe that you have no idea about game development, how long it takes or what goes on.

That statement that is emboldened is so strange, I don't even know where to begin.

An alpha is an alpha is an alpha no matter what. There may be some features of a game in it at that stage, but that does not mean that it will represent the end product. Features included in the alpha stage can be removed and replaced that can change how the game is played.

It also appears you have no idea how long game development can take. For large teams, it can take two or more years, even if using legacy code. A small dev team, having to start from scratch as well as working elsewhere to keep bills paid at home as well as keeping themselves and any family that they might have fed can add significantly more time. It also seems as if you have no idea as to costs to develop a game. It isn't cheap. That is why large publishers now have an aversion to funding new projects from unproven developers, they want to ensure that they can get a large return on their investment so they tend to keep churning out games that they know will sell instead of something else.

[Freyar]

引用自 tolshortte：

seems to me you just dont like EA titles. thats fine. dont buy them. if you dont trust the devs or dont want to take the risk i wouldnt buy it.

Early Access can be a good tool, all I'm expecting is that there be a representation of the final product in some form. EY2066 offers none of this and has links to previous dishonest behavior. Steam opened the floodgates, now we've got to deal with the crap that comes down the pipe by dishonest developers.

AAA games have their own problems, but they aren't pushing things like just a map on the Unity Engine.

but your use of strong language screams prejudice against the system. best way to counter it is to not buy into instead of trying to convince those willing to take that risk to not buy.

People can buy into Early Access, but I expect some idea or representation to be shown. In the case of EY2066 we've already seen some shady behavior, why are people STILL defending this product?

you talk of 'getting burned' as if it is somehow only restricted to 'unfinished' games. games being finished are not exempt from being crap or 'scams' and being 'finished' shouldnt be an acceptable excuse for it if you truly are agianst the practice. biased is biased, and you clearly are.

Bias develops as a result of experience with this system. I am biased against Early Access as a result of people taking advantage of it and not delivering. EY2066 is just that bad that it's enough to make me believe that people aren't responsible enough to deliver by Early Access in the long run.

Part of the problem is that Early Access titles are also advertised as "new" along side finished retail. I look at the store, I see new games released on Steam only to find out it's yet another deluge of Early Access titles with varying degrees of completion. To have EY2066 thrown in there in it's current state even in Early Access is a waste of my time and an insult.

引用自 WhiteKnight77：

Buyer Beware

Is not an excuse for crap behavior.

If gamers do not buy into a particular developers Early Access game, one of two things will happen (this goes for large developers and publishers too honestly), one, the developer will start to make a better plan of development and listen to the gamers or two, they will have to close down.

You'll still have people who won't know any better jump on there and when they are disappointed, it damages Steam. This is how the crash in the 80's happened.

To keep painting all those developers who are using Early Access as a way to fund the development of the game they are working on as dishonest just makes you seem even more dishonest than the ones who may be trying to "work the system," especially when you make such wild claims with no proof of any of it.

Not all, some, which reflects poorly on everyone.

引用自 WhiteKnight77：

An alpha is an alpha is an alpha no matter what. There may be some features of a game in it at that stage, but that does not mean that it will represent the end product. Features included in the alpha stage can be removed and replaced that can change how the game is played.

That's true, but at least in even in an alpha we'd be seeing some mechanic in place that represents something he wants to do. As it is we see everything the Unity Engine already provides and that's it.

It also appears you have no idea how long game development can take. For large teams, it can take two or more years, even if using legacy code. A small dev team, having to start from scratch as well as working elsewhere to keep bills paid at home as well as keeping themselves and any family that they might have fed can add significantly more time.

So why is "Muxwell" expecting only one year for development from it's current state? That's a joke and you and I are both agreeing that his timetable is completely off.

It also seems as if you have no idea as to costs to develop a game. It isn't cheap. That is why large publishers now have an aversion to funding new projects from unproven developers, they want to ensure that they can get a large return on their investment so they tend to keep churning out games that they know will sell instead of something else.

Completely irrelevant in this case. Not sure why you brought it up since it wasn't a point of issue. Development costs money, sure. How does that justify $20 for an early access with nothing in it?

[Moobius]

It makes it easier for the developers to be able to continue on with making the game. Although in some cases the kinda take the money and run but we have no controll of that

[=Sarsante=]

imo the big problem about early access games that devs might be scammers like Garry and Facepunch studios. Because if you read what steam stands for early access games are games in development, where devs add content. Well Rust is not one of those, there are no content added since it was launched only some half-asses updates that broke the more than it were before. So be aware of scammers!

[WhiteKnight77]

引用自 Freyar：

引用自 WhiteKnight77：

Buyer Beware

Is not an excuse for crap behavior.

If gamers do not buy into a particular developers Early Access game, one of two things will happen (this goes for large developers and publishers too honestly), one, the developer will start to make a better plan of development and listen to the gamers or two, they will have to close down.

You'll still have people who won't know any better jump on there and when they are disappointed, it damages Steam. This is how the crash in the 80's happened.

To keep painting all those developers who are using Early Access as a way to fund the development of the game they are working on as dishonest just makes you seem even more dishonest than the ones who may be trying to "work the system," especially when you make such wild claims with no proof of any of it.

Not all, some, which reflects poorly on everyone.

Does what Ubisoft make reflect poorly on Valve? No. What another developer does has no effect whatsoever on another developer.

引用自 Freyar：

引用自 WhiteKnight77：

An alpha is an alpha is an alpha no matter what. There may be some features of a game in it at that stage, but that does not mean that it will represent the end product. Features included in the alpha stage can be removed and replaced that can change how the game is played.

That's true, but at least in even in an alpha we'd be seeing some mechanic in place that represents something he wants to do. As it is we see everything the Unity Engine already provides and that's it.

You missed that last part that is in bold. Things change over the course of development. Something that is put in early in the development cycle can completely change later on. I have seen it repeatedly with a game I have been following.

引用自 Freyar：

引用自 Me：

It also appears you have no idea how long game development can take. For large teams, it can take two or more years, even if using legacy code. A small dev team, having to start from scratch as well as working elsewhere to keep bills paid at home as well as keeping themselves and any family that they might have fed can add significantly more time.

So why is "Muxwell" expecting only one year for development from it's current state? That's a joke and you and I are both agreeing that his timetable is completely off.

If he can pull it off, more power to him.

引用自 Freyar：

引用自 Me：

It also seems as if you have no idea as to costs to develop a game. It isn't cheap. That is why large publishers now have an aversion to funding new projects from unproven developers, they want to ensure that they can get a large return on their investment so they tend to keep churning out games that they know will sell instead of something else.

Completely irrelevant in this case. Not sure why you brought it up since it wasn't a point of issue. Development costs money, sure. How does that justify $20 for an early access with nothing in it?

Sure it is relevant. People are complaining, as you are, about Early Access games. Content cannot be created out of thin air. Unless someone is just going to use the stock assets that come with a game engine, they will need to buy software that is $3000 per copy. They will need hardware for motion capture (unless they are only making a puzzle game. They start around $10,000. Photoshop is now subscription based at $39.99 as month for 2 years or $19.99 a month for a single person. Devs need to use PS to create textures for games.

UE4 uses a subscription model at $19 a month. That is $456 for 2 years and only one license and that does not count other fees related to it if you intend to sell your game using said engine. Depending on how many are on the team, you need at least one. An animator (to use that files from the motion capture software) are not cheap either. I cannot give you a cost on them, but again, not cheap.

Unless the game is going to be quiet with no sound, a sound engineer or premade sounds need to be factored in too. There are places to buy sounds to use in a game. The more sounds needed as well as the different type of sounds can start to increase the cost, especially if you need hundreds of sounds.

That $20 per early access is just a drop in the bucket. Hopefully, enough people decide to back an early access game so it can get funded.

[Freyar]

引用自 WhiteKnight77：

Does what Ubisoft make reflect poorly on Valve? No. What another developer does has no effect whatsoever on another developer.

ValvE, Steam.. whichever way you want to look at it, developers pushing crap software damages the whole industry.

You missed that last part that is in bold. Things change over the course of development. Something that is put in early in the development cycle can completely change later on. I have seen it repeatedly with a game I have been following.

Right, but when putting software in front of potential buyers, you're going to have to have something to show.

If he can pull it off, more power to him.

He can't, and he won't. It's an unreasonable claim.

Sure it is relevant. People are complaining, as you are, about Early Access games. Content cannot be created out of thin air. Unless someone is just going to use the stock assets that come with a game engine, they will need to buy software that is $3000 per copy. They will need hardware for motion capture (unless they are only making a puzzle game. They start around $10,000. Photoshop is now subscription based at $39.99 as month for 2 years or $19.99 a month for a single person. Devs need to use PS to create textures for games.

UE4 uses a subscription model at $19 a month. That is $456 for 2 years and only one license and that does not count other fees related to it if you intend to sell your game using said engine. Depending on how many are on the team, you need at least one. An animator (to use that files from the motion capture software) are not cheap either. I cannot give you a cost on them, but again, not cheap.

Unless the game is going to be quiet with no sound, a sound engineer or premade sounds need to be factored in too. There are places to buy sounds to use in a game. The more sounds needed as well as the different type of sounds can start to increase the cost, especially if you need hundreds of sounds.

That $20 per early access is just a drop in the bucket. Hopefully, enough people decide to back an early access game so it can get funded.

Sorry, but no. If the Developer is not able to make significant headway to show an idea of what kind of gameplay he is intending then he doesn't deserve an investment. What's worse is that because it's on Steam, it's a purchase.

You can tell me the costs of development all you want, I understand that it's expensive but that isn't my problem. If the guy let it cook for 6-12 months more before putting it out there, I doubt we'd be having this conversation right now, but as it is he's got NOTHING developed that shows promise for a retail game.

If he wanted to have people fund his game, he should stick to Kickstarter as that is the proper medium. Idea/Conception, Alpha, Beta is fine there as it isn't trying to present itself as a finished product for people to purchase. On Steam, his title is along side other finished products with no QA and nothing going for it.

He needs some audio design, he needs artists, he needs developers and frankly I don't think Muxwell is up to that task. He instead has shown he's willing to steal assets and use them without permission here, so how am I suppose to trust him in this specific case on the rest of his project?

$20 is not a lot for a development budget, but when you're looking to take advantage of people it becomes a lot more appealing because when you aren't playing by the book, your costs drop like a rock (though risk does increase.)

[WhiteKnight77]

引用自 Freyar：

引用自 WhiteKnight77：

Does what Ubisoft make reflect poorly on Valve? No. What another developer does has no effect whatsoever on another developer.

ValvE, Steam.. whichever way you want to look at it, developers pushing crap software damages the whole industry.

You missed that last part that is in bold. Things change over the course of development. Something that is put in early in the development cycle can completely change later on. I have seen it repeatedly with a game I have been following.

Right, but when putting software in front of potential buyers, you're going to have to have something to show.

If he can pull it off, more power to him.

He can't, and he won't. It's an unreasonable claim.

Sure it is relevant. People are complaining, as you are, about Early Access games. Content cannot be created out of thin air. Unless someone is just going to use the stock assets that come with a game engine, they will need to buy software that is $3000 per copy. They will need hardware for motion capture (unless they are only making a puzzle game. They start around $10,000. Photoshop is now subscription based at $39.99 as month for 2 years or $19.99 a month for a single person. Devs need to use PS to create textures for games.

UE4 uses a subscription model at $19 a month. That is $456 for 2 years and only one license and that does not count other fees related to it if you intend to sell your game using said engine. Depending on how many are on the team, you need at least one. An animator (to use that files from the motion capture software) are not cheap either. I cannot give you a cost on them, but again, not cheap.

Unless the game is going to be quiet with no sound, a sound engineer or premade sounds need to be factored in too. There are places to buy sounds to use in a game. The more sounds needed as well as the different type of sounds can start to increase the cost, especially if you need hundreds of sounds.

That $20 per early access is just a drop in the bucket. Hopefully, enough people decide to back an early access game so it can get funded.

Sorry, but no. If the Developer is not able to make significant headway to show an idea of what kind of gameplay he is intending then he doesn't deserve an investment. What's worse is that because it's on Steam, it's a purchase.

You can tell me the costs of development all you want, I understand that it's expensive but that isn't my problem. If the guy let it cook for 6-12 months more before putting it out there, I doubt we'd be having this conversation right now, but as it is he's got NOTHING developed that shows promise for a retail game.

If he wanted to have people fund his game, he should stick to Kickstarter as that is the proper medium. Idea/Conception, Alpha, Beta is fine there as it isn't trying to present itself as a finished product for people to purchase. On Steam, his title is along side other finished products with no QA and nothing going for it.

He needs some audio design, he needs artists, he needs developers and frankly I don't think Muxwell is up to that task. He instead has shown he's willing to steal assets and use them without permission here, so how am I suppose to trust him in this specific case on the rest of his project?

$20 is not a lot for a development budget, but when you're looking to take advantage of people it becomes a lot more appealing because when you aren't playing by the book, your costs drop like a rock (though risk does increase.)

:wall:

I am not talking about just one developer making one game, I am talking all games. I can't say if the creator of Earth: Year 2066 is using someone else's assets or not. Maybe he has licensed them from the original creators. Unless you have positive proof of him using them without paying for the license, then your claims are baseless. I have said it before and I will say it again, if you make a claim, you have to provide the proof, not me or anyone else.

If developers pushing crap software were going to take down the industry, it would have already happened, especially when we have 22 iterations of Call of Duty across several platforms and there is nothing technically different from the first (I do own that) to Call of Duty: Ghosts. Still no industry crash for the same crap year after year.

Ubisoft keeps pushing garbage, yet no crash. EA gets lots of heat for bad customer service (Ubisoft does too) and ♥♥♥♥♥♥ games, yet, no crash. Small independent developers will only hurt themselves if they do not deliver any sort of game. I already know of one that may have issued next time and the went the Kickstarter route and did issue a full game. He may have done well at Ubisoft, but on his own, he had issues. Whether he can sell something else is up for debate.

What "Muxwell' is doing will only hurt himself if any of what you allege is true. It will have no bearing on what Keen Software House is doing with Space Engineers or Squad is doing with Kerbal Space Program.

Again, all Early Access games have a big light blue banner on the store page explaining what the developers are trying to do and what is expected of everyone involved from developers to the gamers. It is up to the potential buy to do the research before buying. If someone buys without doing research, they only have themselves to blame for buying such a game and in the state that it is advertised as. They cannot get mad at the developer for the state of the game as they have stated what state it is in and what to expect. So yes, buyer beware.