"Early Access" is a disease. "Selling" incomplete games is obscene.

[Etra]

I just saw that Bannerlord 2, a game in early access that I have already paid for, is having a sale. That I bought a game at full price that was later discounted doesn't bother me; what bothers me is the game is in the full marketing swing of sales incentives and seasonal swings one would only associate with a post-release marketing schedule.

"Early Access" has become the new "release it now, fix it later" that gamers hate about all the new releases. Cyberpunk 2077 is only the latest example of rushed development; if it hadn't "released" and instead was in "Early Access" - but still charging full price - would the game be any better? Any less complete? Any less buggy?

"Early Access" was an experiment and my judgment is that it is a failure. The result may have been an aid for smaller or solo teams to develop more ambitious projects than otherwise possible, but it has also created a new pseudo-release paradigm where developers are comfortable collecting profits on sub-standard products - under this pre-release fig leaf.

Reform or abolition of the "Early Access" program is needed. I propose that "Early Access" be no more costly than $10 and the "investor" be granted full release rights to the game when it does release. This cap on what an "Early Access" can cost would do two things:
a) deter a development team from cashing in on their incomplete project, which only harms the greater gaming ecosystem while
b) small or solo development teams that only ever had modest sales goals for their first release anyway still have a financing tool.

[ChickenBalls]

I've seen games being in "early access" for years...
Also CP2077 isn't the first game that is released with tons of bugs.
Remember Mass Effect Andromeda and Fallout 76?

[ReBoot]

이 댓글은 자동화된 콘텐츠 확인 시스템의 분석을 기다리고 있습니다. 정보 도용을 위한 웹사이트 링크와 같이 유해한 콘텐츠가 포함되어 있지 않은 것으로 확인될 때까지, 일시적으로 숨김 처리됩니다.

[Brian9824]

이 댓글은 자동화된 콘텐츠 확인 시스템의 분석을 기다리고 있습니다. 정보 도용을 위한 웹사이트 링크와 같이 유해한 콘텐츠가 포함되어 있지 않은 것으로 확인될 때까지, 일시적으로 숨김 처리됩니다.

[crunchyfrog]

ragefifty50님이 먼저 게시:

i dont mind stone dead....

gees.. we do have price similarity in the games world...

most people will play around $80 for AAA there are variations
but there is a standard in games pricing.... always has been...
even when it changes it just related to what people are prepared to pay...

there are strategies for everything..... i am just saying i would like to see better
contols on the way early access works.... and if you cant cut it... your probably
not up for completing a game for the people that are funding you...

different.... thats right..... dev A thinks i am really good.... I'll charge $50 because
i think i'm good...... dev B lacks a bit of confidence and says I'll charge $15 but
he is 4 times better qualified than dev A

so a customer where would you put your money....... lol

EA needs better standards... its 2020.....
humans dont vary that much....
we are all being groomed into lemmings these days....

ew ew... i need to be a individual.... yeah right..


get tighter standards... bet better outcomes...

The thing is your logic is all over the place.

You can't both say you can have a one-size-fits-all solution while acknowledging that circumstances and games are different.

Most people will pay $80 for AAA games. Sure. But who says all early access games are in the scope of AA games, becuase they DEMONSTRABLY aren't.

Look, I get your point that you'd like to see more regulation on this, but there's two fundamental errors you're making here:
(1) Acknowledging or thinking that something should be done DOES NOT mean you can just pull some sweeping nonsense out of thin air, as that's not how reality works. You might not even know what the solution is, or even if it's possible to have one effectively. Don't confuse the two things.

(2) Secondly, you clearly don't understand ANY of what goes into game development, and strawmanning by bring up triple A games does nothing expect underline your lack of knowledge.

"Get tighter standards ... be better outcomes..." - going down non-sequitur highway does not make your argument any stronger either.

Again, I would refer you to Google to look up just ANY dev blogs or even any anecdotes from history, because how you think it works is NOTHING like reality.

I can recommend some damned good books on this topic, if you're so inclined.

The bottom line though is something ore fundamental and you've definitely overlooked. You can't just toss out arbitrary rules. You must also work within what are ACCPETABLE contract terms (you can rightly be sued for unfair contract conditions) and you must ALWAYS abide with consumer law.

And I can assure you, the current BIG BANNER on every ealry access game already offers such standards that you seem to be looking at in any case.

This is a cardinal example of frankly not knowing the first thing what you're talking about.

[nullable]

ragefifty50님이 먼저 게시:

be good if we could teach a bit more common sense....

The sort of common sense it takes to come with an asinine solution and then say it's the developers job to figure out how to survive in that dystopian nightmare?

ragefifty50님이 먼저 게시:

can we change the title to "i blame the parents"

I don't blame your parents. At some point, pretty early on you're responsible for your own BS. Everyone is. Even if someone us spend too much time trying to find out, "Who's to blame!"

ragefifty50님이 먼저 게시:

but it would be good to have a EA group that did have strict standards on the side
like a alternative EA... just to see if there was a difference..

Being able to see how ideas, even bad ones play out would be nice. But that's not the universe we live in. Not everything can really be run side by side and the winner selected. Namely not as many people as you imagine are going to volunteer for weird strict BS Early Access v2, why would they? No benefits for them, and clearly your ideas is they not get paid more enduring. Maybe you're thinking street cred? Yeah, street cred is great. Making money is better.

[( ( < < <🤖> > > ) )]

Brockenstein님이 먼저 게시:

ragefifty50님이 먼저 게시:

be good if we could teach a bit more common sense....

The sort of common sense it takes to come with an asinine solution and then say it's the developers job to figure out how to survive in that dystopian nightmare?

ragefifty50님이 먼저 게시:

can we change the title to "i blame the parents"

I don't blame your parents. At some point, pretty early on you're responsible for your own BS. Everyone is. Even if someone us spend too much time trying to find out, "Who's to blame!"

ragefifty50님이 먼저 게시:

but it would be good to have a EA group that did have strict standards on the side
like a alternative EA... just to see if there was a difference..

Being able to see how ideas, even bad ones play out would be nice. But that's not the universe we live in. Not everything can really be run side by side and the winner selected. Namely not as many people as you imagine are going to volunteer for weird strict BS Early Access v2, why would they? No benefits for them, and clearly your ideas is they not get paid more enduring. Maybe you're thinking street cred? Yeah, street cred is great. Making money is better.

interesting.... but it is the universe we live in...
look at the churches of the world side by side...
offering variable different restrictions and freedoms
that are there for you to compare reject accept or ignore

i am saying standardise the process of ea just like processes used
everywhere in manufacturing... . carton of milk... car... fridge.. block of chonklat

not looking for people to get paid less for less or more for less...
but a standardised process
would be interesting..

i aint that smart.... but come on people look around......

[( ( < < <🤖> > > ) )]

@ chrunchyfrong

its a steam forum... i am putting a few ideas out there....
i aint a game dev... i dont buy ea games.. i know gamers
that have great experiences with ea and also not so

this is not my post... your post just gets in the way of fun...

[nullable]

ragefifty50님이 먼저 게시:

interesting.... but it is the universe we live in...
look at the churches of the world side by side...
offering variable different restrictions and freedoms
that are there for you to compare reject accept or ignore

I don't agree there's equivalence there. We don't operate everything like churches for some very good reasons.

ragefifty50님이 먼저 게시:

i am saying standardise the process of ea just like processes used
everywhere in manufacturing... . carton of milk... car... fridge.. block of chonklat

Makes sense, if you have a fundamental misunderstanding how software development is.

You want all the creativity and inspiration of art. Churned out like thousands of identical cartons of milk... but there's obviously one little problem with that analogy.

Churches aren't standardized like manufacturing either. Maybe you should standardize your use of analogies.

ragefifty50님이 먼저 게시:

not looking for people to get paid less for less or more for less...
but a standardised process
would be interesting..

i aint that smart.... but come on people look around......

Sometimes you have to stop and look at why things are the way they are. As opposed to trying to fix things because they aren't the way you think they should be. One has to wonder why software development isn't treated the same was producing cartons of milk, refrigerators or bars of chocolate.

It's not a new idea. But it's not been a very successful idea.

[Mad Scientist]

ragefifty50님이 먼저 게시:

@ chrunchyfrong

its a steam forum... i am putting a few ideas out there....
i aint a game dev... i dont buy ea games.. i know gamers
that have great experiences with ea and also not so

this is not my post... your post just gets in the way of fun... :cheeeese:

You say a lot of unrelated and meaningless things which is not really an idea. If you know people that have had issues with EAG - that's not your problem, and you get to learn from their mistake. Their mistake of jumping on the hype train and not doing research of any kind is entirely their fault which again - you learn from their mistake.

The best thing you could do for yourself if having doubts is to not buy an Early Access Game.

[( ( < < <🤖> > > ) )]

@brockenstein....

you are the one separating the milk from everything else i put there...

but even so... the process of creating a carton of milk.... is very creative....

thats all i need to say really...

[( ( < < <🤖> > > ) )]

@ Mr. Gentlebot

i dont understand what your responding to

[† Noekin †]

Etra님이 먼저 게시:

I just saw that Bannerlord 2, a game in early access that I have already paid for, is having a sale. That I bought a game at full price that was later discounted doesn't bother me; what bothers me is the game is in the full marketing swing of sales incentives and seasonal swings one would only associate with a post-release marketing schedule.

"Early Access" has become the new "release it now, fix it later" that gamers hate about all the new releases. Cyberpunk 2077 is only the latest example of rushed development; if it hadn't "released" and instead was in "Early Access" - but still charging full price - would the game be any better? Any less complete? Any less buggy?

"Early Access" was an experiment and my judgment is that it is a failure. The result may have been an aid for smaller or solo teams to develop more ambitious projects than otherwise possible, but it has also created a new pseudo-release paradigm where developers are comfortable collecting profits on sub-standard products - under this pre-release fig leaf.

Reform or abolition of the "Early Access" program is needed. I propose that "Early Access" be no more costly than $10 and the "investor" be granted full release rights to the game when it does release. This cap on what an "Early Access" can cost would do two things:
a) deter a development team from cashing in on their incomplete project, which only harms the greater gaming ecosystem while
b) small or solo development teams that only ever had modest sales goals for their first release anyway still have a financing tool.

[Brian9824]

Grand Ayatrollah님이 먼저 게시:

It *was a disease.

The communities attitude changed, the mocking and laughing starts the second a new EAG is announced. I would not wanna make an EAG at this point anymore, maybe back in the WarZ dayz.

Theres always gonna be one or two dreamers who are more interested in watching the developers learn how to develop a game, and building a friendship whil;e learning how to develop video games together? lol

I swear the only people who actually like EAG is 50 year old linux bbs wannabe angelina jolene hackers who couldnt make the big time. You will learn as much about game development from Steam EAG as you will learn hacking from the movie hackers. If youre really into development, thenm get a job doing it.

It has nothing to do with learning about game development, its about getting access to games like these

https://store.steampowered.com/app/251570/7_Days_to_Die/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/383120/Empyrion__Galactic_Survival/

That would never exist without EA.

[Brian9824]

† Noekin †님이 먼저 게시:

Reform or abolition of the "Early Access" program is needed. I propose that "Early Access" be no more costly than $10 and the "investor" be granted full release rights to the game when it does release.

You already have full release rights to the gam when it releases, that is the point of buying EA. Although capping the money would just cause more to fail as they often need that money to finish the game.

Or they would just release it incomplete and then charge for DLC afterwards or during development like Ark did.

[† Noekin †]

But yeah me for that :D