I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
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 feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
No one is saying what you should and should not do with your money.. You came in and told us what we should and should not do with ours.. well you can shove that right up your rear..
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
No one is saying what you should and should not do with your money.. You came in and told us what we should and should not do with ours.. well you can shove that right up your rear..
that is indirectly being incorrect.
What I dont do on a daily bais and inject into every single thread I write is to say things like 'most AAA firms are criminals' and the like.
a 5 year old child can draw the line between that and 'should not buy' so please dont play that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
You mean the same way you make blanket statements about AAA games? Come on, you're doing the same thing you're railing against.
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
You mean the same way you make blanket statements about AAA games? Come on, you're doing the same thing you're railing against.
you guys do it about 10x more often then I do AND on top it pretend like the only person doing it is me.
its as if I am actually a threat or something
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I've played many a AAA game that I've enjoyed immensely, many a AAA game that just meh'd me and many a AAA that disappointed me.
I've played many an Indie game that I've enjoyed immensely, many an Indie game that just meh'd me and many an Indie that disappointed me.
I judge each game by it's own merit. I'm experienced enough to know what I'll most likely enjoy and what I likely won't, although sometimes I can be surprised.
As far as Crowdfunding goes....
If your going to create a game for free from donations, the game should be free when it's completed or If you donated 0.0000001% of the funding then you should own 0.0000001% of the shares of the game/company.
I've played many a AAA game that I've enjoyed immensely, many a AAA game that just meh'd me and many a AAA that disappointed me.
I've played many an Indie game that I've enjoyed immensely, many an Indie game that just meh'd me and many an Indie that disappointed me.
I judge each game by it's own merit. I'm experienced enough to know what I'll most likely enjoy and what I likely won't, although sometimes I can be surprised.
As far as Crowdfunding goes....
If your going to create a game for free from donations, the game should be free when it's completed or If you donated 0.0000001% of the funding then you should own 0.0000001% of the shares of the game/company.
People that risked, should share in the reward.
Charity is for the truly unfortunate.
I think the 'problem' is many people are trying to fix a 'problem' that doesnt exist in the first place.
purely from a moral standpoint one can make all matters of assertions on what should happen with pre-release models and on its face many of those suggestions seem very solid. The only problem is there is not a problem to be solved in the first place. People are buying these games that they like and they are stastified with their purchase, those games that are bad have much lower number of owners. its very literally a free market model working as is.
so I say why try to fix a problem that isnt broken in the first place? even more so with suggestions from people (not yourself) who dont like indie games in the first place!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
You mean the same way you make blanket statements about AAA games? Come on, you're doing the same thing you're railing against.
you guys do it about 10x more often then I do AND on top it pretend like the only person doing it is me.
its as if I am actually a threat or something
Not a threat. More like a conspiracy theorist in reverse with a heavy dose of Fox "I want to believe" Mulder.
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
No one is saying what you should and should not do with your money.. You came in and told us what we should and should not do with ours.. well you can shove that right up your rear..
that is indirectly being incorrect.
What I dont do on a daily bais and inject into every single thread I write is to say things like 'most AAA firms are criminals' and the like.
a 5 year old child can draw the line between that and 'should not buy' so please dont play that.
No. what you do.. is exactly what I said you do.. you tell people what they should be doing with their time and money.. case in point.
1. you SHOULD accept unfinished games...how many times do I have to say this!? players should accept good gaming experiences and if those good gaming experiences are in unfinished games then they should run to it in great haste. They should NEVER, NOT PLAY a game they find interesting to instead play a game they DONT find intresting. If there is any risk to developers creating crap that would be the way to ensure it
2. How many times do I have to say the same thing?
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
No one is saying what you should and should not do with your money.. You came in and told us what we should and should not do with ours.. well you can shove that right up your rear..
that is indirectly being incorrect.
What I dont do on a daily bais and inject into every single thread I write is to say things like 'most AAA firms are criminals' and the like.
a 5 year old child can draw the line between that and 'should not buy' so please dont play that.
No. what you do.. is exactly what I said you do.. you tell people what they should be doing with their time and money.. case in point.
1. you SHOULD accept unfinished games...how many times do I have to say this!? players should accept good gaming experiences and if those good gaming experiences are in unfinished games then they should run to it in great haste. They should NEVER, NOT PLAY a game they find interesting to instead play a game they DONT find intresting. If there is any risk to developers creating crap that would be the way to ensure it
2. How many times do I have to say the same thing?
EDIT: my first read read you wrong.
Yes..guilty as charged I am telling people that they SHOULD buy (not should NOT buy) games with game play consideration as the top priority.
I think one can imagine how I would mistaken that for not being controversial. I mean consider if you told someone outside the gaming culture 'its controversial to suggest to someone that they should buy a game based on game play experience, suggesting such a thing will cause anger and is not being fair to others'
I 'should' point out though that the example you posted is not a 'what one should NOT buy' but rather what one 'should' buy which in my opinion radically so is a game they think would be fun to play
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
Well I do feel that your buying habits (and those who share them) encourage devs to continue with the early access model.
They either never finish them (like almost every survival game out there) or water down the launch experience because people lose interest.
Knowing as you do about my preference to play released games does it surprise you to know I view you as part of the problem? (bane is probably too strong of a word, how about scourge?)
Especially when it comes to MMOs I really want to see the EA practice come to an end.
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 feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
No one is saying what you should and should not do with your money.. You came in and told us what we should and should not do with ours.. well you can shove that right up your rear..
that is indirectly being incorrect.
What I dont do on a daily bais and inject into every single thread I write is to say things like 'most AAA firms are criminals' and the like.
a 5 year old child can draw the line between that and 'should not buy' so please dont play that.
No. what you do.. is exactly what I said you do.. you tell people what they should be doing with their time and money.. case in point.
1. you SHOULD accept unfinished games...how many times do I have to say this!? players should accept good gaming experiences and if those good gaming experiences are in unfinished games then they should run to it in great haste. They should NEVER, NOT PLAY a game they find interesting to instead play a game they DONT find intresting. If there is any risk to developers creating crap that would be the way to ensure it
2. How many times do I have to say the same thing?
EDIT: my first read read you wrong.
Yes..guilty as charged I am telling people that they SHOULD buy (not should NOT buy) games with game play consideration as the top priority.
I think one can imagine how I would mistaken that for not being controversial. I mean consider if you told someone outside the gaming culture 'its controversial to suggest to someone that they should buy a game based on game play experience, suggesting such a thing will cause anger and is not being fair to others'
I 'should' point out though that the example you posted is not a 'what one should NOT buy' but rather what one 'should' buy which in my opinion radically so is a game they think would be fun to play
Me saying "That looks like an ugly disease ridden whore, I'm not gonna spend my money on it" does not mean... I said you shouldn't....
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
Well I do feel that your buying habits (and those who share them) encourage devs to continue with the early access model.
They either never finish them (like almost every survival game out there) or water down the launch experience because people lose interest.
Knowing as you do about my preference to play released games does it surprise you to know I view you as part of the problem? (bane is probably too strong of a word, how about scourge?)
Especially when it comes to MMOs I really want to see the EA practice come to an end.
I won't be holding my breath however.
I think what you are saying here is yet another example of being very unfair and making very wide broad generalized statements.
1. Game development takes 3-4 years on average. 2. People complained that KSP would never be released...it did release it took 3 years
so to be frank, unless a game has been in early access for more than 4 years then one should STFU about 'never being released' and start to get some perspective.
So how many of these titles you are aware of 'have not been released' AND have been in early access for more than 4 years? is the count 1or 2?
I challenge you to name 5 with a total sales of more than 10,000, that have been in early access for more than 4 years
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
Well I do feel that your buying habits (and those who share them) encourage devs to continue with the early access model.
They either never finish them (like almost every survival game out there) or water down the launch experience because people lose interest.
Knowing as you do about my preference to play released games does it surprise you to know I view you as part of the problem? (bane is probably too strong of a word, how about scourge?)
Especially when it comes to MMOs I really want to see the EA practice come to an end.
I won't be holding my breath however.
I think what you are saying here is yet another example of being very unfair and making very wide broad generalized statements.
1. Game development takes 3-4 years on average. 2. People complained that KSP would never be released...it did release it took 3 years
so to be frank, unless a game has been in early access for more than 4 years then one should STFU about 'never being released' and start to get some perspective.
So how many of these titles you are aware of 'have not been released' AND have been in early access for more than 4 years? is the count 1or 2?
I challenge you to name 5 with a total sales of more than 10,000, that have been in early access for more than 4 years
Early access started in 2013 and have more than 10K. All still in early access. Some 4+ years and some coming up on 4 years shortly.
7 Days to Die DayZ Rust Space Engineers Project Zomboid Shroud of the Avatar
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
Well I do feel that your buying habits (and those who share them) encourage devs to continue with the early access model.
They either never finish them (like almost every survival game out there) or water down the launch experience because people lose interest.
Knowing as you do about my preference to play released games does it surprise you to know I view you as part of the problem? (bane is probably too strong of a word, how about scourge?)
Especially when it comes to MMOs I really want to see the EA practice come to an end.
I won't be holding my breath however.
I'm definitely part of the problem. I know that I am just helping the downward spiral of the genre but I can't help myself. I am a sucker for the shiny baubles and the sales pitch that this time it's gonna be different. I am Charlie Brown trying to kick that football, even if Lucy has pulled it away the last 10 times...
Thats part of why I seem so tough on these guys. I simply believe that you should say what you mean and do what you say. I'm going to hold you accountable to that because I WANT what you promised!!!
But to to get back to the OP... as others have said: If it's a Kickstarter, Early Access or Crowdfunded... its dubious. It doesn't matter what the promise, who is promising it or how long their promised delivery date it. They are all dubious by nature. If they weren't they wouldn't need to go the Kickstart/EA/Crowdfunded route.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
While I am somewhat skeptical about many early access and kickstater projects, I must say that I disagree with OP's position on just about every point. Early access and even kickstarter can never give a "release date" if they are serious about bringing a quality product. If the claim when they reach their financial goal they will come out on such and such a date, I would say chances are the game is probably not going to be very good either in quality or quantity of content. And while I agree that it would be nice to have a "goal" date. Goal dates for release are always going to be moving targets for a variety of reasons. Delays in fleshing out tech, content and so on can always delay any project. So you have to take with a grain of salt any such claims.
Also, the OP lost me when he made comments about how Star Citizen's Squadron 42 has "nothing to show". I have do say that is an uninformed position as I have seen a lot of progress in Squadron 42's development. And here is another example of what I mentioned above. Tech and story content of 42 have shift since the project was kickstarted. The date had to shift accordingly. But, to say there is "nothing to show" when there has been tons of information to the contrary just shows bias more then facts concerning the position taken by the OP.
I feel the same about 3rd person. I the majority of cases its a deal breaker for me and not just because I dont like the view but because I usually can tell what other apsects of the game will be like because of that design choice.
Is OK, I feel the same about games which overly focus on building or crafting.
which is fine.
I think where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
Well I do feel that your buying habits (and those who share them) encourage devs to continue with the early access model.
They either never finish them (like almost every survival game out there) or water down the launch experience because people lose interest.
Knowing as you do about my preference to play released games does it surprise you to know I view you as part of the problem? (bane is probably too strong of a word, how about scourge?)
Especially when it comes to MMOs I really want to see the EA practice come to an end.
I won't be holding my breath however.
I think what you are saying here is yet another example of being very unfair and making very wide broad generalized statements.
1. Game development takes 3-4 years on average. 2. People complained that KSP would never be released...it did release it took 3 years
so to be frank, unless a game has been in early access for more than 4 years then one should STFU about 'never being released' and start to get some perspective.
So how many of these titles you are aware of 'have not been released' AND have been in early access for more than 4 years? is the count 1or 2?
I challenge you to name 5 with a total sales of more than 10,000, that have been in early access for more than 4 years
Early access started in 2013 and have more than 10K. All still in early access. Some 4+ years and some coming up on 4 years shortly.
7 Days to Die DayZ Rust Space Engineers Project Zomboid Shroud of the Avatar
1. those have not been in early access for more than 4 years. Maybe DayZ but that is it
2. now that I have your attention let me ask you, why does it matter? is 7 days to die less of a game because its version number is not 1.0? if so explain in how
3. you are aware that you are by default trash talking the best and most popular parts of early access ONLY because of its version number and not a SINGLE word about its actual game play and you wonder why people who like those games might find that offensive?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It doesn't matter what the promise, who is promising it or how long their promised delivery date it.
I have to ask this question and its a question for everyone not just you.
In concrete terms related to game play please explain why it matters, not abstraction real facts. why dose it matter if the game is released or not?
Here is a concrete example of why I am asking that.
7 Days to Die Alpha 9 was a blast total fun, absolutly worth the money.
Was it less fun because Alpha 10 was coming? no was it less fun because we are near Alpha 16? no could they have released the game at Alpha 10? yes If they did would we have Alpha 15? likely not.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It doesn't matter what the promise, who is promising it or how long their promised delivery date it.
I have to ask this question and its a question for everyone not just you.
In concrete terms related to game play please explain why it matters, not abstraction real facts. why dose it matter if the game is released or not?
You seem to imply that you consider anything a game the moment it is downloaded onto your machine... irregardless of whether it is finished or not. In other words, if all it has is a login in screen and you consider it fun, it qualifies as a game to you.
I think the preponderance of people would define it differently... thus your inability to convince them otherwise.
It doesn't matter what the promise, who is promising it or how long their promised delivery date it.
I have to ask this question and its a question for everyone not just you.
In concrete terms related to game play please explain why it matters, not abstraction real facts. why dose it matter if the game is released or not?
You seem to imply that you consider anything a game the moment it is downloaded onto your machine... irregardless of whether it is finished or not. In other words, if all it has is a login in screen and you consider it fun, it qualifies as a game to you.
I think the preponderance of people would define it differently... thus your inability to convince them otherwise.
that doesnt answer my question.
Why does it matter?
call it a purple elephant for all I care, its symantics
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"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 where I start to have a problem is with everyone making horribly unfair blanket statements about them in such severity that they act like my choice to play these games is a bane on the gaming industry itself and is more inline with collision with Russia then simply a gaming choice
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What I dont do on a daily bais and inject into every single thread I write is to say things like 'most AAA firms are criminals' and the like.
a 5 year old child can draw the line between that and 'should not buy' so please dont play that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
~~ postlarval ~~
its as if I am actually a threat or something
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I've played many an Indie game that I've enjoyed immensely, many an Indie game that just meh'd me and many an Indie that disappointed me.
I judge each game by it's own merit. I'm experienced enough to know what I'll most likely enjoy and what I likely won't, although sometimes I can be surprised.
As far as Crowdfunding goes....
If your going to create a game for free from donations, the game should be free when it's completed or If you donated 0.0000001% of the funding then you should own 0.0000001% of the shares of the game/company.
People that risked, should share in the reward.
Charity is for the truly unfortunate.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
purely from a moral standpoint one can make all matters of assertions on what should happen with pre-release models and on its face many of those suggestions seem very solid.
The only problem is there is not a problem to be solved in the first place.
People are buying these games that they like and they are stastified with their purchase, those games that are bad have much lower number of owners. its very literally a free market model working as is.
so I say why try to fix a problem that isnt broken in the first place? even more so with suggestions from people (not yourself) who dont like indie games in the first place!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
~~ postlarval ~~
Yes..guilty as charged I am telling people that they SHOULD buy (not should NOT buy) games with game play consideration as the top priority.
I think one can imagine how I would mistaken that for not being controversial. I mean consider if you told someone outside the gaming culture 'its controversial to suggest to someone that they should buy a game based on game play experience, suggesting such a thing will cause anger and is not being fair to others'
I 'should' point out though that the example you posted is not a 'what one should NOT buy' but rather what one 'should' buy which in my opinion radically so is a game they think would be fun to play
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
They either never finish them (like almost every survival game out there) or water down the launch experience because people lose interest.
Knowing as you do about my preference to play released games does it surprise you to know I view you as part of the problem? (bane is probably too strong of a word, how about scourge?)
Especially when it comes to MMOs I really want to see the EA practice come to an end.
I won't be holding my breath however.
"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
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
1. Game development takes 3-4 years on average.
2. People complained that KSP would never be released...it did release it took 3 years
so to be frank, unless a game has been in early access for more than 4 years then one should STFU about 'never being released' and start to get some perspective.
So how many of these titles you are aware of 'have not been released' AND have been in early access for more than 4 years? is the count 1or 2?
I challenge you to name 5 with a total sales of more than 10,000, that have been in early access for more than 4 years
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Early access started in 2013 and have more than 10K. All still in early access. Some 4+ years and some coming up on 4 years shortly.
7 Days to Die
DayZ
Rust
Space Engineers
Project Zomboid
Shroud of the Avatar
~~ postlarval ~~
Thats part of why I seem so tough on these guys. I simply believe that you should say what you mean and do what you say. I'm going to hold you accountable to that because I WANT what you promised!!!
But to to get back to the OP... as others have said: If it's a Kickstarter, Early Access or Crowdfunded... its dubious. It doesn't matter what the promise, who is promising it or how long their promised delivery date it. They are all dubious by nature. If they weren't they wouldn't need to go the Kickstart/EA/Crowdfunded route.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Also, the OP lost me when he made comments about how Star Citizen's Squadron 42 has "nothing to show". I have do say that is an uninformed position as I have seen a lot of progress in Squadron 42's development. And here is another example of what I mentioned above. Tech and story content of 42 have shift since the project was kickstarted. The date had to shift accordingly. But, to say there is "nothing to show" when there has been tons of information to the contrary just shows bias more then facts concerning the position taken by the OP.
Let's party like it is 1863!
2. now that I have your attention let me ask you, why does it matter? is 7 days to die less of a game because its version number is not 1.0? if so explain in how
3. you are aware that you are by default trash talking the best and most popular parts of early access ONLY because of its version number and not a SINGLE word about its actual game play and you wonder why people who like those games might find that offensive?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Here is a concrete example of why I am asking that.
7 Days to Die Alpha 9 was a blast total fun, absolutly worth the money.
Was it less fun because Alpha 10 was coming? no
was it less fun because we are near Alpha 16? no
could they have released the game at Alpha 10? yes
If they did would we have Alpha 15? likely not.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I think the preponderance of people would define it differently... thus your inability to convince them otherwise.
Why
does
it
matter?
call it a purple elephant for all I care, its symantics
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There is only one answer to that question... the one that you devise for yourself.
If you don't care... why do you care? See the pointlessness in your quest?