Well i try to keep it simple but english isnt my native language is hard to try keep it somewhat right,and maybe i didnt understood ur point exactly for the same reason.Anyway i didnt said and neither saw any other post speaking only for timeline.In a perfect world early access games should had timelines according developers and ofc has quality, meaning they are already playable even as early access. I really dont understand where u disagree.Most jobs and companies have timelines i cant understand why u see there isnt anything wrong when a company ignore the customers.Thats why there are rules and laws.And this is the basic concern about early access for most ppl.Companies have totally the first and the last word in everything.They can literally close the official servers at ark release the game with hundrends of bugs and u cant do nothing.I dont know why u dont see there is a problem.
Companies have totally the first and the last word in everything.They can literally close the official servers at ark release the game with hundrends of bugs and u cant do nothing.I dont know why u dont see there is a problem.
"Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development"
That text is placed on Steam's store page above the purchase button. It's short, simple, and visible enough that no one should miss it.
I think if someone buys an early access game from Steam, they can't complain that they didn't know what they were buying. They're adults, after that kind of disclaimer it's their responsibility to know.
Well i try to keep it simple but english isnt my native language is hard to try keep it somewhat right,and maybe i didnt understood ur point exactly for the same reason.Anyway i didnt said and neither saw any other post speaking only for timeline.In a perfect world early access games should had timelines according developers and ofc has quality, meaning they are already playable even as early access. I really dont understand where u disagree.Most jobs and companies have timelines i cant understand why u see there isnt anything wrong when a company ignore the customers.Thats why there are rules and laws.And this is the basic concern about early access for most ppl.Companies have totally the first and the last word in everything.They can literally close the official servers at ark release the game with hundrends of bugs and u cant do nothing.I dont know why u dont see there is a problem.
let me step back a second and ask it this way and I am only going to ask it one more time and then not again because of moderator concerns.
why is it important to give a timeline if quality of game is not in question? answer in less than 100 words please
for reference this is what you said: '...seems better if they would let companies their timelines in their early access page and force them to honor their own timelines...'
my question is 'why'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
let me step back a second and ask it this way and I am only going to ask it one more time and then not again because of moderator concerns.
why is it important to give a timeline if quality of game is not in question? answer in less than 100 words please
for reference this is what you said: '...seems better if they would let companies their timelines in their early access page and force them to honor their own timelines...'
my question is 'why'
I think i already answer this but whatever this was response in a comment about timelines i never said i dont account of the quality of the game cause i do. Hope this is good answer :pleased: I really dont get why u think i am a troll or whatever and speak about moderator.
let me step back a second and ask it this way and I am only going to ask it one more time and then not again because of moderator concerns.
why is it important to give a timeline if quality of game is not in question? answer in less than 100 words please
for reference this is what you said: '...seems better if they would let companies their timelines in their early access page and force them to honor their own timelines...'
my question is 'why'
I think i already answer this but whatever this was response in a comment about timelines i never said i dont account of the quality of the game cause i do. Hope this is good answer :pleased: I really dont get why u think i am a troll or whatever and speak about moderator.
I think so.
So unlike some advocates and critics you feel that quality IS affected by timeline. I should point out that you are in disagreement with some critics of early access. which is fine I am just making you aware of it.
I however, in ways I can measure if your interested, do not agree with your assertion that time in developement is related to quality
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
"Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development"
That text is placed on Steam's store page above the purchase button. It's short, simple, and visible enough that no one should miss it.
I think if someone buys an early access game from Steam, they can't complain that they didn't know what they were buying. They're adults, after that kind of disclaimer it's their responsibility to know.
I dont know how u assumed from my posts that i dont understand what early access is , i even said they literally have the right to give u a brown shit atm and the only drawback will be complains.I must like the way it is atm?And ofc i agree that in most cases is the customer responsibility to choose, i dont deny that.I just prefer to have some rules at early access games so customers can avoid shady companies.U can disagree but i never said about not taking responsibility for my bad phurchases.
So unlike some advocates and critics you feel that quality IS affected by timeline. I should point out that you are in disagreement with some critics of early access. which is fine I am just making you aware of it.
I however, in ways I can measure if your interested, do not agree with your assertion that time in developement is related to quality
I dont want to start anything but my brain burns now:P.Seems my english are lot worst than i thought. The only think i said its that except timeline the quality of the game matters thats all didnt connect these two.And i dont think any human being disagrees that the quality of the game matters so this wasnt to start a arguement.Sry if it looked that way but gone too far with no reason and probably cause of me.
So unlike some advocates and critics you feel that quality IS affected by timeline. I should point out that you are in disagreement with some critics of early access. which is fine I am just making you aware of it.
I however, in ways I can measure if your interested, do not agree with your assertion that time in developement is related to quality
I dont want to start anything but my brain burns now:P.Seems my english are lot worst than i thought. The only think i said its that except timeline the quality of the game matters thats all didnt connect these two.And i dont think any human being disagrees that the quality of the game matters so this wasnt to start a arguement.Sry if it looked that way but gone too far with no reason and probably cause of me.
basically:
Quality matters = we both agree Timeline affects quality = you agree Timeline affects quality = I do not agree. Timeline affects quality = many critics of early access do not agree
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Companies have totally the first and the last word in everything.They can literally close the official servers at ark release the game with hundrends of bugs and u cant do nothing.I dont know why u dont see there is a problem.
"Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development"
That text is placed on Steam's store page above the purchase button. It's short, simple, and visible enough that no one should miss it.
I think if someone buys an early access game from Steam, they can't complain that they didn't know what they were buying. They're adults, after that kind of disclaimer it's their responsibility to know.
I agree. Personal accountability seems to be at an all time low.
I also think there is a reasonable expectation of progress and completion when buying into that. The gamer should understand things may not work right and may dramatically change. They're buying in expecting completion though and not for the game to stay in that state indefinitely.
I think people here view rules differently.
Personally I argue against translating people's reasonable expectations of progress and completion into a rule, because I don't think the devs would follow the spirit of that kind of rule. I think any rule about that would only create more expectations in buyers, whereas the devs would be unlikely to invest more money into the game and make it any better than they already make.
A rule is only good if it actually improves the situation.
"Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development"
That text is placed on Steam's store page above the purchase button. It's short, simple, and visible enough that no one should miss it.
I think if someone buys an early access game from Steam, they can't complain that they didn't know what they were buying. They're adults, after that kind of disclaimer it's their responsibility to know.
I dont know how u assumed from my posts that i dont understand what early access is , i even said they literally have the right to give u a brown shit atm and the only drawback will be complains.I must like the way it is atm?And ofc i agree that in most cases is the customer responsibility to choose, i dont deny that.I just prefer to have some rules at early access games so customers can avoid shady companies.U can disagree but i never said about not taking responsibility for my bad phurchases.
I was trying to argue that there's nothing wrong with Steam's rules, because every adult who purchases an early access game from there has read them and knows what they are.
I didn't mean you would not know what an early access game was. Sorry about that, I should have been more clear in my post.
As i said i dont connect these two so why u keep putting them that way.I really dont get the it.My post about timelines was based on another post and the only reason i wrote it is so that customer knows when he will have probably the finished product, thats all.I dont think i made any connection between these 2. And i would prefer to hear ur opinion at early access instead of keeping arguement at nothing.As i said maybe it was my wrong but now i think is clear why i post about timelines.
I was trying to argue that there's nothing wrong with Steam's rules, because every adult who purchases an early access game from there has read them and knows what they are.
I didn't mean you would not know what an early access game was. Sorry about that, I should have been more clear in my post.
Yeah np i can understand now u are ok with the rules,maybe i am wrong but i feel like early access needs at least some basic rules,maybe what i have in my mind is wrong too.My intention was to hear another suggestions mostly.
As i said i dont connect these two so why u keep putting them that way.I really dont get the it.My post about timelines was based on another post and the only reason i wrote it is so that customer knows when he will have probably the finished product, thats all.I dont think i made any connection between these 2. And i would prefer to hear ur opinion at early access instead of keeping arguement at nothing.As i said maybe it was my wrong but now i think is clear why i post about timelines.
ok then they are not.
look I am unclear your position either you feel quality is affected by timeline or you do not.
I do not. but I cant move forward in my explanation until i understand your view one way or the other
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I was trying to argue that there's nothing wrong with Steam's rules, because every adult who purchases an early access game from there has read them and knows what they are.
I didn't mean you would not know what an early access game was. Sorry about that, I should have been more clear in my post.
Yeah np i can understand now u are ok with the rules,maybe i am wrong but i feel like early access needs at least some basic rules,maybe what i have in my mind is wrong too.My intention was to hear another suggestions mostly.
I don't think you're wrong.
Everyone has different opinions about rules. I told you my opinion, but you seem to have some good reasons for your opinion too, and it was interesting talking with you.
look I am unclear your position either you feel quality is affected by timeline or you do not.
I do not. but I cant move forward in my explanation until i understand your view one way or the other
Lets forget all previous posts.I didnt have in my mind to connect these 2 but since u want my opinion,the only i can think atm is that timeline can affect quality cause with a big timeline developers have more time to work their project.Thats is the only i can think and again isnt 100% accurate, to be true must presume that the developer really like his project and want to make a great game.Hope with this to be clear.
look I am unclear your position either you feel quality is affected by timeline or you do not.
I do not. but I cant move forward in my explanation until i understand your view one way or the other
Lets forget all previous posts.I didnt have in my mind to connect these 2 but since u want my opinion,the only i can think atm is that timeline can affect quality cause with a big timeline developers have more time to work their project.Thats is the only i can think and again isnt 100% accurate, to be true must presume that the developer really like his project and want to make a great game.Hope with this to be clear.
yes that is clear.
The question I have for the community is this really
'why do we feel giving a timeline is important?'
In short, when one suggests a rule my question will be 'why' and I would expect a reason that is well formed rather than 'because it feels good' . That is the position I am suggesting here today
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm not really sure how this went into a timeline conversation. The rules should be pretty simple... DLC should not be offered for unreleased products. It can be ANNOUNCED, sure.
Back to the whole review issue with "how great the game is" well, if you base everything off of something being an unfinished title, then yes, early access games of all walks of life are great.
I've been playing Divinity OS2. It's in much better shape then ARK was when I first got into that game. and yeah, DOS2 would be really high on my list right now, I've experienced far fewer bugs in it with nearly 10 hours played than I did in Ark with 2 hours played. But if the game released today, it would get a very critical score from me.
Early Access Games are UNFINISHED GAMES. Says so when you purchase it, nice big clear letters.
"Oh this is nice for an unfinished game" isn't "this is a nice released game"
"This is a nice unfinished game with finished and released DLC" is not a statement we should ever have to say.
"Oh this is a nice unfinished house with no roof, but the furniture inside is fantastic."
So its not okay to release paid DLC for a company who isn't getting as much money as you think (look at how much is being taken by Microsoft and them before they get their money), but its perfectly fine for developers to release paid DLC to "finish" a game that was already in full release? I mean really whats the difference? I wasn't really happy to see a paid DLC during early access at first but then I thought to myself, Why not give them a bit more money to help along towards a more finished product upon release. At least the $45 I have put towards the game now with the DLC gives me complete access to the game and I'm not having to pay hundreds of dollars after a $60 to get content for a game that was in "full release" 3 months ago. Stop acting like your entitled to everything, the game was already cheaper than most games of its like on steam, now its cheaper after DLC dropped. These hard working Devs need to make a living as well, they aren't your slaves that just make games when and how you want for no money. Should they have explained their reasoning behind the DLC at this stage better? yes. Do they deserve to be paid for what has been the best DLC I have seen for a game in ages? yes.
and on a final note I am really tired of such whiny articles on this site. I used to come here for great game news and updates on coming features to games I play, now all I see is whine whine whine from what seem to be inexperienced writers. But that's a paragraph for another day.
You are ofcourse right, atleast regarding the Company creating ARK, it seems to me they are really trying to create a game here, not steal your money..
But many of the complains regards the fact that this practice Changes things , it alters the way "other companies" can treat customers. You are basically Writing about one yourself, it wasn't that long ago when games that "released" where full Products, not Products that slowly got released via paid DLC's and all access passes etc etc. The moral as a developers constantly Changes, in what is "good" practice in game development and eventually Selling of your Product, today we can buy ideas, that may never exist.
Now it's ok to do this and that, early accesss , DLC's , expansions..crowdfunding, open betas, alphas, early enrollment. For some companies these things means "I can finally release my works", companies with 2-3 hobby coders/developers with almost no funding, it's for these companies these things are created, but everyone picks up on this , even the huge companies, fully staffed ones..
It alters the way slowly of what we accept as good practice, and this was no good practice, no matter what problems the Company may or may not be in, you do NOT abuse the trust of your customers in this way, for that they will loose many and get a bad reputation.
You just don't get it do you. Stuck in a rut. huh? Timeline makes no difference, the point is, putting out paid DLC when you product has holes you could drive a semi though in it, is abusing your player base. Throwing money at a developer like this just makes it too easy for bad developers like we have here to put out half finished games and never bother to clean up the game. It maker zero difference if the game is fun. In this case it is only fun if you are a really good gaming computer as the client runs like a slug on most.
So yeah this developer is clearly a piece of trash and buying from them is a travesty for all of us!
I loved Ark. I am pretty much done playing it now but I may go back a few times. I have MORE than gotten my money's worth in this game at $30, but actually I paid less and even got other copies for friends. Even at a 60 dollar price I received 1000 hours worth of fun gameplay. That is way more than I usually get for my money in gaming.
They have delivered a decent product for the price and it still isn't technically done. It is however playable and fun and has been continually updated.
They obviously needed more money so they made an expansion thats optional. Good for them. I hope it works and I realize they probably wouldn't had to do such a thing if it wasn't for the lawsuit andwell, a lawsuit like that seems like a joke to most everyday joes. It is what it is.
Seeing steam reviews with people with 500 hours of play time giving it a negative review is pathetic. I feel that way on any game. That is a lot of time for something you think negatively about so either you are lying or somehow you think you didn't get your moneys worth. If you backed them for thousands I could maybe see the point but then I'd question your sanity for other reasons.
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.
And maybe that's why gaming as a whole has turned into a shitpile.
wait what?
gaming as a whole has turn into a shit pile because of gamers who care only if a game is fun instead of those who dont care if a game is fun.
gotcha
we dont read long winded threads about questions like 'what makes a game fun and or engaging' instead what appears to be MORE important then that are things like: what a game is labeled as did the developer lie or not REGARDLESS of the entertainment value of the game does the developer communicate REGARDLESS of if the game is fun or not. is the game priced right REGARDLESS of if its fun.
I see more posts of things like that then questions of is the game actually fun. and you see that as the problem?
anyone can make a bunch of shit games in which the developer doesnt lie, its labled correctly, price is attractive, is updated weekely and the developer communicates to everyone daily. only nobody plays it because its not actually fun.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Yeah, gamers are totally outraged by this abuse of Early Access !
That must be why Ark is the 4th most popular game on Steam today, with 50K concurrent players...
Like I said, Early Access is the new "launched"...
just an update, now they struggle to hit top 10 and barely hit 30k players at peak. They have resorted to manipulating reviews to get them back up and their mods on steam forums ban ppl for talking about it and lock/delete their threads. i was recently banned for stating that the mods were biased. actually i was banned for my very next post, a discussion about greenhouses in the game LOL.
I not only completely agree but think this is a great article and stance to take. If a game is selling DLC it shouldn't get to call itself early access. Good job MMORPG.com
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Comments
I really dont understand where u disagree.Most jobs and companies have timelines i cant understand why u see there isnt anything wrong when a company ignore the customers.Thats why there are rules and laws.And this is the basic concern about early access for most ppl.Companies have totally the first and the last word in everything.They can literally close the official servers at ark release the game with hundrends of bugs and u cant do nothing.I dont know why u dont see there is a problem.
That text is placed on Steam's store page above the purchase button. It's short, simple, and visible enough that no one should miss it.
I think if someone buys an early access game from Steam, they can't complain that they didn't know what they were buying. They're adults, after that kind of disclaimer it's their responsibility to know.
why is it important to give a timeline if quality of game is not in question? answer in less than 100 words please
for reference this is what you said:
'...seems better if they would let companies their timelines in their early access page and force them to honor their own timelines...'
my question is 'why'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I really dont get why u think i am a troll or whatever and speak about moderator.
So unlike some advocates and critics you feel that quality IS affected by timeline. I should point out that you are in disagreement with some critics of early access. which is fine I am just making you aware of it.
I however, in ways I can measure if your interested, do not agree with your assertion that time in developement is related to quality
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The only think i said its that except timeline the quality of the game matters thats all didnt connect these two.And i dont think any human being disagrees that the quality of the game matters so this wasnt to start a arguement.Sry if it looked that way but gone too far with no reason and probably cause of me.
Quality matters = we both agree
Timeline affects quality = you agree
Timeline affects quality = I do not agree.
Timeline affects quality = many critics of early access do not agree
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Personally I argue against translating people's reasonable expectations of progress and completion into a rule, because I don't think the devs would follow the spirit of that kind of rule. I think any rule about that would only create more expectations in buyers, whereas the devs would be unlikely to invest more money into the game and make it any better than they already make.
A rule is only good if it actually improves the situation.
I didn't mean you would not know what an early access game was. Sorry about that, I should have been more clear in my post.
And i would prefer to hear ur opinion at early access instead of keeping arguement at nothing.As i said maybe it was my wrong but now i think is clear why i post about timelines.
Because if it was aimed at my post I don't understand what you're talking about.
look I am unclear your position either you feel quality is affected by timeline or you do not.
I do not. but I cant move forward in my explanation until i understand your view one way or the other
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Everyone has different opinions about rules. I told you my opinion, but you seem to have some good reasons for your opinion too, and it was interesting talking with you.
The question I have for the community is this really
'why do we feel giving a timeline is important?'
In short, when one suggests a rule my question will be 'why' and I would expect a reason that is well formed rather than 'because it feels good' . That is the position I am suggesting here today
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Back to the whole review issue with "how great the game is" well, if you base everything off of something being an unfinished title, then yes, early access games of all walks of life are great.
I've been playing Divinity OS2. It's in much better shape then ARK was when I first got into that game. and yeah, DOS2 would be really high on my list right now, I've experienced far fewer bugs in it with nearly 10 hours played than I did in Ark with 2 hours played. But if the game released today, it would get a very critical score from me.
Early Access Games are UNFINISHED GAMES. Says so when you purchase it, nice big clear letters.
"Oh this is nice for an unfinished game" isn't "this is a nice released game"
"This is a nice unfinished game with finished and released DLC" is not a statement we should ever have to say.
"Oh this is a nice unfinished house with no roof, but the furniture inside is fantastic."
You are ofcourse right, atleast regarding the Company creating ARK, it seems to me they are really trying to create a game here, not steal your money..
But many of the complains regards the fact that this practice Changes things , it alters the way "other companies" can treat customers. You are basically Writing about one yourself, it wasn't that long ago when games that "released" where full Products, not Products that slowly got released via paid DLC's and all access passes etc etc. The moral as a developers constantly Changes, in what is "good" practice in game development and eventually Selling of your Product, today we can buy ideas, that may never exist.
Now it's ok to do this and that, early accesss , DLC's , expansions..crowdfunding, open betas, alphas, early enrollment. For some companies these things means "I can finally release my works", companies with 2-3 hobby coders/developers with almost no funding, it's for these companies these things are created, but everyone picks up on this , even the huge companies, fully staffed ones..
It alters the way slowly of what we accept as good practice, and this was no good practice, no matter what problems the Company may or may not be in, you do NOT abuse the trust of your customers in this way, for that they will loose many and get a bad reputation.
So yeah this developer is clearly a piece of trash and buying from them is a travesty for all of us!
They have delivered a decent product for the price and it still isn't technically done. It is however playable and fun and has been continually updated.
They obviously needed more money so they made an expansion thats optional. Good for them. I hope it works and I realize they probably wouldn't had to do such a thing if it wasn't for the lawsuit andwell, a lawsuit like that seems like a joke to most everyday joes. It is what it is.
Seeing steam reviews with people with 500 hours of play time giving it a negative review is pathetic. I feel that way on any game. That is a lot of time for something you think negatively about so either you are lying or somehow you think you didn't get your moneys worth. If you backed them for thousands I could maybe see the point but then I'd question your sanity for other reasons.
gaming as a whole has turn into a shit pile because of gamers who care only if a game is fun instead of those who dont care if a game is fun.
gotcha
we dont read long winded threads about questions like 'what makes a game fun and or engaging' instead what appears to be MORE important then that are things like:
what a game is labeled as
did the developer lie or not REGARDLESS of the entertainment value of the game
does the developer communicate REGARDLESS of if the game is fun or not.
is the game priced right REGARDLESS of if its fun.
I see more posts of things like that then questions of is the game actually fun. and you see that as the problem?
anyone can make a bunch of shit games in which the developer doesnt lie, its labled correctly, price is attractive, is updated weekely and the developer communicates to everyone daily.
only nobody plays it because its not actually fun.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
just an update, now they struggle to hit top 10 and barely hit 30k players at peak. They have resorted to manipulating reviews to get them back up and their mods on steam forums ban ppl for talking about it and lock/delete their threads. i was recently banned for stating that the mods were biased. actually i was banned for my very next post, a discussion about greenhouses in the game LOL.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/