People seem to use early access reviews and translate them the way they help their points.If u criticize an early access u are ignorant cause the game isnt ready and u dont have the right to criticize even if its unbalanced full of bugs and more ,cause simply the devs said they will fix them.Again when u praise the game ur review is totally for the current state game,so game is awesome.A review in an early access game is totally different from a review for released title.
If Steam was smart, they would just boot Ark out of Early Access and into mainstream. If you're living in a hospital and are well enough to live on your own, you get booted from that hospital to make space for others.
Another money-grabbing game company that I will not open my wallet for...ever. Thanks MMORPG.com for the heads up!
You charge for your game and don't wipe progress it's launched. Call it Early Access or Early Enrollment or whatever made up excuse term you want. It's launched. If more articles showed balls like this one maybe the industry wouldn't be filled with apologists at every turn.
Well done.
I dont speak of all gamers but I do speak for a lot. There are a lot of us who dont give a rats ass if the game is called 'early access' or 'nut sacks'
we just care if that game is fun.
You and your "lot of" players should care. Gaming companies hiding behind early access status in order to take your money with little risk to them is just plain bad and unnecessary if their game was really "fun".
You charge for your game and don't wipe progress it's launched. Call it Early Access or Early Enrollment or whatever made up excuse term you want. It's launched. If more articles showed balls like this one maybe the industry wouldn't be filled with apologists at every turn.
Well done.
I dont speak of all gamers but I do speak for a lot. There are a lot of us who dont give a rats ass if the game is called 'early access' or 'nut sacks'
we just care if that game is fun.
You and your "lot of" players should care. Gaming companies hiding behind early access status in order to take your money with little risk to them is just plain bad and unnecessary if their game was really "fun".
the key to the statement is 'if that game is fun'
There are many critics of early access who admit that what a game is classified as has no bearing at all whatosever to the quality of the game or the enjoyment of its game play and I agree with that assertion very much.
thus, if how a game is labeled doesnt affect quality and it appears there are more high quality games in Early Access then is not in early access covering the same amount of time then I have to ask..what the actual fuck are we talking about here?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
one of the best games ever produced in early access was in early access longer than a year. I think the time line is completely arbitrary and random, the effects of going over this purely arbitrary time frame is greatly assumed and as many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
one of the best games ever produced in early access was in early access longer than a year. I think the time line is completely arbitrary and random, the effects of going over this purely arbitrary time frame is greatly assumed and as many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Only the terms that you buy one Early Access game as IT IS, not as it will be, make the standard.
Meaning you are not entitled to anything, because you have NOT bought one fully released game, you bought one Early Access game, with the possibility that EA game will be released but you're not directly entitled to it.
Valve terms allow developers to do whatever on this aspect.
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
one of the best games ever produced in early access was in early access longer than a year. I think the time line is completely arbitrary and random, the effects of going over this purely arbitrary time frame is greatly assumed and as many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
I will say the last part again I think you might have missed it. ' many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game'
do you not agree?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
one of the best games ever produced in early access was in early access longer than a year. I think the time line is completely arbitrary and random, the effects of going over this purely arbitrary time frame is greatly assumed and as many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
I am not sure i agree with u Talonsin but seems better if they would let companies their timelines in their early access page and force them to honor their own timelines. This seems better solution than the one year but i am not sure i ll agree either. Early access atm is very risky,games can just stop the delevepoment at all and u cant get refunds. As great place for small companies and indie developers early access is,the same time is the perfect place for shady companies with good marketing to make cash long before and with no need to even deliver an even mediocre game.
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
one of the best games ever produced in early access was in early access longer than a year. I think the time line is completely arbitrary and random, the effects of going over this purely arbitrary time frame is greatly assumed and as many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
I am not sure i agree with u Talonsin but seems better if they would let companies their timelines in their early access page and force them to honor their own timelines. This seems better solution than the one year but i am not sure i ll agree either. Early access atm is very risky,games can just stop the delevepoment at all and u cant get refunds. As great place for small companies and indie developers early access is,the same time is the perfect place for shady companies with good marketing to make cash long before and with no need to even deliver an even mediocre game.
why though?
Once you get the laughing out of your system on what I am about to question consider the question seriously.
'why not remain in early access for 10 years' because in my mind I fail to see it as a problem other than on one item which I will cover if one is interested
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Weird u waited for me to laugh, i neither see a problem with that.One of the reasons i said i am not sure i agree with my own ''suggestion'' is ur point,for lot games especially the bigger projects, or at very small teams putting a timeline maybe is impossible.The other point i am not sure is cause i said atm the are of early access games is too shady.And i say that with having more than 15-20 early access titles.
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
one of the best games ever produced in early access was in early access longer than a year. I think the time line is completely arbitrary and random, the effects of going over this purely arbitrary time frame is greatly assumed and as many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
I will say the last part again I think you might have missed it. ' many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game'
do you not agree?
Yes I agree but the quality of the game has nothing to do with the issue. If I am a scam game developer, I can list my game on EA for years and use it as an excuse for a poor game and to hide from actual reviews from the gaming media. I dont see what the quality of the game has to do with that point.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
one of the best games ever produced in early access was in early access longer than a year. I think the time line is completely arbitrary and random, the effects of going over this purely arbitrary time frame is greatly assumed and as many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
I will say the last part again I think you might have missed it. ' many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game'
do you not agree?
Yes I agree but the quality of the game has nothing to do with the issue. If I am a scam game developer, I can list my game on EA for years and use it as an excuse for a poor game and to hide from actual reviews from the gaming media. I dont see what the quality of the game has to do with that point.
you contradict yourself I would perfer you resolve this statement before I move forward with my position. I put in bold where it appears you are suggesting quality IS a factor. I need to know if it is or if it is not. I can not have a conversation where the position flips often. no offense
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Weird u waited for me to laugh, i neither see a problem with that.One of the reasons i said i am not sure i agree with my own ''suggestion'' is ur point,for lot games especially the bigger projects, or at very small teams putting a timeline maybe is impossible.The other point i am not sure is cause i said atm the are of early access games is too shady.And i say that with having more than 15-20 early access titles.
you say:
'but seems better if they would let companies their timelines in their early access page and force them to honor their own timelines.'
forgive me for assuming you feel that this means you think there is an answer to 'too long'. I now assume you mean a developer should state a time frame (be it 1 year or 10 year) and hold to it.
if that is your position my question is this:
why?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
one of the best games ever produced in early access was in early access longer than a year. I think the time line is completely arbitrary and random, the effects of going over this purely arbitrary time frame is greatly assumed and as many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
I am not sure i agree with u Talonsin but seems better if they would let companies their timelines in their early access page and force them to honor their own timelines.
That would work for me as well. It just should not be a place for shady games to hang out and avoid industry reviews indefinitely.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Only the terms that you buy one Early Access game as IT IS, not as it will be, make the standard.
Meaning you are not entitled to anything, because you have NOT bought one fully released game, you bought one Early Access game, with the possibility that EA game will be released but you're not directly entitled to it.
Valve terms allow developers to do whatever on this aspect.
I think Valve's terms for early access games are good. Not promising anything about the future means there won't be any broken promises. It's as honest as selling an unfinished game can be.
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
one of the best games ever produced in early access was in early access longer than a year. I think the time line is completely arbitrary and random, the effects of going over this purely arbitrary time frame is greatly assumed and as many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
I will say the last part again I think you might have missed it. ' many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game'
do you not agree?
Yes I agree but the quality of the game has nothing to do with the issue. If I am a scam game developer, I can list my game on EA for years and use it as an excuse for a poor game and to hide from actual reviews from the gaming media. I dont see what the quality of the game has to do with that point.
The problem is with industry for not reviewing games in early access.
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
one of the best games ever produced in early access was in early access longer than a year. I think the time line is completely arbitrary and random, the effects of going over this purely arbitrary time frame is greatly assumed and as many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
I am not sure i agree with u Talonsin but seems better if they would let companies their timelines in their early access page and force them to honor their own timelines.
That would work for me as well. It just should not be a place for shady games to hang out and avoid industry reviews indefinitely.
I almost never pay attention to so called game journalist reviews myself. I go directly to youtube channels that share my tastes and gamer reviews, never game journalist reviews they are almost always silly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
one of the best games ever produced in early access was in early access longer than a year. I think the time line is completely arbitrary and random, the effects of going over this purely arbitrary time frame is greatly assumed and as many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
I will say the last part again I think you might have missed it. ' many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game'
do you not agree?
Yes I agree but the quality of the game has nothing to do with the issue. If I am a scam game developer, I can list my game on EA for years and use it as an excuse for a poor game and to hide from actual reviews from the gaming media. I dont see what the quality of the game has to do with that point.
you contradict yourself I would perfer you resolve this statement before I move forward with my position. I put in bold where it appears you are suggesting quality IS a factor. I need to know if it is or if it is not. I can not have a conversation where the position flips often. no offense
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
You are mixing apples and oranges. No where am I suggesting that the time spent in EA has any effect on a games quality. I am saying it can be used as a place for shady developers to hide a game of poor quality.
Lets take a game like "The Contact". It has been in EA for over a year, has a negative rating by 72% of the reviewers, is currently discounted by 70% and has not been updated since May. How long should it be allowed to hang in EA? There needs to be something to kick these games out of EA, be it poor buyer reviews, no updating in 6 months but something.
How is Xsyon still in EA after being released in 2014?
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
If Value/Steam would just implement some rules for early access, it would help immensely.
Rules like: 1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam. 2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
one of the best games ever produced in early access was in early access longer than a year. I think the time line is completely arbitrary and random, the effects of going over this purely arbitrary time frame is greatly assumed and as many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
I will say the last part again I think you might have missed it. ' many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game'
do you not agree?
Yes I agree but the quality of the game has nothing to do with the issue. If I am a scam game developer, I can list my game on EA for years and use it as an excuse for a poor game and to hide from actual reviews from the gaming media. I dont see what the quality of the game has to do with that point.
you contradict yourself I would perfer you resolve this statement before I move forward with my position. I put in bold where it appears you are suggesting quality IS a factor. I need to know if it is or if it is not. I can not have a conversation where the position flips often. no offense
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
You are mixing apples and oranges. No where am I suggesting that the time spent in EA has any effect on a games quality. I am saying it can be used as a place for shady developers to hide a game of poor quality.
Lets take a game like "The Contact". It has been in EA for over a year, has a negative rating by 72% of the reviewers, is currently discounted by 70% and has not been updated since May. How long should it be allowed to hang in EA? There needs to be something to kick these games out of EA, be it poor buyer reviews, no updating in 6 months but something.
How is Xsyon still in EA after being released in 2014?
I am sorry but you are not addressing my illustration of 'as an excuse for poor game mechanics ' to my satisfaction for me to continue.
in other words: 'as an excuse for poor game mechanics '\ and 'its doesnt affect quality'
is not working out for me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think Valve's terms for early access games are good. Not promising anything about the future means there won't be any broken promises. It's as honest as selling an unfinished game can be.
It's not that the Terms are not okay.
It's that the PLAYERS who buy EA Games expect:
They expect they are buying the game to play before it releases.
The reality:
They are buying the unfinished NOT the finished game, no liability to release the game exists as you are not buying that.
That is the problem on my view, people are not aware that the Early Access program is just a shop for un-finished games.
Weird u waited for me to laugh, i neither see a problem with that.One of the reasons i said i am not sure i agree with my own ''suggestion'' is ur point,for lot games especially the bigger projects, or at very small teams putting a timeline maybe is impossible.The other point i am not sure is cause i said atm the are of early access games is too shady.And i say that with having more than 15-20 early access titles.
you say:
'but seems better if they would let companies their timelines in their early access page and force them to honor their own timelines.'
forgive me for assuming you feel that this means you think there is an answer to 'too long'. I now assume you mean a developer should state a time frame (be it 1 year or 10 year) and hold to it.
if that is your position my question is this:
why?
Well first ur question is harder than i would like admit but i think the answer exists. First an easy answer to this can be very simple,if we assume steam had this rule. Then companies must have timelines and dates for full release, that means that we the customers have a clear project of a game we want and know when we will get the full game.So in its own is starting to be a marketing tool or a problem for these companies. The problem now with this ''easy'' answer is that it has lot of flaws.It may fixes a bit the scammers problem but not entirely.These companies will be forced to released their broken game so this will lead to bad reviews, less sales etc.But its impossible to get refunds even if it was an intentional scam, so isnt entirely fix. Another problem it may be with legit delevopers that for whatever reason missed their timelines and will get these bad reviews without deserving them.
Weird u waited for me to laugh, i neither see a problem with that.One of the reasons i said i am not sure i agree with my own ''suggestion'' is ur point,for lot games especially the bigger projects, or at very small teams putting a timeline maybe is impossible.The other point i am not sure is cause i said atm the are of early access games is too shady.And i say that with having more than 15-20 early access titles.
you say:
'but seems better if they would let companies their timelines in their early access page and force them to honor their own timelines.'
forgive me for assuming you feel that this means you think there is an answer to 'too long'. I now assume you mean a developer should state a time frame (be it 1 year or 10 year) and hold to it.
if that is your position my question is this:
why?
Well first ur question is harder than i would like admit but i think the answer exists. First an easy answer to this can be very simple,if we assume steam had this rule. Then companies must have timelines and dates for full release, that means that we the customers have a clear project of a game we want and know when we will get the full game.So in its own is starting to be a marketing tool or a problem for these companies. The problem now with this ''easy'' answer is that it has lot of flaws.It may fixes a bit the scammers problem but not entirely.These companies will be forced to released their broken game so this will lead to bad reviews, less sales etc.But its impossible to get refunds even if it was an intentional scam, so isnt entirely fix. Another problem it may be with legit delevopers that for whatever reason missed their timelines and will get these bad reviews without deserving them.
that doesnt really answer my question other than 'because we are giving a statement gamers expect it to be honored'
What I am asking is 'why is it important to give a time line if quality of game is not in question?'
Also, could you please keep it simple, short and to the point of the question. I would greatly appreciate it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
Another money-grabbing game company that I will not open my wallet for...ever. Thanks MMORPG.com for the heads up!
You and your "lot of" players should care. Gaming companies hiding behind early access status in order to take your money with little risk to them is just plain bad and unnecessary if their game was really "fun".
There are many critics of early access who admit that what a game is classified as has no bearing at all whatosever to the quality of the game or the enjoyment of its game play and I agree with that assertion very much.
thus, if how a game is labeled doesnt affect quality and it appears there are more high quality games in Early Access then is not in early access covering the same amount of time then I have to ask..what the actual fuck are we talking about here?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Rules like:
1. Early access can only be for a one year period and if your game is not ready for release by then it gets dropped from steam.
2. No paid DLC or cash shops can be active while in EA
Early access was a means to help small game studios get past that last little hump toward release of their product but instead it has turned into a excuse for poor game mechanics and become a breeding ground for scam artists like Digital Homicide.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Meaning you are not entitled to anything, because you have NOT bought one fully released game, you bought one Early Access game, with the possibility that EA game will be released but you're not directly entitled to it.
Valve terms allow developers to do whatever on this aspect.
' many on both sides agree none of it has anything to do with quality of the game'
do you not agree?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I will wait for a finished product before I even think about purchasing.
This seems better solution than the one year but i am not sure i ll agree either.
Early access atm is very risky,games can just stop the delevepoment at all and u cant get refunds.
As great place for small companies and indie developers early access is,the same time is the perfect place for shady companies with good marketing to make cash long before and with no need to even deliver an even mediocre game.
Once you get the laughing out of your system on what I am about to question consider the question seriously.
'why not remain in early access for 10 years' because in my mind I fail to see it as a problem other than on one item which I will cover if one is interested
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So you believe a game should be allowed to stay in EA for several years and use that as an excuse for poor game mechanics and to hide from actual game reviews?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
'but seems better if they would let companies their timelines in their early access page and force them to honor their own timelines.'
forgive me for assuming you feel that this means you think there is an answer to 'too long'. I now assume you mean a developer should state a time frame (be it 1 year or 10 year) and hold to it.
if that is your position my question is this:
why?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Lets take a game like "The Contact". It has been in EA for over a year, has a negative rating by 72% of the reviewers, is currently discounted by 70% and has not been updated since May. How long should it be allowed to hang in EA? There needs to be something to kick these games out of EA, be it poor buyer reviews, no updating in 6 months but something.
How is Xsyon still in EA after being released in 2014?
in other words:
'as an excuse for poor game mechanics '\
and
'its doesnt affect quality'
is not working out for me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's that the PLAYERS who buy EA Games expect:
The reality:
That is the problem on my view, people are not aware that the Early Access program is just a shop for un-finished games.
First an easy answer to this can be very simple,if we assume steam had this rule.
Then companies must have timelines and dates for full release, that means that we the customers have a clear project of a game we want and know when we will get the full game.So in its own is starting to be a marketing tool or a problem for these companies.
The problem now with this ''easy'' answer is that it has lot of flaws.It may fixes a bit the scammers problem but not entirely.These companies will be forced to released their broken game so this will lead to bad reviews, less sales etc.But its impossible to get refunds even if it was an intentional scam, so isnt entirely fix.
Another problem it may be with legit delevopers that for whatever reason missed their timelines and will get these bad reviews without deserving them.
What I am asking is 'why is it important to give a time line if quality of game is not in question?'
Also, could you please keep it simple, short and to the point of the question. I would greatly appreciate it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me