EAcc Developers need to be held responsible

[Scorcher24]

I am a fan of the idea of Early Access, but like many other ideas it fails at the most basic ingredient: Humans.

I understand that development is not always going how you want it, but I have not much of an understanding for some of the companies out there, that abuse the Early Access System in the way they do. Most recent examples for this would be Timber&Stone as well as Godus.
Both Games are in development limbo and nobody knows if they will ever continue. In case of T&S it is even a blatant Violation of the rules since the dev relied on EAcc sales to fund the game, despite having a successfull kickstarter over roughly 90k USD. Yet, both games are still being sold.

Valve, please put into action, what you laid out. Hold all funds from Early Access sales until the game is released in a working state, so people have the opportunity to refund if the development just ceases at some point or a broken Product gets released.

As it is right now, many developers are hiding behind the Early Access FAQ and the involved risk that is laid out there. But that is not very consumer friendly and it invites people to pull scams. T&S has never been updated since it hit EAcc. That should raise some red flags somewhere in your office. Yes, I know, over 4k Games on Steam and such, but still. And the worst: the game is still being sold.

I mean, what are we supposed to do? If you take Timber and Stone as an example, you do your research and you see a kickstarter for nearly 90k USD and you think "well, he got the funds, must be safe". And then he stops making it all out of a sudden. I also cannot just go on the forum and ask the dev for his account balance with his bank and a proof of such.

Yes, I do own Early Access Games, but I always have to do extensive internet searches about the game before I decide to buy it. There are also games that stand out, such as Empyrion (the recent weekend deal) or 7 Days to die, which are updated constantly and get better every month.

But the amount of failed games rises and it will get to a point where nobody can trust EAcc anymore and that cannot be what Valve wants.
Thanks for reading and have a nice day.

edit: a few typos

[cinedine]

Postat inițial de kholtby:

Buying a product based on dev promises, and you yourself asked me why I would buy a game in that state. If there is no screening and no recourse there is also limited reason for devs to be trustworthy. Even to the extent you or others suggest 'research that dev' then otherwise legit new startups (with no track history) get ruled out off hand, regardless of how legitimate, and there still is limited incentive for any dev to be cautious about taking undue risks at the consumer's expense.

If consumers would show some actual usage of the thing inbetween their ears, this wouldn't be a problem. Why would you trust any small time developer while the big wigs keep screwing you over? Why should a new start-up have the benefit of the doubt?

The onus to convince us to buy into their project shall always lie soley on the developer. Not Steam. Not GoG. Not any fancy program name like "Early Access". If people would follow this simple common sense line of thinkin - you have your developer responsibility.

[Tux]

Postat inițial de kholtby:

Postat inițial de Tux:

because people buy it.

why should 'what I want to buy' be regulated?

Buying a product based on dev promises, and you yourself asked me why I would buy a game in that state. If there is no screening and no recourse there is also limited reason for devs to be trustworthy. Even to the extent you or others suggest 'research that dev' then otherwise legit new startups (with no track history) get ruled out off hand, regardless of how legitimate, and there still is limited incentive for any dev to be cautious about taking undue risks at the consumer's expense.

Even if they flop, they could just start a new development company and repeat under a new name. No screening, no prevention.

In what way are a few modest controls a bad thing?

first off buying a product based on a promise is a bit low on the Darwin Scale but having said that, The Fun Pimps have done some things that they never said they would and have broken promises as a result. what should happen to them?

[76561198001062896]

Postat inițial de cinedine:

Postat inițial de kholtby:

Buying a product based on dev promises, and you yourself asked me why I would buy a game in that state. If there is no screening and no recourse there is also limited reason for devs to be trustworthy. Even to the extent you or others suggest 'research that dev' then otherwise legit new startups (with no track history) get ruled out off hand, regardless of how legitimate, and there still is limited incentive for any dev to be cautious about taking undue risks at the consumer's expense.

If consumers would show some actual usage of the thing inbetween their ears, this wouldn't be a problem. Why would you trust any small time developer while the big wigs keep screwing you over? Why should a new start-up have the benefit of the doubt?

The onus to convince us to buy into their project shall always lie soley on the developer. Not Steam. Not GoG. Not any fancy program name like "Early Access". If people would follow this simple common sense line of thinkin - you have your developer responsibility.

inb4 people will be lilke "oh but big devs cant afford to screw up and release games in buggy state and so on and so forth"

To which my answer would be: Watch Dogs, Asssasins Creed: Unity, Alien Colonial Marines, Sim City (which was literally unplayable at launch), ..

[Tux]

Postat inițial de Zetikla:

Postat inițial de cinedine:

If consumers would show some actual usage of the thing inbetween their ears, this wouldn't be a problem. Why would you trust any small time developer while the big wigs keep screwing you over? Why should a new start-up have the benefit of the doubt?

The onus to convince us to buy into their project shall always lie soley on the developer. Not Steam. Not GoG. Not any fancy program name like "Early Access". If people would follow this simple common sense line of thinkin - you have your developer responsibility.

inb4 people will be ,lke "oh but big devs cant afford to screw up and release games in buggy state and so on and so forth"

To which my answer would be: Watch Dogs, Asssasins Creed: Unity, Alien Colonial Marines, Sim City (which was literally unplayable at launch), ..

well and nevermind when working a boring piece of ♥♥♥♥ to boot, although Sim City 4 was fun

[76561198001062896]

Postat inițial de Tux:

Postat inițial de Zetikla:

inb4 people will be ,lke "oh but big devs cant afford to screw up and release games in buggy state and so on and so forth"

To which my answer would be: Watch Dogs, Asssasins Creed: Unity, Alien Colonial Marines, Sim City (which was literally unplayable at launch), ..

well and nevermind when working a boring piece of ♥♥♥♥ to boot

pretty much this


People really need to forget this mentality that triple a publishers somehow magically care more: they dont.

SE, Gearbox, Activision: they dont give a flippin heck about what consumers wants because their fans will buy up EVERY ♥♥♥♥ they put out, buggy or not. People mindlessly buy into Preorders, season passes, so I think the bigger problem here is the general mentality of consumers first and foremost.

[BlackSpawn]

Not really.
EAG abuse, DLC abuse, preorder abuse.
They are all crap practices.

The fact is that EAG terms of service lower the bar for these transgressions to occur.
And open the doors for many others.

At least conventional releases develop and publish on their own dime and dont shield themselves with promises of things to come.
WYSIWYG. If they have the scruples to fix their buggy launch Builds great, if not now you know to never buy from them until the game has proven itself through time and updates.

[Tux]

Postat inițial de BlackSpawn:

Not really.
EAG abuse, DLC abuse, preorder abuse.
They are all crap practices.

The fact is that EAG terms of service lower the bar for these transgressions to occur.
And open the doors for many others.

At least conventional releases develop and publish on their own dime and dont shield themselves with promises of things to come.
WYSIWYG. If they have the scruples to fix their buggy launch Builds great, if not now you know to never buy from them until the game has proven itself through time and updates.

on average a AAA game at full release is worse then a indie title 1 year into Early Access.

One has to work really hard at being that bad of a ♥♥♥♥ up but AAAs are

[cinedine]

Postat inițial de Zetikla:

People really need to forget this mentality that triple a publishers somehow magically care more: they dont.

It's actually the opposite that is wrong with a big part of the gamer base currently: AAA is ♥♥♥♥ - indie can do no wrong. Just look at Tux. :P

Postat inițial de BlackSpawn:

If they have the scruples to fix their buggy launch Builds great, if not now you know to never buy from them until the game has proven itself through time and updates.

And why can't people apply the same logic to a program like Early Access?

For some reason people try to elevate Early Access into something which consumers can tust in and purchase near blind. For some reason they think this is pro-consumer. If EA would ever hold that reputation, it will be far easier to lure people into buying your ♥♥♥♥ than the "buyer beware" approach.

[BlackSpawn]

Because misleading advertising, product abandonment, alpha tag to full release, full on tech demo scams, incompletion of promises, monetization changeroos, and a litany of additional early access abuses/misuses are possible at the moment without any consequence.

The consumer risk from EAG is logarithmically increased from that on Full Releases.

NOBODY is asking for hands being held.
Some MINIMUM standards need to be set to avoid, limit and disincentivize the above behavior that CLEARLY goes against the stated goals and aims of the platform.

Consumer responsibility and education is great, I support that.
Developer responsibility and education should ALSO be required; to use the platform appropriately and to fulfill some basic level of completion from their stated plans.

The risk should be whether you like the final product or not.
The rest is EAG shaenanigans.

[Tux]

Postat inițial de BlackSpawn:

Because misleading advertising, product abandonment, alpha tag to full release, full on tech demo scams, incompletion of promises, monetization changeroos, and a litany of additional early access abuses/misuses are possible at the moment without any consequence.

The consumer risk from EAG is logarithmically increased from that on Full Releases.

NOBODY is asking for hands being held.
Some MINIMUM standards need to be set to avoid, limit and disincentivize the above behavior that CLEARLY goes against the stated goals and aims of the platform.

you just described AAA market bro.

[JudgeJudas]

BlackSpawn is spot on and I'm personally getting frustrated with the amount of dross that masquerades as games. Whats worse is Valve pushing all this dross in my face on the store page.

[Tux]

Postat inițial de JudgeJudas:

BlackSpawn is spot on and I'm personally getting frustrated with the amount of dross that masquerades as games. Whats worse is Valve pushing all this dross in my face on the store page.

you should consider using a different service like GoG or Origin.

[JudgeJudas]

Postat inițial de Tux:

Postat inițial de JudgeJudas:

BlackSpawn is spot on and I'm personally getting frustrated with the amount of dross that masquerades as games. Whats worse is Valve pushing all this dross in my face on the store page.

you should consider using a different service like GoG or Origin.

Youre right- I think I'll go and see whats for sale on GoG

[kholtby]

Postat inițial de cinedine:

If consumers would show some actual usage of the thing inbetween their ears, this wouldn't be a problem. Why would you trust any small time developer while the big wigs keep screwing you over? Why should a new start-up have the benefit of the doubt?

The onus to convince us to buy into their project shall always lie soley on the developer. Not Steam. Not GoG. Not any fancy program name like "Early Access". If people would follow this simple common sense line of thinkin - you have your developer responsibility.

Again you seem to be making the argument that people simply shouldn't buy at all, since even at full release from a big name developer you might not be getting a viable product.

Again, how is that a good business model worth defending?

You seem to be saying 'well you can lose no matter what you do, so why should the risks of early access be an issue?'

Earlier in this thread I asked 'Based on that logic, why have consumer protection law at all? Why have laws against fraud? Why have any sort of contract law?' The only response I've heard is 'This isn't illegal so it is ok.' That is ignoring the actual question.

[Tux]

Postat inițial de JudgeJudas:

Postat inițial de Tux:

you should consider using a different service like GoG or Origin.

Youre right- I think I'll go and see whats for sale on GoG

sweet!

enjoy!