yes millions of people, Ark ALONE has almost 5 million owners.
Yes I know, I own it. It's in my Steam account under the category "shit I'll never play again".
I think you'll find a similar scenario with the other games you use as examples as well.
I don't think we need to go back down the road called "owner vs. player" that's been covered so many times before on this site, do we?
I think assuming that the vast majority of people who are buying 3 of the top 6 games on Steam end up not liking the game is being a bit naive.
I think one except to that 'mass purchase of a game nobody likes' would be games that hype the hyper hype before the game is even downloadable. Which is something in my view is more offensive then anything Early Access developers do and yet are done by non-early access developers...imagine that!
I think I have wasted a lot of my time. Some people are just absolutly hell bent on these primary tenats.
1. They refuse to be anything other than miserable and unhappy. Despite being given the best variety in gaming in the history of the universe they will still complain and wish it was 1994. 2. They will never under any condition look at an early access game for its game play. As far as they are concerned the game play is not important at all whatsoever, the only thing that is important is: A. what a developer says B. The version number of the game C. how many bugs are in it.
and there is nothing I can do to help these people
It's more a question of "if you know the game is not ready, why the hell are selling it?"
why does that matter?
if its good, its good, pretty much all that matters
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I mean every time I see a game doing that whole "Open beta" or "early access" and you realize that they are saying 'the game is not ready".. but by putting up on the open market, what they are really saying is 'We know it's not ready and it never will be, this is as good as it's ever gonna get so we are going to cash in on it now hoping to string people along long enough with false promises that when it's ready it will be better"
That's my take on "Early access"... what's everyone else feel?
I mean every time I see a game doing that whole "Open beta" or "early access" and you realize that they are saying 'the game is not ready".. but by putting up on the open market, what they are really saying is 'We know it's not ready and it never will be, this is as good as it's ever gonna get so we are going to cash in on it now hoping to string people along long enough with false promises that when it's ready it will be better"
That's my take on "Early access"... what's everyone else feel?
to be completely frank, the bad things that are going on in the industry are things happening OUTSIDE of Early Access. That is the ironic part.
Hyper hype presales microtransactions No Mans Sky
I feel people here dont really care about game play, they only care about things around the game but not the game itself, they appear to not care about gaming experiences at all
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I mean every time I see a game doing that whole "Open beta" or "early access" and you realize that they are saying 'the game is not ready".. but by putting up on the open market, what they are really saying is 'We know it's not ready and it never will be, this is as good as it's ever gonna get so we are going to cash in on it now hoping to string people along long enough with false promises that when it's ready it will be better"
That's my take on "Early access"... what's everyone else feel?
My take is that they have spent the money they have, they need more to finish it and so they open it to early access.
This brings them more money and of course player feedback but I think at the expense of deflating any sense of excitement and a sort of finality to launch.
I think people excited for the game play it but eventually put it away "until it's done". However, the experience of an unfinished game is always there so even when it launches it doesn't really move a lot of people to take another look. Sort of like a "first impressions" thing.
Also, when it launches, I think a lot of people sort of forget that it was early access so the take is "didn't that already launch a while ago".
Allowing a good many people to play it "early" might also contribute to burn-out and then you get less of a critical mass of people buying/playing the game as well as discussion on the forums that help spur excitement.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I mean every time I see a game doing that whole "Open beta" or "early access" and you realize that they are saying 'the game is not ready".. but by putting up on the open market, what they are really saying is 'We know it's not ready and it never will be, this is as good as it's ever gonna get so we are going to cash in on it now hoping to string people along long enough with false promises that when it's ready it will be better"
That's my take on "Early access"... what's everyone else feel?
What evidence do you want me to provide to prove that is my feels on the matter?
really saying is 'We know it's not ready and it never will be
Statements like this and then ME being asked for evidence is what really gets under my skin.
'never will be'?
evidence maybe?
Quote me in Context please..
I did quote you in context. What you said was very clear, very straightforward, blunt and I say again very clear. nothing possible to add to the context. its what you said
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I did quote you in context. What you said was very clear, very straightforward, blunt and I say again very clear. nothing possible to add to the context. its what you said
You took away that I said it was my feelings on the matter, so I'll ask again.. what evidence would you like that it's my feelings on the matter, beyond you know.. me saying that's my feelings on the matter, which I have already said?
I did quote you in context. What you said was very clear, very straightforward, blunt and I say again very clear. nothing possible to add to the context. its what you said
You took away that I said it was my feelings on the matter, so I'll ask again.. what evidence would you like that it's my feelings on the matter, beyond you know.. me saying that's my feelings on the matter, which I have already said?
So how I described what you said is 100% accurate as you have no admited.
what the fuck does 'my opinion' (your words) have to do with it I dont have a clue
do you mean you feel entitled to have an opinion not based on any fact, no desire to research anything on the subject, evidence given suggesting the opposite all because its 'your opinion'?
sorry not following you
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I mean every time I see a game doing that whole "Open beta" or "early access" and you realize that they are saying 'the game is not ready".. but by putting up on the open market, what they are really saying is 'We know it's not ready and it never will be, this is as good as it's ever gonna get so we are going to cash in on it now hoping to string people along long enough with false promises that when it's ready it will be better"
That's my take on "Early access"... what's everyone else feel?
My take is that they have spent the money they have, they need more to finish it and so they open it to early access.
This brings them more money and of course player feedback but I think at the expense of deflating any sense of excitement and a sort of finality to launch.
I think people excited for the game play it but eventually put it away "until it's done". However, the experience of an unfinished game is always there so even when it launches it doesn't really move a lot of people to take another look. Sort of like a "first impressions" thing.
Also, when it launches, I think a lot of people sort of forget that it was early access so the take is "didn't that already launch a while ago".
Allowing a good many people to play it "early" might also contribute to burn-out and then you get less of a critical mass of people buying/playing the game as well as discussion on the forums that help spur excitement.
Yeah for multiplayer titles this isn't so bad because I usually play those that I like for quite a while (couple years on and off) as long as servers are available. Single player games though should take the approach Divinity did, by just releasing a chapter as a teaser demo. That way you spread excitement without burning your fans out. This keeps them anticipating a full release.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I mean every time I see a game doing that whole "Open beta" or "early access" and you realize that they are saying 'the game is not ready".. but by putting up on the open market, what they are really saying is 'We know it's not ready and it never will be, this is as good as it's ever gonna get so we are going to cash in on it now hoping to string people along long enough with false promises that when it's ready it will be better"
That's my take on "Early access"... what's everyone else feel?
My take is that they have spent the money they have, they need more to finish it and so they open it to early access.
This brings them more money and of course player feedback but I think at the expense of deflating any sense of excitement and a sort of finality to launch.
I think people excited for the game play it but eventually put it away "until it's done". However, the experience of an unfinished game is always there so even when it launches it doesn't really move a lot of people to take another look. Sort of like a "first impressions" thing.
Also, when it launches, I think a lot of people sort of forget that it was early access so the take is "didn't that already launch a while ago".
Allowing a good many people to play it "early" might also contribute to burn-out and then you get less of a critical mass of people buying/playing the game as well as discussion on the forums that help spur excitement.
Yeah for multiplayer titles this isn't so bad because I usually play those that I like for quite a while (couple years on and off) as long as servers are available. Single player games though should take the approach Divinity did, by just releasing a chapter as a teaser demo. That way you spread excitement without burning your fans out. This keeps them anticipating a full release.
I dont know if most early access games are sandboxes but I do know the most popular ones are. Stories in Early Access is in my view a possible problem for reasons you are suggesting however there very simply isnt that many of them in early access to begin with.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I mean every time I see a game doing that whole "Open beta" or "early access" and you realize that they are saying 'the game is not ready".. but by putting up on the open market, what they are really saying is 'We know it's not ready and it never will be, this is as good as it's ever gonna get so we are going to cash in on it now hoping to string people along long enough with false promises that when it's ready it will be better"
That's my take on "Early access"... what's everyone else feel?
My take is that they have spent the money they have, they need more to finish it and so they open it to early access.
This brings them more money and of course player feedback but I think at the expense of deflating any sense of excitement and a sort of finality to launch.
I think people excited for the game play it but eventually put it away "until it's done". However, the experience of an unfinished game is always there so even when it launches it doesn't really move a lot of people to take another look. Sort of like a "first impressions" thing.
Also, when it launches, I think a lot of people sort of forget that it was early access so the take is "didn't that already launch a while ago".
Allowing a good many people to play it "early" might also contribute to burn-out and then you get less of a critical mass of people buying/playing the game as well as discussion on the forums that help spur excitement.
Yeah for multiplayer titles this isn't so bad because I usually play those that I like for quite a while (couple years on and off) as long as servers are available. Single player games though should take the approach Divinity did, by just releasing a chapter as a teaser demo. That way you spread excitement without burning your fans out. This keeps them anticipating a full release.
I dont know if most early access games are sandboxes but I do know the most popular ones are. Stories in Early Access is in my view a possible problem for reasons you are suggesting however there very simply isnt that many of them in early access to begin with.
That's true.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I mean every time I see a game doing that whole "Open beta" or "early access" and you realize that they are saying 'the game is not ready".. but by putting up on the open market, what they are really saying is 'We know it's not ready and it never will be, this is as good as it's ever gonna get so we are going to cash in on it now hoping to string people along long enough with false promises that when it's ready it will be better"
That's my take on "Early access"... what's everyone else feel?
to be completely frank, the bad things that are going on in the industry are things happening OUTSIDE of Early Access. That is the ironic part.
Hyper hype presales microtransactions No Mans Sky
I feel people here dont really care about game play, they only care about things around the game but not the game itself, they appear to not care about gaming experiences at all
One more point I wanted to elaborate on regarding early access.
Several of the MMORPG titles I've enjoyed for any length of time (6+ months) had been released for at least a year or more before I joined them.
This includes DAOC, Lineage 1, & EVE with L2 and WOW being the only two I enjoyed at launch.
Every other MMO I joined early, including Vangard, LOTRO, RIFT, AION, AOC, TERA, SWTOR, ArcheAge, ROM, WAR, ESO, and TSW disappointed me.
Most of these were in late beta/pre launch states and far more complete and polished than most any EA game today.
Bugs, exploits, over crowding, server instability, spam, incomplete delivery of promised features and more contributed to my over all dissatisfaction of the beta/launch resulting in me setting them aside, permanently in almost every case.
Some games I suspect actually became quite good after launch, but again, I rarely will go back for....reasons...so I probably missed out on their better days.
So a few years back I decided to no longer buy / play a new MMO until it had been "launched" in the traditional sense for at least 6 months or more.
Right about this same time the early access phenomenon really caught on, with survival games like RUST, DayZ, ARK even Conan Exiles and to this day I've never played one of these waiting for one to "launch".
Think I'll have better luck waiting for ARK online to one day launch.
So you can see why I consider EA to be a bane to gaming in general and definitely to MMORPGs.
Those millions of people that are buying all of these EA titles with you? Yeah, you are part if the problem. Until you stop giving Devs money this will likely only get worse though we're pretty close to bottom now I think.
Even larger Devs are taking advantage of early access and only a matter of time before Zeni or Electronic Arts holds a crowd funding campaign, for those "extra feature" don't ya know.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
yes millions of people, Ark ALONE has almost 5 million owners.
Yes I know, I own it. It's in my Steam account under the category "shit I'll never play again".
I think you'll find a similar scenario with the other games you use as examples as well.
I don't think we need to go back down the road called "owner vs. player" that's been covered so many times before on this site, do we?
I think assuming that the vast majority of people who are buying 3 of the top 6 games on Steam end up not liking the game is being a bit naive.
I think one except to that 'mass purchase of a game nobody likes' would be games that hype the hyper hype before the game is even downloadable. Which is something in my view is more offensive then anything Early Access developers do and yet are done by non-early access developers...imagine that!
I think I have wasted a lot of my time. Some people are just absolutly hell bent on these primary tenats.
1. They refuse to be anything other than miserable and unhappy. Despite being given the best variety in gaming in the history of the universe they will still complain and wish it was 1994. 2. They will never under any condition look at an early access game for its game play. As far as they are concerned the game play is not important at all whatsoever, the only thing that is important is: A. what a developer says B. The version number of the game C. how many bugs are in it.
and there is nothing I can do to help these people
You're wasting your time posting assumptions without any data or empirical thinking involved whatsoever, preferring to use your personal feelings as "data" for your assumptions.
so are you
I fairly regularly deal with forum posters who provide zero evidence to their claim and then when I provide some for my claim they accuse me of providing none.
nice place to be aint ?
I haven't made any assumptions. Those were words you put into my mouth based on your assumptions.
"I think assuming that the vast majority of people who are buying 3 of the top 6 games on Steam end up not liking the game is being a bit naive."
I said:
"Yes I know, I own it. It's in my Steam account under the category "shit I'll never play again". I think you'll find a similar scenario with the other games you use as examples as well."
Exactly where did I assume the "vast majority" don't play what they purchased? Assumption on your part. The entire point of that exchange was to illustrate to you that not everyone who buys a game winds up playing it, for various reasons. That alone makes the statement you try and pass off as fact nothing more than speculation.
Why don't you just admit that YOU value fun over everything else instead of trying to convince others they are wrong because they consider other things in addition to fun when they choose a game. You don't need to "help" anyone. No one needs your help.
I mean every time I see a game doing that whole "Open beta" or "early access" and you realize that they are saying 'the game is not ready".. but by putting up on the open market, what they are really saying is 'We know it's not ready and it never will be, this is as good as it's ever gonna get so we are going to cash in on it now hoping to string people along long enough with false promises that when it's ready it will be better"
That's my take on "Early access"... what's everyone else feel?
to be completely frank, the bad things that are going on in the industry are things happening OUTSIDE of Early Access. That is the ironic part.
Hyper hype presales microtransactions No Mans Sky
I feel people here dont really care about game play, they only care about things around the game but not the game itself, they appear to not care about gaming experiences at all
One more point I wanted to elaborate on regarding early access.
Several of the MMORPG titles I've enjoyed for any length of time (6+ months) had been released for at least a year or more before I joined them.
This includes DAOC, Lineage 1, & EVE with L2 and WOW being the only two I enjoyed at launch.
Every other MMO I joined early, including Vangard, LOTRO, RIFT, AION, AOC, TERA, SWTOR, ArcheAge, ROM, WAR, ESO, and TSW disappointed me.
Most of these were in late beta/pre launch states and far more complete and polished than most any EA game today.
Bugs, exploits, over crowding, server instability, spam, incomplete delivery of promised features and more contributed to my over all dissatisfaction of the beta/launch resulting in me setting them aside, permanently in almost every case.
Some games I suspect actually became quite good after launch, but again, I rarely will go back for....reasons...so I probably missed out on their better days.
So a few years back I decided to no longer buy / play a new MMO until it had been "launched" in the traditional sense for at least 6 months or more.
Right about this same time the early access phenomenon really caught on, with survival games like RUST, DayZ, ARK even Conan Exiles and to this day I've never played one of these waiting for one to "launch".
Think I'll have better luck waiting for ARK online to one day launch.
So you can see why I consider EA to be a bane to gaming in general and definitely to MMORPGs.
Those millions of people that are buying all of these EA titles with you? Yeah, you are part if the problem. Until you stop giving Devs money this will likely only get worse though we're pretty close to bottom now I think.
Even larger Devs are taking advantage of early access and only a matter of time before Zeni or Electronic Arts holds a crowd funding campaign, for those "extra feature" don't ya know.
I'm in the same boat. I won't throw $$ at an early access game no matter how "fun" it is.
Want me to play the damn game? Release the damn game.
I did quote you in context. What you said was very clear, very straightforward, blunt and I say again very clear. nothing possible to add to the context. its what you said
You took away that I said it was my feelings on the matter, so I'll ask again.. what evidence would you like that it's my feelings on the matter, beyond you know.. me saying that's my feelings on the matter, which I have already said?
So how I described what you said is 100% accurate as you have no admited.
what the fuck does 'my opinion' (your words) have to do with it I dont have a clue
do you mean you feel entitled to have an opinion not based on any fact, no desire to research anything on the subject, evidence given suggesting the opposite all because its 'your opinion'?
sorry not following you
Well, let me hold your hand here. I said that was my feelings on the matter.
Now, yah.. I do feel entitled to have my own damn opinions on things, how about that?
Just like you feel entitled to your feelings regarding early access, what factual evidence do you have, that says a game is good or fun, beyond your personal feelings on the matter, what you may like, I could think reeks like recycled cow shit.
If you can't fathom that, the problem is purely on your end, you may need to update your system.
I mean every time I see a game doing that whole "Open beta" or "early access" and you realize that they are saying 'the game is not ready".. but by putting up on the open market, what they are really saying is 'We know it's not ready and it never will be, this is as good as it's ever gonna get so we are going to cash in on it now hoping to string people along long enough with false promises that when it's ready it will be better"
That's my take on "Early access"... what's everyone else feel?
to be completely frank, the bad things that are going on in the industry are things happening OUTSIDE of Early Access. That is the ironic part.
Hyper hype presales microtransactions No Mans Sky
I feel people here dont really care about game play, they only care about things around the game but not the game itself, they appear to not care about gaming experiences at all
One more point I wanted to elaborate on regarding early access.
Several of the MMORPG titles I've enjoyed for any length of time (6+ months) had been released for at least a year or more before I joined them.
This includes DAOC, Lineage 1, & EVE with L2 and WOW being the only two I enjoyed at launch.
Every other MMO I joined early, including Vangard, LOTRO, RIFT, AION, AOC, TERA, SWTOR, ArcheAge, ROM, WAR, ESO, and TSW disappointed me.
Most of these were in late beta/pre launch states and far more complete and polished than most any EA game today.
Bugs, exploits, over crowding, server instability, spam, incomplete delivery of promised features and more contributed to my over all dissatisfaction of the beta/launch resulting in me setting them aside, permanently in almost every case.
Some games I suspect actually became quite good after launch, but again, I rarely will go back for....reasons...so I probably missed out on their better days.
So a few years back I decided to no longer buy / play a new MMO until it had been "launched" in the traditional sense for at least 6 months or more.
I am with you on this as well, especially the "Became good after launch", I could understand offering a select few backers or people that funded your KS, or whatever, to have access of parts of the game you finished, as a teaser, but, what I don't fathom is putting out something for public sale you know is half-baked, unless, you realize, that's about the best you are gonna do.
As i see it, no game is worth giving someone money for something they know is not done, and have no obligation to actually complete it.
If it's a great game in its current state, then slap the shipping label on it and say it's a go... don't hide behind "Open Beta" or "Early access" to justify a shitty or incomplete game.
@SEANMCAD I was curious about your 3 out of the top 6 steam games for 2016 were indie games comment. I can't seem to find anything to back that statement up.
I did some searching for top grossing steam games of 2016, best I can find is from Steam itself:
I can only see Rocket League and No Mans Sky in the top 12 that are indie games. Rocket League obviously did really well, No Mans Sky was almost universally slammed. No Mans Sky was also guilty of the problems you say exist outside the indie scene (over hyping etc).
I will admit, there were more indie titles in the top 100 than I was expecting. I personally don't really enjoy indie titles. Part of that is because the main genres I enjoy (RPG and MMO) require massive budgets to develop good games and so the indie scene can't do it. The other reason is that for every good indie title, there are 1000 terrible ones. I don't have the patience to wade through all that shit to find good stuff, so I tend to wait for the good ones to naturally emerge. So, I tried Prison Architect (my one and only EA purchase) and that was good, but admittedly I've not played it since release as it wasn't good enough to make me return. I bought Rocket League, but that was a one-trick pony and extremely dull. I also bought Kerbal Space Program and whilst I can appreciate the technical brilliance of that game, the actual minute-to-minute gameplay was boring as fuck.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
yes millions of people, Ark ALONE has almost 5 million owners.
Yes I know, I own it. It's in my Steam account under the category "shit I'll never play again".
I think you'll find a similar scenario with the other games you use as examples as well.
I don't think we need to go back down the road called "owner vs. player" that's been covered so many times before on this site, do we?
I think assuming that the vast majority of people who are buying 3 of the top 6 games on Steam end up not liking the game is being a bit naive.
I think one except to that 'mass purchase of a game nobody likes' would be games that hype the hyper hype before the game is even downloadable. Which is something in my view is more offensive then anything Early Access developers do and yet are done by non-early access developers...imagine that!
I think I have wasted a lot of my time. Some people are just absolutly hell bent on these primary tenats.
1. They refuse to be anything other than miserable and unhappy. Despite being given the best variety in gaming in the history of the universe they will still complain and wish it was 1994. 2. They will never under any condition look at an early access game for its game play. As far as they are concerned the game play is not important at all whatsoever, the only thing that is important is: A. what a developer says B. The version number of the game C. how many bugs are in it.
and there is nothing I can do to help these people
You're wasting your time posting assumptions without any data or empirical thinking involved whatsoever, preferring to use your personal feelings as "data" for your assumptions.
so are you
I fairly regularly deal with forum posters who provide zero evidence to their claim and then when I provide some for my claim they accuse me of providing none.
nice place to be aint ?
I haven't made any assumptions. Those were words you put into my mouth based on your assumptions.
I dont think your post is directed to me, I never said assumptions
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
@SEANMCAD I was curious about your 3 out of the top 6 steam games for 2016 were indie games comment. I can't seem to find anything to back that statement up.
I did some searching for top grossing steam games of 2016, best I can find is from Steam itself:
I can only see Rocket League and No Mans Sky in the top 12 that are indie games. Rocket League obviously did really well, No Mans Sky was almost universally slammed. No Mans Sky was also guilty of the problems you say exist outside the indie scene (over hyping etc).
I will admit, there were more indie titles in the top 100 than I was expecting. I personally don't really enjoy indie titles. Part of that is because the main genres I enjoy (RPG and MMO) require massive budgets to develop good games and so the indie scene can't do it. The other reason is that for every good indie title, there are 1000 terrible ones. I don't have the patience to wade through all that shit to find good stuff, so I tend to wait for the good ones to naturally emerge. So, I tried Prison Architect (my one and only EA purchase) and that was good, but admittedly I've not played it since release as it wasn't good enough to make me return. I bought Rocket League, but that was a one-trick pony and extremely dull. I also bought Kerbal Space Program and whilst I can appreciate the technical brilliance of that game, the actual minute-to-minute gameplay was boring as fuck.
Look I am going to try and take a break from these forums. I get up this morning take a look and the first two I read people claim I said something i didnt even say. They are very clearly not reading what I am saying
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
@SEANMCAD I was curious about your 3 out of the top 6 steam games for 2016 were indie games comment. I can't seem to find anything to back that statement up.
I did some searching for top grossing steam games of 2016, best I can find is from Steam itself:
I can only see Rocket League and No Mans Sky in the top 12 that are indie games. Rocket League obviously did really well, No Mans Sky was almost universally slammed. No Mans Sky was also guilty of the problems you say exist outside the indie scene (over hyping etc).
I will admit, there were more indie titles in the top 100 than I was expecting. I personally don't really enjoy indie titles. Part of that is because the main genres I enjoy (RPG and MMO) require massive budgets to develop good games and so the indie scene can't do it. The other reason is that for every good indie title, there are 1000 terrible ones. I don't have the patience to wade through all that shit to find good stuff, so I tend to wait for the good ones to naturally emerge. So, I tried Prison Architect (my one and only EA purchase) and that was good, but admittedly I've not played it since release as it wasn't good enough to make me return. I bought Rocket League, but that was a one-trick pony and extremely dull. I also bought Kerbal Space Program and whilst I can appreciate the technical brilliance of that game, the actual minute-to-minute gameplay was boring as fuck.
Look I am going to try and take a break from these forums. I get up this morning take a look and the first two I read people claim I said something i didnt even say. They are very clearly not reading what I am saying
I'm a huge advocate for crowdfunding and early access and I believe there is definite value in them. I think that people simply need to search kickstarter or early access on steam to see for themselves.
That being said, I strongly disagree with you about NMS. Are you saying it was made by a team much larger than the claimed 10 developers? NMS might have gotten a big marketing push from Sony when the Internet basically blew it up as the greatest thing ever, but they also distanced themselves from the title just as quickly when things went to shit. NMS is a great example of an indie company riding the INTERNET hype all the way up the mountain, just to be tossed onto the spikes by the same Internet. It's classic indie.
@SEANMCAD I was curious about your 3 out of the top 6 steam games for 2016 were indie games comment. I can't seem to find anything to back that statement up.
I did some searching for top grossing steam games of 2016, best I can find is from Steam itself:
I can only see Rocket League and No Mans Sky in the top 12 that are indie games. Rocket League obviously did really well, No Mans Sky was almost universally slammed. No Mans Sky was also guilty of the problems you say exist outside the indie scene (over hyping etc).
I will admit, there were more indie titles in the top 100 than I was expecting. I personally don't really enjoy indie titles. Part of that is because the main genres I enjoy (RPG and MMO) require massive budgets to develop good games and so the indie scene can't do it. The other reason is that for every good indie title, there are 1000 terrible ones. I don't have the patience to wade through all that shit to find good stuff, so I tend to wait for the good ones to naturally emerge. So, I tried Prison Architect (my one and only EA purchase) and that was good, but admittedly I've not played it since release as it wasn't good enough to make me return. I bought Rocket League, but that was a one-trick pony and extremely dull. I also bought Kerbal Space Program and whilst I can appreciate the technical brilliance of that game, the actual minute-to-minute gameplay was boring as fuck.
Look I am going to try and take a break from these forums. I get up this morning take a look and the first two I read people claim I said something i didnt even say. They are very clearly not reading what I am saying
I'm a huge advocate for crowdfunding and early access and I believe there is definite value in them. I think that people simply need to search kickstarter or early access on steam to see for themselves.
That being said, I strongly disagree with you about NMS. Are you saying it was made by a team much larger than the claimed 10 developers? NMS might have gotten a big marketing push from Sony when the Internet basically blew it up as the greatest thing ever, but they also distanced themselves from the title just as quickly when things went to shit. NMS is a great example of an indie company riding the INTERNET hype all the way up the mountain, just to be tossed onto the spikes by the same Internet. It's classic indie.
I am saying that NMS is:
1. not an early access title so lets be clear about that 2. painfully clearly supported by some mega huge PR effort costing millions of dollars. A game like that just doesnt magically get so much traction from vague videos and nobody in the press having direct game play such that it gets all the way up to the Colbert Report all the while then 10s if not 100s of other games that are very easily arguably at least as good if not better barely even make mainstream gaming news, let alone Colbert Report. That does not happen 'organigically'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
@SEANMCAD I was curious about your 3 out of the top 6 steam games for 2016 were indie games comment. I can't seem to find anything to back that statement up.
I did some searching for top grossing steam games of 2016, best I can find is from Steam itself:
I can only see Rocket League and No Mans Sky in the top 12 that are indie games. Rocket League obviously did really well, No Mans Sky was almost universally slammed. No Mans Sky was also guilty of the problems you say exist outside the indie scene (over hyping etc).
I will admit, there were more indie titles in the top 100 than I was expecting. I personally don't really enjoy indie titles. Part of that is because the main genres I enjoy (RPG and MMO) require massive budgets to develop good games and so the indie scene can't do it. The other reason is that for every good indie title, there are 1000 terrible ones. I don't have the patience to wade through all that shit to find good stuff, so I tend to wait for the good ones to naturally emerge. So, I tried Prison Architect (my one and only EA purchase) and that was good, but admittedly I've not played it since release as it wasn't good enough to make me return. I bought Rocket League, but that was a one-trick pony and extremely dull. I also bought Kerbal Space Program and whilst I can appreciate the technical brilliance of that game, the actual minute-to-minute gameplay was boring as fuck.
Look I am going to try and take a break from these forums. I get up this morning take a look and the first two I read people claim I said something i didnt even say. They are very clearly not reading what I am saying
I'm a huge advocate for crowdfunding and early access and I believe there is definite value in them. I think that people simply need to search kickstarter or early access on steam to see for themselves.
That being said, I strongly disagree with you about NMS. Are you saying it was made by a team much larger than the claimed 10 developers? NMS might have gotten a big marketing push from Sony when the Internet basically blew it up as the greatest thing ever, but they also distanced themselves from the title just as quickly when things went to shit. NMS is a great example of an indie company riding the INTERNET hype all the way up the mountain, just to be tossed onto the spikes by the same Internet. It's classic indie.
I am saying that NMS is:
1. not an early access title so lets be clear about that 2. painfully clearly supported by some mega huge PR effort costing millions of dollars. A game like that just doesnt magically get so much traction from vague videos and nobody in the press having direct game play such that it gets all the way up to the Colbert Report all the while then 10s if not 100s of other games that are very easily arguably at least as good if not better barely even make mainstream gaming news, let alone Colbert Report. That does not happen 'organigically'
Totally agree, it's not EA. Totally agree it got millions of dollars of PR from a mega corporation. However, it generated it's own PR long before Sony stepped in. You might actually say that Sony sunk NMS. NMS was best in show when it first debuted, long before anyone actually knew what it was. It's an indie game that was sunk by millions of dollars in PR promises and a loose-lipped CEO. It is indie, though.
@SEANMCAD I was curious about your 3 out of the top 6 steam games for 2016 were indie games comment. I can't seem to find anything to back that statement up.
I did some searching for top grossing steam games of 2016, best I can find is from Steam itself:
I can only see Rocket League and No Mans Sky in the top 12 that are indie games. Rocket League obviously did really well, No Mans Sky was almost universally slammed. No Mans Sky was also guilty of the problems you say exist outside the indie scene (over hyping etc).
I will admit, there were more indie titles in the top 100 than I was expecting. I personally don't really enjoy indie titles. Part of that is because the main genres I enjoy (RPG and MMO) require massive budgets to develop good games and so the indie scene can't do it. The other reason is that for every good indie title, there are 1000 terrible ones. I don't have the patience to wade through all that shit to find good stuff, so I tend to wait for the good ones to naturally emerge. So, I tried Prison Architect (my one and only EA purchase) and that was good, but admittedly I've not played it since release as it wasn't good enough to make me return. I bought Rocket League, but that was a one-trick pony and extremely dull. I also bought Kerbal Space Program and whilst I can appreciate the technical brilliance of that game, the actual minute-to-minute gameplay was boring as fuck.
Look I am going to try and take a break from these forums. I get up this morning take a look and the first two I read people claim I said something i didnt even say. They are very clearly not reading what I am saying
I'm a huge advocate for crowdfunding and early access and I believe there is definite value in them. I think that people simply need to search kickstarter or early access on steam to see for themselves.
That being said, I strongly disagree with you about NMS. Are you saying it was made by a team much larger than the claimed 10 developers? NMS might have gotten a big marketing push from Sony when the Internet basically blew it up as the greatest thing ever, but they also distanced themselves from the title just as quickly when things went to shit. NMS is a great example of an indie company riding the INTERNET hype all the way up the mountain, just to be tossed onto the spikes by the same Internet. It's classic indie.
I am saying that NMS is:
1. not an early access title so lets be clear about that 2. painfully clearly supported by some mega huge PR effort costing millions of dollars. A game like that just doesnt magically get so much traction from vague videos and nobody in the press having direct game play such that it gets all the way up to the Colbert Report all the while then 10s if not 100s of other games that are very easily arguably at least as good if not better barely even make mainstream gaming news, let alone Colbert Report. That does not happen 'organigically'
Totally agree, it's not EA. Totally agree it got millions of dollars of PR from a mega corporation. However, it generated it's own PR long before Sony stepped in. You might actually say that Sony sunk NMS. NMS was best in show when it first debuted, long before anyone actually knew what it was. It's an indie game that was sunk by millions of dollars in PR promises and a loose-lipped CEO. It is indie, though.
1. I dont consider a game that gets PR money from Sony to be an 'indie' 2. Although I dont have evidence I am 110% positive they got money long before it was public that Sony gave money. Why? because when they released the first video of which zero game explanation and no reporters having access to game play the internet suddenly exploded. One video...nearly zero game play...no explanation....internet explodes with buz. Nevermind other games far more detailed in information and frankly far more innovative and visually better had already been available and got nothing like that. no way...that was paid for
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
yes millions of people, Ark ALONE has almost 5 million owners.
Yes I know, I own it. It's in my Steam account under the category "shit I'll never play again".
I think you'll find a similar scenario with the other games you use as examples as well.
I don't think we need to go back down the road called "owner vs. player" that's been covered so many times before on this site, do we?
I think assuming that the vast majority of people who are buying 3 of the top 6 games on Steam end up not liking the game is being a bit naive.
I think one except to that 'mass purchase of a game nobody likes' would be games that hype the hyper hype before the game is even downloadable. Which is something in my view is more offensive then anything Early Access developers do and yet are done by non-early access developers...imagine that!
I think I have wasted a lot of my time. Some people are just absolutly hell bent on these primary tenats.
1. They refuse to be anything other than miserable and unhappy. Despite being given the best variety in gaming in the history of the universe they will still complain and wish it was 1994. 2. They will never under any condition look at an early access game for its game play. As far as they are concerned the game play is not important at all whatsoever, the only thing that is important is: A. what a developer says B. The version number of the game C. how many bugs are in it.
and there is nothing I can do to help these people
It's more a question of "if you know the game is not ready, why the hell are selling it?"
why does that matter?
if its good, its good, pretty much all that matters
Ark when launched was super buggy but look at success i have myself i played 3200 hours well worth invest in EA(Rust similar).
Now we have new King of EA in town called PLAYERUNKNOWNBATLLEGROUNDS its Early Access but man is it HUGE success.
It soon probaly will have daily 200k players on steam its for past month in TOP3 of best played games. Myself so far have 350 hours in PUBG well worth my money for this EA GAME.
Sure many EA are a fail but you can still test game for 2 hours or refund. Also all EA give up front WARNING its a EA and have bugs.
EA nothing vague about it some common sense you won't lose money ever.
DayZ maybe biggest flop EA but still many who complain have hundreds of hours in that game.
EA is great!!!
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
Comments
if its good, its good, pretty much all that matters
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
That's my take on "Early access"... what's everyone else feel?
Hyper hype presales
microtransactions
No Mans Sky
I feel people here dont really care about game play, they only care about things around the game but not the game itself, they appear to not care about gaming experiences at all
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This brings them more money and of course player feedback but I think at the expense of deflating any sense of excitement and a sort of finality to launch.
I think people excited for the game play it but eventually put it away "until it's done". However, the experience of an unfinished game is always there so even when it launches it doesn't really move a lot of people to take another look. Sort of like a "first impressions" thing.
Also, when it launches, I think a lot of people sort of forget that it was early access so the take is "didn't that already launch a while ago".
Allowing a good many people to play it "early" might also contribute to burn-out and then you get less of a critical mass of people buying/playing the game as well as discussion on the forums that help spur excitement.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Statements like this and then ME being asked for evidence is what really gets under my skin. 'never will be'? evidence maybe?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What evidence do you want me to provide to prove that is my feels on the matter?
I did quote you in context. What you said was very clear, very straightforward, blunt and I say again very clear. nothing possible to add to the context. its what you said
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
what the fuck does 'my opinion' (your words) have to do with it I dont have a clue
do you mean you feel entitled to have an opinion not based on any fact, no desire to research anything on the subject, evidence given suggesting the opposite all because its 'your opinion'?
sorry not following you
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Stories in Early Access is in my view a possible problem for reasons you are suggesting however there very simply isnt that many of them in early access to begin with.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Several of the MMORPG titles I've enjoyed for any length of time (6+ months) had been released for at least a year or more before I joined them.
This includes DAOC, Lineage 1, & EVE with L2 and WOW being the only two I enjoyed at launch.
Every other MMO I joined early, including Vangard, LOTRO, RIFT, AION, AOC, TERA, SWTOR, ArcheAge, ROM, WAR, ESO, and TSW disappointed me.
Most of these were in late beta/pre launch states and far more complete and polished than most any EA game today.
Bugs, exploits, over crowding, server instability, spam, incomplete delivery of promised features and more contributed to my over all dissatisfaction of the beta/launch resulting in me setting them aside, permanently in almost every case.
Some games I suspect actually became quite good after launch, but again, I rarely will go back for....reasons...so I probably missed out on their better days.
So a few years back I decided to no longer buy / play a new MMO until it had been "launched" in the traditional sense for at least 6 months or more.
Right about this same time the early access phenomenon really caught on, with survival games like RUST, DayZ, ARK even Conan Exiles and to this day I've never played one of these waiting for one to "launch".
Think I'll have better luck waiting for ARK online to one day launch.
So you can see why I consider EA to be a bane to gaming in general and definitely to MMORPGs.
Those millions of people that are buying all of these EA titles with you? Yeah, you are part if the problem. Until you stop giving Devs money this will likely only get worse though we're pretty close to bottom now I think.
Even larger Devs are taking advantage of early access and only a matter of time before Zeni or Electronic Arts holds a crowd funding campaign, for those "extra feature" don't ya know.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"I think assuming that the vast majority of people who are buying 3 of the top 6 games on Steam end up not liking the game is being a bit naive."
I said:
"Yes I know, I own it. It's in my Steam account under the category "shit I'll never play again". I think you'll find a similar scenario with the other games you use as examples as well."
Exactly where did I assume the "vast majority" don't play what they purchased? Assumption on your part. The entire point of that exchange was to illustrate to you that not everyone who buys a game winds up playing it, for various reasons. That alone makes the statement you try and pass off as fact nothing more than speculation.
Why don't you just admit that YOU value fun over everything else instead of trying to convince others they are wrong because they consider other things in addition to fun when they choose a game. You don't need to "help" anyone. No one needs your help.
~~ postlarval ~~
Want me to play the damn game? Release the damn game.
~~ postlarval ~~
Now, yah.. I do feel entitled to have my own damn opinions on things, how about that?
Just like you feel entitled to your feelings regarding early access, what factual evidence do you have, that says a game is good or fun, beyond your personal feelings on the matter, what you may like, I could think reeks like recycled cow shit.
If you can't fathom that, the problem is purely on your end, you may need to update your system.
As i see it, no game is worth giving someone money for something they know is not done, and have no obligation to actually complete it.
If it's a great game in its current state, then slap the shipping label on it and say it's a go... don't hide behind "Open Beta" or "Early access" to justify a shitty or incomplete game.
I did some searching for top grossing steam games of 2016, best I can find is from Steam itself:
http://store.steampowered.com/sale/2016_top_sellers/
I can only see Rocket League and No Mans Sky in the top 12 that are indie games. Rocket League obviously did really well, No Mans Sky was almost universally slammed. No Mans Sky was also guilty of the problems you say exist outside the indie scene (over hyping etc).
I will admit, there were more indie titles in the top 100 than I was expecting. I personally don't really enjoy indie titles. Part of that is because the main genres I enjoy (RPG and MMO) require massive budgets to develop good games and so the indie scene can't do it. The other reason is that for every good indie title, there are 1000 terrible ones. I don't have the patience to wade through all that shit to find good stuff, so I tend to wait for the good ones to naturally emerge. So, I tried Prison Architect (my one and only EA purchase) and that was good, but admittedly I've not played it since release as it wasn't good enough to make me return. I bought Rocket League, but that was a one-trick pony and extremely dull. I also bought Kerbal Space Program and whilst I can appreciate the technical brilliance of that game, the actual minute-to-minute gameplay was boring as fuck.
I dont think your post is directed to me, I never said assumptions
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/09/04/half-of-steams-biggest-selling-2015-games-are-in-early-access
3. No mans sky is a 'real' indie about as much as by blaz are black. That game was 100% a AAA hype train designed to pretend like its an indie. I am not fucking fool, its obvious. Bu aside from that is said EARLY ACCESS not 'indie' in the first place
its not hard to find.
Look I am going to try and take a break from these forums. I get up this morning take a look and the first two I read people claim I said something i didnt even say. They are very clearly not reading what I am saying
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I'm a huge advocate for crowdfunding and early access and I believe there is definite value in them. I think that people simply need to search kickstarter or early access on steam to see for themselves.
That being said, I strongly disagree with you about NMS. Are you saying it was made by a team much larger than the claimed 10 developers? NMS might have gotten a big marketing push from Sony when the Internet basically blew it up as the greatest thing ever, but they also distanced themselves from the title just as quickly when things went to shit. NMS is a great example of an indie company riding the INTERNET hype all the way up the mountain, just to be tossed onto the spikes by the same Internet. It's classic indie.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
1. not an early access title so lets be clear about that
2. painfully clearly supported by some mega huge PR effort costing millions of dollars. A game like that just doesnt magically get so much traction from vague videos and nobody in the press having direct game play such that it gets all the way up to the Colbert Report all the while then 10s if not 100s of other games that are very easily arguably at least as good if not better barely even make mainstream gaming news, let alone Colbert Report. That does not happen 'organigically'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
2. Although I dont have evidence I am 110% positive they got money long before it was public that Sony gave money. Why? because when they released the first video of which zero game explanation and no reporters having access to game play the internet suddenly exploded. One video...nearly zero game play...no explanation....internet explodes with buz. Nevermind other games far more detailed in information and frankly far more innovative and visually better had already been available and got nothing like that. no way...that was paid for
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Now we have new King of EA in town called PLAYERUNKNOWNBATLLEGROUNDS its Early Access but man is it HUGE success.
It soon probaly will have daily 200k players on steam its for past month in TOP3 of best played games. Myself so far have 350 hours in PUBG well worth my money for this EA GAME.
Sure many EA are a fail but you can still test game for 2 hours or refund. Also all EA give up front WARNING its a EA and have bugs.
EA nothing vague about it some common sense you won't lose money ever.
DayZ maybe biggest flop EA but still many who complain have hundreds of hours in that game.
EA is great!!!
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit