Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
Diskussionsregler og retningslinjer
Rapporter dette indlæg
A tip for you. As you post in these forums you will see a very clear pattern of certain individuals acting a specific way, they will argue in a particular way e.g. "read blue box". When you encounter these people, you can argue with them or you can block them. I would strongly suggest you block them.
My time in these forums is much more pleasant now that I've removed their platform in my comments.
Also, since when has EA status protected games from criticism? Your whole rationale makes no sense.
Says who? You? There's no where in any of the documentation that even remotely infers what you're saying. So either Valve miswrote the documentation, and devs have been misusing it for years...or...you're mistaken. And that mistakenness is why your arguments are weaker than a wet napkin.
They do that already...v0.6, is just an update to v0.5 and so on.
That's a solid counter argument. It basically illustrates that game devolopment TAKES TIME. and keep in mind that took 11 years with blizzard cash and experienced veterans behind it.
YOu expect something by neophytes with a fraction of a fraction of that budget should be immune to that?
Yeah because its most productive when one UNDERSTANDS what things are, as opposed to basing all arguments and notions off the false image one has constructed..
Hence Read the Blue VBox. once you read and understand it you understand what it is and where your expectations should be. Those who read and understand have no issues. Those who fail to understand invariably wind up creating threads like these when reality contradicts their fantasy.
I agree there needs to be some type of control or restriction placed on it as too many "developers" abuse it.
The whole "read the blue box" argument is a non starter...no one truly buys a game thinking it may never get done, just like no one thinks they will suffer any of the side effects from the medication they take.
It's also mind boggling that so many so called "gamers" come here and defend those taking advantage of the system and billion dollar corps...no wonder the gaming industry has fallen so far and become the ♥♥♥♥ sandwich it is.
"uuu why leave early access if it's not finished?"
EA is just regular software development.
I like Early Access. Almost every EA game I've bought has made it to release, the few in the rest are in good shape and being worked on. Only a very small minority were on a dead end (and I bought them very aware they were projects dead on the water)
So forgive me if I defend a feature that has brought me tons of gaming enjoyment and a lot of cool games against some people who want it removed because they mainly don't know how to manage their own expectations.
As I said earlier:
And let those who enjoy the travel more than the destination have fun their way.
Have you ever bought a game not because of the base content but because of content that may come in future DLC?
No? Why? Because that DLC may never be made?
Then why buy a game thinking it may be finished in a future update?
You don't speak for all gamers, only for yourself.
The Early Access agreement is very simple, and clear.
There is no benefit to have the game change state from "Early Access" to "Released" - what benefit are you dreaming of here ? Even after it's "Released" there is nothing stopping the developer from making changes and updates to the game.
Forcing the game to be "Released" will not change the quality or content for the better - it may just cause devs to rush to finish, leaving the game semi-complete... and once it's "Released" they might just abandon it altogether.
What benefit are you thinking that changing the state from "Early Access" to "Released" will bring ?
And why remove games that people find fun to play just because the state is still in "Early Access".. how does it make sense to remove a game just because the state has not changed ?
The only time that games should be removed / refunded is when they absolutely fail and deliberately release something in the realm pre-beta - a few have (Starforge) - I actually loved that game despite the bugs.. even then there is no real guarantee that you should get a refund, since it's what was agreed on purchase.
Then you are one of a very few lucky people when it comes to EA, and we're not asking for it to be "removed", we're asking for oversight and requirements designed to protect the consumer.
Sigh.....DLC and an EA game are totally and completely different, so knock off the fallacies.
Everything you just posted is dishonest and logically flawed. Up till now I had a bit of respect for you. I might not have agreed with you on some things, but for the most part I could see your side of it.
Now, after that bile I see you as no different from the trolls on my blocked list, a list you just joined.
Grimoire : Heralds of the Winged Exemplar was in development for 24 years before being released on Steam.
Contemporary software development is all about iterative updates - Agile is in, as it has been for a while. Constant cycles (sprints) of planning, designing, developing, testing, releasing... over and over until the product meets the expectation. With Early Access, we just get to see more of the earlier stages... As the name implies, we get access earlier in the development stage.
This approach has many benefits - primarily being able to respond to change / feedback faster, the end product evolves based on feedback from the end user during development, etc.
Releasing finished games with a fixed release date is more akin to the older waterfall method (not really guaranteed that they actually used it, just that we don't see it until release). They make the full game, finish it, polish it, only then release it after everything has been completed.
As a consumer, we would see this as a waterfall since we only see the final product once it's fully finished. Waterfall still has some benefits over agile - it's less changeable, more concrete from the beginning etc.. but also has the downside of being less able to respond to unexpected issues / changes that are required.
Then those people need to adjust their expectations and not assume that EA is a "beta" or whatever it is they think even AFTER they read (or dont) the blue box.
IMyight surpriose you to know that a good many people are concerned about medication side-effects. For some that's the first thing they ask about, fiollowed by what to do if they have the side effects, etc etc. The answers to those questions will generally determine whether or not they take the medication.
And this isn't a matter of if a game will be finished, games will always be finished barring some act of god. Its the question of when? and what it will look like when finished.
As I've said. the fact that the developer hasn't simply just slapped v1.0 on the current build and called it a day can be taken as a tacit commitment to move forward on development. Because there's literally no benefit to keeping the early access designation if you arent. Even an unscrupulous dev knows that they'd be able to net a few more suckers in just from popping up as v1.0.
Why should it surprise you? Gamers are very quick to call out the errors of their fellow gamer.
And this is one of those cases where the people complaining are in their situation because they did not take the time to read or understand the contents of that prominently displayed blue box.
It's like watching someone complain about unavoidable enemies when they simply some how failed to notice or comprehend the fl,flashing 'Press X to Jimp' prompt on the screen :P
It is. The sooner you realise the better. EA games and non EA games are made the same way.
I just learnt to manage my expectations. I follow EA games I'm interested in, sometimes for years. That gives me a good insight of what's being worked on and what not before purchasing. It's not luck, it's 99% hype management.
There's two games I bought that ended up flopping. Interstellar Marines and GRAV.
One I got on a Bundle for a dollar... At that price it was worth the risk (the game was mostly dead by then anyway, so 'risk' was really low) For a dollar I could see what was all about firsthand.
GRAV was one game that on the surface was being actively worked, but development was dead in reality (regular server patches and minor balance tweaks). Still bought it on sale to check it out.
No hard feelings in either case as my expectations were grounded with reality.
They both are content people may expect in the future that may or may not be delivered by the devs.
OP does:
That's like two Duke Nukem Forevers plus some extra time.
That's why EA and non EA development are no different. Any game can fall into development hell, run out of money or steam to keep going, it can end up on a tech dead end, be rewritten from the ground up, change genres, artwork...
The only difference is in regular development all of that happens inside a black box (and if the game never gets out of it that's it) and EA removes the box.