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

[Start_Running]

引用自 BlackSpawn：

How it is meant to work is displayed on the Steam EAG page and by the present rules/guidelines.

How it is working atm is a different picture, mirrored by the evolving and progressively noncommittal terms of service of the platform.

Some titles use it correctly, dont get me wrong.
But those that do not have an endless leash that is in dire need of being shortened.

Customer has to use their own senses sometime. The bad ones are usually very easy to spot. The questionable ones as well. Wait, Ask around and then decide.

[BlackSpawn]

Consumer responsibility is a thing.
Developer/publisher accountability should be another.

[Start_Running]

引用自 BlackSpawn：

Consumer responsibility is a thing.
Developer/publisher accountability should be another.

There is plenty of that. Accountability does not mean you get to call take backs on your decisions as a consumer. Accountability simply means they have to give you as much information as necessary for you to come to a purchase decision. That the information they give is allowed to change as per the nature of the product, is part of the product description and should be factored into the decision. If the customer had no issue with the TOS when they purchased well then they can't have an issue with it after. If they have an issue then they can avoid purchase. If they do not, they can purchase. See how that works?

And it works well , for the majority of the the EAcc community it seems.I haven't purchased an EAcc game due to a strange paradox:

The devs that have proven themselves worthy of my trust are the same ones I feel comfprtable in waiting for the full release because I know such devs will bat it out within a year. So i wait.

Those that do not earn my trust sufficiebntly again prompt me to wait until the product is finished.

Either way i prefer to buy finished games than unfinished games. OThers feel differently and they are welcome to buy what makes them happy for whatever reason makes them happy. ANy customer that has issues, will avoid purchase under the TOS.

[cinedine]

引用自 NomNom：

You don't pay someone for an unfinished song, or an unfinished book, or an unfinished movie. Why should video games be any different? Why is this idea allowed?

Games are not really comparable to those things.
First you would need to define when a game is "complete". In todays day and age, games are turning into services more and more. Meaning you pay for the foundation of a game which is updated constantly - with fee or for free. Pretty much any multiplayer focused title works this way already. New maps, new weapons or classes, balancing changes, ... the games are hardly complete at release and often changing.

And you DO get a working game of some description. That is hard to deny. The caveats coming with it - bugridden, badly optimized, incomplete - are either explicitely or implicitely told you at time of purchase. You know, the whole big blue EA banner. People are able to buy broken things for various reasons and as long as the state is not misrepresented, it's fine.
I'd also make a case that people pay for unfinished books and movies/series all the time. Song of Fire and Ice for example. While each "book" ("content patch") is finished, the story might never be. Movies is the same. Lord of the freaking Rings and The Hobbit - 3 movies each. What if Peter Jackson would have just thrown a tantrum and never finished them? And it's not like the story is even complete. Don't even get me started about cliffhangers that literally let you left hanging in the story.
But those are completely different media and if you really dare to compare those to games, I have a whole bunch of follow-up questions. ;)

It has been said thousands of times: You are paying for the current state the game is in. If you do not like this - you do not need to buy it. You always have the chance of waiting for how it will turn out. There are pitfalls with the program the customer can not avoid and which are legitimate concerns. Like a studio breaking the ♥♥♥♥ out of the game before rage quitting development or truning the game into something different. But those are bleeding edge cases. A game not being "complete" is an avoidable - and clearly stated - risk.

[Tux]

引用自 BlackSpawn：

Consumer responsibility is a thing.
Developer/publisher accountability should be another.

nothing like the Ivory Tower Elitists to brush off basic personal resonsiblity with words

[cinedine]

引用自 Tux：

引用自 BlackSpawn：

Consumer responsibility is a thing.
Developer/publisher accountability should be another.

nothing like the Ivory Tower Elitists to brush off basic personal resonsiblity with words

... coming from someone who sees Early Access as a godsent that can do no wrong and curses all major titles as (quote) being the same all over.

[Tux]

引用自 cinedine：

引用自 Tux：

nothing like the Ivory Tower Elitists to brush off basic personal resonsiblity with words

... coming from someone who sees Early Access as a godsent that can do no wrong and curses all major titles as (quote) being the same all over.

because I take personal responsiblity for my consumer actions and try to not blame others

[BlackSpawn]

Accountability means being held responsible for marketed mechanics, content, timelines (within reason), monetization, et al that are used to market the game/product.

Not being able to drop a beta and run would be a good start.
A more comprehensive refund policy would also be a good followup.

There are many issues with the current TOS, as historically there have been.
The issue is that as the platform has "progressed" the TOS have become flimsier and less committal in order to allow for many of the previous transgressions seen in the platform and its predecesor.
Behavior and practices that used to call for/required remediation in prior iterations are now quite literally allowed for; even though they go counter to the stated aims and goals of the platform.

From Towns, to Stomping Lands, Starforge, Spacebase, etc to all the crapola that can be seen nowadays.

Again, there are teams that do Early Access well.
But there are no disincentivizers within the rules/guidelines and TOS towards those that through malicious intent or benign inexperience/incompetence misuse/abuse the platform.

[Start_Running]

引用自 BlackSpawn：

Accountability means being held responsible for marketed mechanics, content, timelines (within reason), monetization, et al that are used to market the game/product.

Said details are disclosed to be subject to change without notice. Said details are also as likely not to change. That these details are disclosed up front and form one of the few immutable clauses of the product descript makes your arguement moot. As said. You are told that such data may change over the course of development therefore the store page at any given time only is required to reflect the most currently available build.

All statements are deemed accurate, until they are changed at which point previous statements are rendered null and void. This is inferred easily by those who actually spend time trying to understand the totality of the TOS as opposed to picking out only the parts they like.

Again, the seller is not responsible for the customer's willful ignorance or misunderstanding.

Not being able to drop a beta and run would be a good start.
A more comprehensive refund policy would also be a good followup.

The cases of that happening are few and very far between. You actually have better chances at winning something off a scratch ticket than you are of purchasing a game where the devs pull a cut and run. Also again. This risk is disclosed prior to purchase and forms one of the other immutable sections of the product description.

This should be a factor in the decision making. If the idea of them running with the money didn't bother you when you gave them the money then you lose the right to complain when they do.

This is what is meant by customer responsibility.

There are many issues with the current TOS, as historically there have been.
The issue is that as the platform has "progressed" the TOS have become flimsier and less committal in order to allow for many of the previous transgressions seen in the platform and its predecesor.

Actually the changes were simply meant to clarify what had been inferred by the previous.

From Towns, to Stomping Lands, Starforge, Spacebase, etc to all the crapola that can be seen nowadays.

Towns was never in EAcc or sold as EAcc. Spacebase and STarforge completed and are still being sold as a completed games So is Towns for that matter. Stomping Lands was one case of things going bad. Something that the customer was indeed warned about prior to purchase. You really need to get better examples. Of your 4 examples, 3 are actually proving the opposite of what you think. They were games that completed the EAcc development and achieved full completed release. The fourth was an example that valve does indeed remove games that are shown and proven to be dead or being sopld in poor faith.

[Autism is Unstoppable]

引用自 cinedine：

引用自 NomNom：

You don't pay someone for an unfinished song, or an unfinished book, or an unfinished movie. Why should video games be any different? Why is this idea allowed?

Games are not really comparable to those things.
First you would need to define when a game is "complete". In todays day and age, games are turning into services more and more. Meaning you pay for the foundation of a game which is updated constantly - with fee or for free. Pretty much any multiplayer focused title works this way already. New maps, new weapons or classes, balancing changes, ... the games are hardly complete at release and often changing.

And you DO get a working game of some description. That is hard to deny. The caveats coming with it - bugridden, badly optimized, incomplete - are either explicitely or implicitely told you at time of purchase. You know, the whole big blue EA banner. People are able to buy broken things for various reasons and as long as the state is not misrepresented, it's fine.
I'd also make a case that people pay for unfinished books and movies/series all the time. Song of Fire and Ice for example. While each "book" ("content patch") is finished, the story might never be. Movies is the same. Lord of the freaking Rings and The Hobbit - 3 movies each. What if Peter Jackson would have just thrown a tantrum and never finished them? And it's not like the story is even complete. Don't even get me started about cliffhangers that literally let you left hanging in the story.
But those are completely different media and if you really dare to compare those to games, I have a whole bunch of follow-up questions. ;)

It has been said thousands of times: You are paying for the current state the game is in. If you do not like this - you do not need to buy it. You always have the chance of waiting for how it will turn out. There are pitfalls with the program the customer can not avoid and which are legitimate concerns. Like a studio breaking the ♥♥♥♥ out of the game before rage quitting development or truning the game into something different. But those are bleeding edge cases. A game not being "complete" is an avoidable - and clearly stated - risk.

We both have a different view, this is acceptable. I could sit here and waste my time countering all of those points, but we're getting into the realm of things being subjective. In my opinion, the cancers of the game industry are pretty apparent.

[BlackSpawn]

引用自 NomNom：

We both have a different view, this is acceptable. I could sit here and waste my time countering all of those points, but we're getting into the realm of things being subjective. In my opinion, the cancers of the game industry are pretty apparent.

Agreed.

Hard to imagine why some people feel so inclined to defend "things gone bad" though.

https://steamcommunity.com/groups/dissenters-anonymous#curation/app/263440/
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/acpreport#curation/app/246090/
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/acpreport#curation/app/227680/
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/acpreport#curation/app/221020/ (released as in development game, the precursor to Steams Early Access)

https://medium.com/steam-spy/on-early-access-games-39aed2b8f82d#.mqlw7xjbo

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-11-13-early-access-popularity-growing-but-only-25-percent-have-released-as-a-full-game

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PaulAllen/20160211/265598/Is_Steams_Early_Access_a_ticking_time_bomb.php

http://armedgamer.com/2015/01/current-state-steam-early-access/

[Serell]

引用自 Start_Running：

Towns was never in EAcc or sold as EAcc. Spacebase and STarforge completed and are still being sold as a completed games So is Towns for that matter. Stomping Lands was one case of things going bad. Something that the customer was indeed warned about prior to purchase. You really need to get better examples. Of your 4 examples, 3 are actually proving the opposite of what you think. They were games that completed the EAcc development and achieved full completed release. The fourth was an example that valve does indeed remove games that are shown and proven to be dead or being sopld in poor faith.

As an owner of Starforge... heh.. yeah.. please don't call that game completed. All they did was rip the EAG tag off of it. Starforge is one of the best examples of Early Access gone wrong.

Just wanted to drop in to say that. I take responsbility for buying that pile of garbage.

[Autism is Unstoppable]

I don't really understand why people try to place all the blame on the consumer for purchasing an early access title. You're buying it in good faith that the developer will accomplish the goals they had when devising the concept of the game. When a game has strong core game mechanics aswell as possibly a plot, if it's a story oriented game, or the features that were planned were actually implemented. Then I suppose you could say that it's a finished game. When the only things you feel as a developer you feel are needed are bug patches for new bugs. I don't in any way support the concept of DLC from the way most AAA companies do it. I'm sure many here understand why.

[76561198001062896]

引用自 NomNom：

I don't really understand why people try to place all the blame on the consumer for purchasing an early access title. You're buying it in good faith that the developer will accomplish the goals they had when devising the concept of the game. When a game has strong core game mechanics aswell as possibly a plot, if it's a story oriented game, or the features that were planned were actually implemented. Then I suppose you could say that it's a finished game. When the only things you feel as a developer you feel are needed are bug patches for new bugs. I don't in any way support the concept of DLC from the way most AAA companies do it. I'm sure many here understand why.

I dont understand why ppl buy into early acces if they cant acknowledge the risks.

[cinedine]

引用自 NomNom：

I don't really understand why people try to place all the blame on the consumer for purchasing an early access title.

As you put it: No one would buy an incomplete book, song or movie. So why do people buy incomplete games? I always think there is something magical on Steam that makes people thrwo common sense out of the window. Buying into promises and potential of EAGs is only one of many symptoms.