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?
thats a 'why answer any question' answer.
Here is my radical idea, one that gets criticized a lot around here. if the experience is worth the money to you compared to where else you can spend that money then evaluation is complete
done...that is the only requirement. Is the steak tasty and for the price? yes...then that is all you need to worry about. unless we want to start talking about internationally recognized human rights or public safety I think we are done at that evaulation alone
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
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?
1. Bullshit. Like I said, ALL of them have been in development for over four or approaching four. 7DTD and SotA I know for a fact because I was an early backer of both and played alphas in 2013. Do your research before opening your mouth.
2. It doesn't matter. Youre the one who puked out the challenge ("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') and I responded to it. You got what you asked for. Don't bellyache to me if it doesn't align with your world view.
3. I'm not trash talking anything and never said anything like that. I play 7DTD and have played Rust, Project Z, and SotA. I also don't live in some fantasy world where I think they'll ever come out of EA or change in ways I like. The nature of EA.
All you've been doing for the last eight pages is blindly gushing over your own game choices, telling others they are wrong, insulting people's intelligence, putting words in other people's mouth based on your own personal preferences, and arguing for the sake of arguing. GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time.
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?
1. Bullshit. Like I said, ALL of them have been in development for over four or approaching four. 7DTD and SotA I know for a fact because I was an early backer of both and played alphas in 2013. Do your research before opening your mouth.
2. It doesn't matter. Youre the one who puked out the challenge ("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') and I responded to it. You got what you asked for. Don't bellyache to me if it doesn't align with your world view.
3. I'm not trash talking anything and never said anything like that. I play 7DTD and have played Rust, Project Z, and SotA. I also don't live in some fantasy world where I think they'll ever come out of EA or change in ways I like. The nature of EA.
All you've been doing for the last eight pages is blindly gushing over your own game choices, telling others they are wrong, insulting people's intelligence, putting words in other people's mouth based on your own personal preferences, and arguing for the sake of arguing. GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time.
Ark! Ark is still listed as Early Access too.
What's funny is that both Ark and 7DTD have both released games to console and 7DTD actually cut a disc, so wtf did they put on the disc? Remember when they used to talk about going gold?
On top of that Ark has released another version entirely and an expansion?
So are these released or what? Every game pushes out updates, but when do you call it released?
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?
1. Bullshit. Like I said, ALL of them have been in development for over four or approaching four. 7DTD and SotA I know for a fact because I was an early backer of both and played alphas in 2013. Do your research before opening your mouth.
2. It doesn't matter. Youre the one who puked out the challenge ("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') and I responded to it. You got what you asked for. Don't bellyache to me if it doesn't align with your world view.
3. I'm not trash talking anything and never said anything like that. I play 7DTD and have played Rust, Project Z, and SotA. I also don't live in some fantasy world where I think they'll ever come out of EA or change in ways I like. The nature of EA.
All you've been doing for the last eight pages is blindly gushing over your own game choices, telling others they are wrong, insulting people's intelligence, putting words in other people's mouth based on your own personal preferences, and arguing for the sake of arguing. GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time.
Ark! Ark is still listed as Early Access too.
What's funny is that both Ark and 7DTD have both released games to console and 7DTD actually cut a disc, so wtf did they put on the disc? Remember when they used to talk about going gold?
On top of that Ark has released another version entirely and an expansion?
So are these released or what? Every game pushes out updates, but when do you call it released?
Ask the developers. They're the ones claiming the games are still EA.
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?
1. Bullshit. Like I said, ALL of them have been in development for over four or approaching four. 7DTD and SotA I know for a fact because I was an early backer of both and played alphas in 2013. Do your research before opening your mouth.
2. It doesn't matter. Youre the one who puked out the challenge ("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') and I responded to it. You got what you asked for. Don't bellyache to me if it doesn't align with your world view.
3. I'm not trash talking anything and never said anything like that. I play 7DTD and have played Rust, Project Z, and SotA. I also don't live in some fantasy world where I think they'll ever come out of EA or change in ways I like. The nature of EA.
All you've been doing for the last eight pages is blindly gushing over your own game choices, telling others they are wrong, insulting people's intelligence, putting words in other people's mouth based on your own personal preferences, and arguing for the sake of arguing. GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time.
1. I specifically said 'longer than 4 years' for a reason and I want MORE Than 4 years. not approaching 4 years.
2. you failed my challenge but besides that its not like 'you win the challenge now all conversations are over' I am challenging you for a secondary reason.
3. you absolutely are. If I went around telling people every day that The Witcher, Destiny and The Division are horrible games BECAUSE they have dishonest advertising and NEVER...not ONCE ever mention anything about the game play itself I can assure you people like yourself would be hyper pissed
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
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?
1. Bullshit. Like I said, ALL of them have been in development for over four or approaching four. 7DTD and SotA I know for a fact because I was an early backer of both and played alphas in 2013. Do your research before opening your mouth.
2. It doesn't matter. Youre the one who puked out the challenge ("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') and I responded to it. You got what you asked for. Don't bellyache to me if it doesn't align with your world view.
3. I'm not trash talking anything and never said anything like that. I play 7DTD and have played Rust, Project Z, and SotA. I also don't live in some fantasy world where I think they'll ever come out of EA or change in ways I like. The nature of EA.
All you've been doing for the last eight pages is blindly gushing over your own game choices, telling others they are wrong, insulting people's intelligence, putting words in other people's mouth based on your own personal preferences, and arguing for the sake of arguing. GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time.
Ark! Ark is still listed as Early Access too.
What's funny is that both Ark and 7DTD have both released games to console and 7DTD actually cut a disc, so wtf did they put on the disc? Remember when they used to talk about going gold?
On top of that Ark has released another version entirely and an expansion?
So are these released or what? Every game pushes out updates, but when do you call it released?
See that is exactly what I am talking about, when Develops hide behind EA, to justify their bugs and other game issues, (lack of polish, lack of promised features, etc), but still ask for money to play their game.
EA is this fancy "shield" they get to hide behind while they sell their game, collect money from their players, and simultaneously disavow any responsibility for it's issues.
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?
1. Bullshit. Like I said, ALL of them have been in development for over four or approaching four. 7DTD and SotA I know for a fact because I was an early backer of both and played alphas in 2013. Do your research before opening your mouth.
2. It doesn't matter. Youre the one who puked out the challenge ("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') and I responded to it. You got what you asked for. Don't bellyache to me if it doesn't align with your world view.
3. I'm not trash talking anything and never said anything like that. I play 7DTD and have played Rust, Project Z, and SotA. I also don't live in some fantasy world where I think they'll ever come out of EA or change in ways I like. The nature of EA.
All you've been doing for the last eight pages is blindly gushing over your own game choices, telling others they are wrong, insulting people's intelligence, putting words in other people's mouth based on your own personal preferences, and arguing for the sake of arguing. GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time.
Ark! Ark is still listed as Early Access too.
What's funny is that both Ark and 7DTD have both released games to console and 7DTD actually cut a disc, so wtf did they put on the disc? Remember when they used to talk about going gold?
On top of that Ark has released another version entirely and an expansion?
So are these released or what? Every game pushes out updates, but when do you call it released?
See that is exactly what I am talking about, when Develops hide behind EA, to justify their bugs and other game issues, (lack of polish, lack of promised features, etc), but still ask for money to play their game.
EA is this fancy "shield" they get to hide behind while they sell their game, collect money from their players, and simultaneously disavow any responsibility for it's issues.
That looks like a Scam to me.
but see the problem is this mythical 'bugs' is exactly that....a myth
do they exist? yeah they do, but nowhere remotely near the level you people seem to think. if they did nobody would be playing those games. So your just basing an entire mythology on well...inaccurate information
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
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?
1. Bullshit. Like I said, ALL of them have been in development for over four or approaching four. 7DTD and SotA I know for a fact because I was an early backer of both and played alphas in 2013. Do your research before opening your mouth.
2. It doesn't matter. Youre the one who puked out the challenge ("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') and I responded to it. You got what you asked for. Don't bellyache to me if it doesn't align with your world view.
3. I'm not trash talking anything and never said anything like that. I play 7DTD and have played Rust, Project Z, and SotA. I also don't live in some fantasy world where I think they'll ever come out of EA or change in ways I like. The nature of EA.
All you've been doing for the last eight pages is blindly gushing over your own game choices, telling others they are wrong, insulting people's intelligence, putting words in other people's mouth based on your own personal preferences, and arguing for the sake of arguing. GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time.
Ark! Ark is still listed as Early Access too.
What's funny is that both Ark and 7DTD have both released games to console and 7DTD actually cut a disc, so wtf did they put on the disc? Remember when they used to talk about going gold?
On top of that Ark has released another version entirely and an expansion?
So are these released or what? Every game pushes out updates, but when do you call it released?
See that is exactly what I am talking about, when Develops hide behind EA, to justify their bugs and other game issues, (lack of polish, lack of promised features, etc), but still ask for money to play their game.
EA is this fancy "shield" they get to hide behind while they sell their game, collect money from their players, and simultaneously disavow any responsibility for it's issues.
That looks like a Scam to me.
but see the problem is this mythical 'bugs' is exactly that....a myth
do they exist? yeah they do, but nowhere remotely near the level you people seem to think. if they did nobody would be playing those games. So your just basing an entire mythology on well...inaccurate information
If their games are as bug free and polished as you re trying to make them out to be... why are they still "early access" ?
Sounds like you are the one trying to sell the scam here as well.
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?
1. Bullshit. Like I said, ALL of them have been in development for over four or approaching four. 7DTD and SotA I know for a fact because I was an early backer of both and played alphas in 2013. Do your research before opening your mouth.
2. It doesn't matter. Youre the one who puked out the challenge ("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') and I responded to it. You got what you asked for. Don't bellyache to me if it doesn't align with your world view.
3. I'm not trash talking anything and never said anything like that. I play 7DTD and have played Rust, Project Z, and SotA. I also don't live in some fantasy world where I think they'll ever come out of EA or change in ways I like. The nature of EA.
All you've been doing for the last eight pages is blindly gushing over your own game choices, telling others they are wrong, insulting people's intelligence, putting words in other people's mouth based on your own personal preferences, and arguing for the sake of arguing. GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time.
Ark! Ark is still listed as Early Access too.
What's funny is that both Ark and 7DTD have both released games to console and 7DTD actually cut a disc, so wtf did they put on the disc? Remember when they used to talk about going gold?
On top of that Ark has released another version entirely and an expansion?
So are these released or what? Every game pushes out updates, but when do you call it released?
See that is exactly what I am talking about, when Develops hide behind EA, to justify their bugs and other game issues, (lack of polish, lack of promised features, etc), but still ask for money to play their game.
EA is this fancy "shield" they get to hide behind while they sell their game, collect money from their players, and simultaneously disavow any responsibility for it's issues.
That looks like a Scam to me.
but see the problem is this mythical 'bugs' is exactly that....a myth
do they exist? yeah they do, but nowhere remotely near the level you people seem to think. if they did nobody would be playing those games. So your just basing an entire mythology on well...inaccurate information
If their games are as bug free and polished as you re trying to make them out to be... why are they still "early access" ?
Sounds like you are the one trying to sell the scam here as well.
because they are adding features....yes...its absolutely the case
That said, I dont appreciate you changing 'hide behind EA, to justify their bugs ' to 'bug free'. you know goddamn good and well there is a huge difference between the two.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What's funny is that both Ark and 7DTD have both released games to console and 7DTD actually cut a disc, so wtf did they put on the disc? Remember when they used to talk about going gold?
On top of that Ark has released another version entirely and an expansion?
So are these released or what? Every game pushes out updates, but when do you call it released?
See that is exactly what I am talking about, when Develops hide behind EA, to justify their bugs and other game issues, (lack of polish, lack of promised features, etc), but still ask for money to play their game.
EA is this fancy "shield" they get to hide behind while they sell their game, collect money from their players, and simultaneously disavow any responsibility for it's issues.
That looks like a Scam to me.
I think it's understandable why they would want to hide behind it. It's no different than "Open Beta" which became super popular like a decade ago now. There were games that would just live on in "Open Beta" indefinitely. There are other reasons for it besides hiding, though. Some countries, like Canada, will give you funds to continue development on projects under development through research grants, etc. However, as soon as you release, those all go away. So if there are, in fact, features that they are still working on which would allow them to take advantage of that funding, I don't see why any small company wouldn't. You can bet larger companies do.
That being said, I was never a fan of games living on as "Open Beta" indefinitely and I'm also not a fan of living on in early access indefinitely.
EDIT: Just for the record, I don't think this practice tells us who is dubious and, in fact, it doesn't really help us at all during initial crowdfunding phases. Also, these games are quite playable, so I'm sure if you put your money into it, you'd get your money worth, which is more I can say for many games. Maybe it's a question for the developer as to why they retain the early access tag. Maybe the community needs to start holding developers accountable.
What's funny is that both Ark and 7DTD have both released games to console and 7DTD actually cut a disc, so wtf did they put on the disc? Remember when they used to talk about going gold?
On top of that Ark has released another version entirely and an expansion?
So are these released or what? Every game pushes out updates, but when do you call it released?
See that is exactly what I am talking about, when Develops hide behind EA, to justify their bugs and other game issues, (lack of polish, lack of promised features, etc), but still ask for money to play their game.
EA is this fancy "shield" they get to hide behind while they sell their game, collect money from their players, and simultaneously disavow any responsibility for it's issues.
That looks like a Scam to me.
I think it's understandable why they would want to hide behind it. It's no different than "Open Beta" which became super popular like a decade ago now. There were games that would just live on in "Open Beta" indefinitely. There are other reasons for it besides hiding, though. Some countries, like Canada, will give you funds to continue development on projects under development through research grants, etc. However, as soon as you release, those all go away. So if there are, in fact, features that they are still working on which would allow them to take advantage of that funding, I don't see why any small company wouldn't. You can bet larger companies do.
That being said, I was never a fan of games living on as "Open Beta" indefinitely and I'm also not a fan of living on in early access indefinitely.
EDIT: Just for the record, I don't think this practice tells us who is dubious and, in fact, it doesn't really help us at all during initial crowdfunding phases. Also, these games are quite playable, so I'm sure if you put your money into it, you'd get your money worth, which is more I can say for many games. Maybe it's a question for the developer as to why they retain the early access tag. Maybe the community needs to start holding developers accountable.
most of the early access games I have played do not have many bugs and neary zero game breaking bugs(i had game breaking bug only twice and both have been fixed). The reason they are still in early access is not because they are fixing broken things its because they are adding more features. That has been my personal direct experience
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
4 years is your benchmark?!? Wow! You are one tolerant man!
Early Access....you are paying for early access to the game, with the game being defined by release 1.0. The expectation in software development, as you're aware, is that it is impossible to release bug-free software. Thus, early access is supposed to be a tradeoff - you get to pay for the privilege of playing the game before the general public, but you expect to encounter more bugs than the fully released game because it's still going through final testing and polish.
So, my cut-off time is the 3-6 month mark. I strongly believe that all EA games should be feature complete, but just be missing polish. You are still essentially helping the devs do their final testing, ensuring the product is ready for general release.
If a game is not feature complete, then you are not paying for early access, you are simply funding development and acting as a low quality tester.
Now, I say again, I have no problem from a personal point of view if you get your value for money from early access and you are fully aware of what you're doing. I do still find it unethical as it plays on the ignorance of the general public. Even if steam will give you a refund before 2hrs of gameplay, it may take you 5 hours of gameplay to release that what you've bought is actually missing 50% of the game.
If a game has been in early access for a long period of time....yeh, my earlier statements about laziness and bad ethics definitely apply.
Maybe it's just a terminology thing? Crowd funding at least has an honest name - you know you are funding the development of a game and that it is a big risk. Early Access mostly seems to mean the same thing as crowd funding, it just hides that fact from you.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
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.
4 years is your benchmark?!? Wow! You are one tolerant man!
.......
Kerbal Space Program one of favorite games of all time was in early access for 3 years.
So can you think of why I would use 4 years as a benchmark?
regarding feature complete I again fail to see why its so important that it trumps the importance of the game play as it currently stands. your take, (and many here) is 'not complete?' 'full stop not looking at it all whatsoever, its garbage, the developers are from satan'. that very extreme
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
regarding feature complete I again fail to see why its so important that it trumps the importance of the game play as it currently stands. your take, (and many here) is 'not complete?' 'full stop not looking at it all whatsoever, its garbage, the developers are from satan'. that very extreme
And that is Different from your "YOU WILL PLAY EA AND YOU WILL LOVE IT ! EA IS THE BEST STUFF EVAR!"
regarding feature complete I again fail to see why its so important that it trumps the importance of the game play as it currently stands. your take, (and many here) is 'not complete?' 'full stop not looking at it all whatsoever, its garbage, the developers are from satan'. that very extreme
And that is Different from your "YOU WILL PLAY EA AND YOU WILL LOVE IT ! EA IS THE BEST STUFF EVAR!"
How?
Electronic Arts?
look if your going to ignore what the substance of what I said just dont bother to reply.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
regarding feature complete I again fail to see why its so important that it trumps the importance of the game play as it currently stands. your take, (and many here) is 'not complete?' 'full stop not looking at it all whatsoever, its garbage, the developers are from satan'. that very extreme
It doesn't trump the importance of gameplay. What you fail to understand is that some players DO NOT want to invest their time and energy into playing a game if the developers can change the core game systems at any time, based on anything from a screaming vocal minority to a wild hair up their ass. This is especially important if the changes evolve the game into something undesireable in the player's opinion.
Others don't believe developers should take money if they don't have a solid clue what their game wants to be when it grows up, and I'm one of them.
You're basing your opinion on the state of the EA games you play TODAY. What happens if your favorite game does a 180 and becomes a game you hate? Maybe you're ok with that and you'll move onto another game, but many players are NOT ok with it.
One of the good things about most released games is that the heart of the game and gameplay is pretty much set in stone and unlikely to change. You can choose if you want to play it based on a finished state. Fun is only one aspect. Some players want a promise longevity as well. In that context, many EA games are too risky to invest much time on when there are a lot of games out there that have grown up enough that players know what they're getting.
Take this for what it's worth and I doubt it will be worth much since you're too wrapped up in your own hype to notice anything but the bullshit you tell yourself.
This is the last time I respond to you. It's obvious at this point you're just arguing for the sake of argument. Troll away or go crawl back under your bridge. Whatever.
4 years is your benchmark?!? Wow! You are one tolerant man!
Early Access....you are paying for early access to the game, with the game being defined by release 1.0. The expectation in software development, as you're aware, is that it is impossible to release bug-free software. Thus, early access is supposed to be a tradeoff - you get to pay for the privilege of playing the game before the general public, but you expect to encounter more bugs than the fully released game because it's still going through final testing and polish.
So, my cut-off time is the 3-6 month mark. I strongly believe that all EA games should be feature complete, but just be missing polish. You are still essentially helping the devs do their final testing, ensuring the product is ready for general release.
If a game is not feature complete, then you are not paying for early access, you are simply funding development and acting as a low quality tester.
Now, I say again, I have no problem from a personal point of view if you get your value for money from early access and you are fully aware of what you're doing. I do still find it unethical as it plays on the ignorance of the general public. Even if steam will give you a refund before 2hrs of gameplay, it may take you 5 hours of gameplay to release that what you've bought is actually missing 50% of the game.
If a game has been in early access for a long period of time....yeh, my earlier statements about laziness and bad ethics definitely apply.
Maybe it's just a terminology thing? Crowd funding at least has an honest name - you know you are funding the development of a game and that it is a big risk. Early Access mostly seems to mean the same thing as crowd funding, it just hides that fact from you.
Huh? It tells you the game may never be complete, what exactly are they hiding? EA is no different than crowdfunding, outside of being playable from the time you buy in.
"This Early Access game is not completeand may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development. "
Who reads that, then gets duped into thinking they're buying a release quality product or a feature complete one?
Don't confuse early access in this sense with what MMOs tend to offer with pre-release headstarts.
These are not feature complete games.
3-6 months? anything over is lazy and unethical? How long has divinity:OS 2 been in EA again (will be about a year when it release in Sep), how long was D:OS ? That is certainly not an unethical dev they make great products.
You gotta judge by the individual in these cases. Blanket statements just don't work.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
regarding feature complete I again fail to see why its so important that it trumps the importance of the game play as it currently stands. your take, (and many here) is 'not complete?' 'full stop not looking at it all whatsoever, its garbage, the developers are from satan'. that very extreme
It doesn't trump the importance of gameplay. What you fail to understand is that some players DO NOT want to invest their time and energy into playing a game if the developers can change the core game systems at any time, ...
that is what would be called a 'different reason' from the one being pontificated by many over the past few days.
I am TOTALLY fine with 'some people do not want to invest time and energy into playing a game if the developers can change the core game systems at any time'. I am totally fine with that, completely reasonable and fair, the statement even contains the suggestion that not ALL people feel that way.
the only thing is, you and your crew havent been coming remotely close to saying that until now. but thank you for doing so.
not to argue your position but just to point out as an obversation, I have 848 hours in 7 days to die and i have loved every hour of it despite having a few times having to loose my build and/or wait until a major update comes out. but very far from a deal breaker
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.
that doesnt answer my question.
Why does it matter?
call it a purple elephant for all I care, its symantics
1) I have a very low tolerance for bugs, especially if they impact my gameplay. My assumption is most EAs can't meet this threshold.
Heck I bought Wasteland 2 just last December and the two significant issues I ran into really annoyed me, but I pushed through and finished the game. But I didn't like it.
2) I hate playing games missing core feature and functionality while in development. Let's look at AA alpha, I was in a zone and ran into a "blank" area with actual "under construction" signs. Was told they would be available at launch (they lied).
Classes and skills missing or not balanced as they will be at launch are a huge frustration for me.
3) I'm old, I dislike change, and have a hard time dealing with evolving game mechanics on normal release schedules. One reason I enjoy EVE is how little has actually changed since 2007 when I joined. (4 yrs after its launch)
4) Progression. I live for it, primary reason I play, can't abide restarting or "completing" same content for a second time. Which is why I abhor gear grinding raids just to get my next set piece. I killed Ragnaros already, let him stay dead and let me move on.
At the end of the day I feel the real "fun" of MMORPGs is experiencing the sum of their parts, and not the individual pieces.
It's why I told you previously I now plan to wait anywhere from 6 months to a year post launch to try any new game. (with one exception, CU I'll play at launch as my friends will be there.)
Of course if no game ever comes out of EA until 4 years after EA launch (a ridiculous, proposal, 6 months to a year at most is acceptable to me) then I might be playing EVE for a lot more years than I first thought.
BTW, while none of this is personal for me, I really have no concerns for hurting your feelings on this issue.
It's not likely either one of us will ever yield on this so expect to cross swords again in the future.
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
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
1) I have a very low tolerance for bugs, especially if they impact my gameplay. My assumption is most EAs can't meet this threshold.
Heck I bought Wasteland 2 just last December and the two significant issues I ran into really annoyed me, but I pushed through and finished the game. But I didn't like it.
2) I hate playing games missing core feature and functionality while in development. Let's look at AA alpha, I was in a zone and ran into a "blank" area with actual "under construction" signs. Was told they would be available at launch (they lied).
Classes and skills missing or not balanced as they will be at launch are a huge frustration for me.
3) I'm old, I dislike change, and have a hard time dealing with evolving game mechanics on normal release schedules. One reason I enjoy EVE is how little has actually changed since 2007 when I joined. (4 yrs after its launch)
4) Progression. I live for it, primary reason I play, can't abide restarting or "completing" same content for a second time. Which is why I abhor gear grinding raids just to get my next set piece. I killed Ragnaros already, let him stay dead and let me move on.
At the end of the day I feel the real "fun" of MMORPGs is experiencing the sum of their parts, and not the individual pieces.
It's why I told you previously I now plan to wait anywhere from 6 months to a year post launch to try any new game. (with one exception, CU I'll play at launch as my friends will be there.
Of course if no game ever comes out of EA until 4 years after EA launch (a ridiculous, proposal, 6 months to a year at most is acceptable to me) then I might be playing EVE for a lot more years than I first thought.
BTW, while none of this is personal for me, I really have no concerns for hurting your feelings on this issue.
It's not likely either one of us will ever yield on this so expect to cross swords again in the future.
Thank you for your well spelled out answer. here is my respoinse.
1. as I have repeatedly pointed out early access titles I have been exposed with do NOT have bugs. maybe one or two if you hunt really hard but on average very low bug count...very low.
2.The VAST MAJORITY of early access games that are still working on features do not any hint of an immersion breaker like you have described. Some have fences or walls in the way but for the love of fuck! how bad is that compared to 'mainstream titles' that even in a 'complete' state barely even let you have 1/4th the freedom a pre-alpha early access title does? I mean sweet mother of god are you fucking joking me? mainstream titles usually give you at best 2 ways to get to the next section, invisible walls everywhere, while an incomplete early access title gives you MORE freedom. anyway...no your complaint here is horseshit. more than 1/2 the time the features being worked on are not even environmental in the first place and has ZERO impact on your current immersion factor, the other 1/2 in which might be enviromental is handled with still more freedom than mainstream games.
3. This reason I can actually understand and I do not have a problem with it.
4. Mainstream Single player games have a playable lifespan of about 60 hours. thats it, DONE. after 60 hours no more replay. So unless your the type of player who likes to build a city voxel block by voxel block in survial mode investing hunderds of hours then you really dont have much to complain about here now do you?
my impression here is that people feel a certian way and are looking for reasons to fit their feeling despite the fact them not actually experiencing these claims but trying to rest on the concept of plausibility.
we should not tolerate that, unless you have specifically encountered something you are claiming tobe a problem please do not assume its a problem that is pervasive. and keep in mind your trying to sell these plausible senerios you dont actually encounter to someone who actually plays early access titles on a regular biases.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
regarding feature complete I again fail to see why its so important that it trumps the importance of the game play as it currently stands. your take, (and many here) is 'not complete?' 'full stop not looking at it all whatsoever, its garbage, the developers are from satan'. that very extreme
And that is Different from your "YOU WILL PLAY EA AND YOU WILL LOVE IT ! EA IS THE BEST STUFF EVAR!"
How?
Electronic Arts?
look if your going to ignore what the substance of what I said just dont bother to reply.
We are talking about Early Access..if you're that much a slobbering fan-boi of Electronic Arts... It would explain why your so irrational...
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
1) I have a very low tolerance for bugs, especially if they impact my gameplay. My assumption is most EAs can't meet this threshold.
Heck I bought Wasteland 2 just last December and the two significant issues I ran into really annoyed me, but I pushed through and finished the game. But I didn't like it.
2) I hate playing games missing core feature and functionality while in development. Let's look at AA alpha, I was in a zone and ran into a "blank" area with actual "under construction" signs. Was told they would be available at launch (they lied).
Classes and skills missing or not balanced as they will be at launch are a huge frustration for me.
3) I'm old, I dislike change, and have a hard time dealing with evolving game mechanics on normal release schedules. One reason I enjoy EVE is how little has actually changed since 2007 when I joined. (4 yrs after its launch)
4) Progression. I live for it, primary reason I play, can't abide restarting or "completing" same content for a second time. Which is why I abhor gear grinding raids just to get my next set piece. I killed Ragnaros already, let him stay dead and let me move on.
At the end of the day I feel the real "fun" of MMORPGs is experiencing the sum of their parts, and not the individual pieces.
It's why I told you previously I now plan to wait anywhere from 6 months to a year post launch to try any new game. (with one exception, CU I'll play at launch as my friends will be there.
Of course if no game ever comes out of EA until 4 years after EA launch (a ridiculous, proposal, 6 months to a year at most is acceptable to me) then I might be playing EVE for a lot more years than I first thought.
BTW, while none of this is personal for me, I really have no concerns for hurting your feelings on this issue.
It's not likely either one of us will ever yield on this so expect to cross swords again in the future.
Thank you for your well spelled out answer. here is my respoinse.
1. as I have repeatedly pointed out early access titles I have been exposed with do NOT have bugs. maybe one or two if you hunt really hard but on average very low bug count...very low.
2.The VAST MAJORITY of early access games that are still working on features do not any hint of an immersion breaker like you have described. Some have fences or walls in the way but for the love of fuck! how bad is that compared to 'mainstream titles' that even in a 'complete' state barely even let you have 1/4th the freedom a pre-alpha early access title does? I mean sweet mother of god are you fucking joking me? mainstream titles usually give you at best 2 ways to get to the next section, invisible walls everywhere, while an incomplete early access title gives you MORE freedom. anyway...no your complaint here is horseshit. more than 1/2 the time the features being worked on are not even environmental in the first place and has ZERO impact on your current immersion factor, the other 1/2 in which might be enviromental is handled with still more freedom than mainstream games.
3. This reason I can actually understand and I do not have a problem with it.
4. Mainstream Single player games have a playable lifespan of about 60 hours. thats it, DONE. after 60 hours no more replay. So unless your the type of player who likes to build a city voxel block by voxel block in survial mode investing hunderds of hours then you really dont have much to complain about here now do you?
my impression here is that people feel a certian way and are looking for reasons to fit their feeling despite the fact them not actually experiencing these claims but trying to rest on the concept of plausibility.
we should not tolerate that, unless you have specifically encountered something you are claiming tobe a problem please do not assume its a problem that is pervasive. and keep in mind your trying to sell these plausible senerios you dont actually encounter to someone who actually plays early access titles on a regular biases.
Your retorts mostly apply to single player games which I've made very clear I don't partake of very often.
My perspectives are almost entirely from a MMORPG perspective and I assure you every scenario I laid out is one I've experienced on several occasions.
I will agree on one point, mainstream MMORPGs didn't work for me so my playtime is strictly niche.
BTW, take a look at the Grim Dawn Development section in Wikipedia for a great example of point #2 and why I wouldn't play that game until launched in Feb 2016. (build 31)
Not to pile on, but the legend of Aria news article and player responses perfectly illustrates almost everyone of my points, doubling of map size, bugs, etc, all in alpha build that's going on for over a year.
Not seeing a lot of "fun" in the player replies either.
Done proving my point, case closed, you lose, goodnight.
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
SEANMCAD said: 2.The VAST MAJORITY of early access games that are still working on features do not any hint of an immersion breaker like you have described. Some have fences or walls in the way but for the love of fuck! how bad is that compared to 'mainstream titles' that even in a 'complete' state barely even let you have 1/4th the freedom a pre-alpha early access title does? I mean sweet mother of god are you fucking joking me? mainstream titles usually give you at best 2 ways to get to the next section, invisible walls everywhere, while an incomplete early access title gives you MORE freedom. anyway...no your complaint here is horseshit. more than 1/2 the time the features being worked on are not even environmental in the first place and has ZERO impact on your current immersion factor, the other 1/2 in which might be enviromental is handled with still more freedom than mainstream games.
If they are so finely polished, and better then released titles by AAA publishers, why are they still "early access"?
That is the one thing you can't address, as every MMO I have ever played, heck every Online game I have played, had no issues adding features, maps, dungeons, classes, even tweaks and bug fixes, as well adding any other kind of content to their game, after Launch.
This is why it makes no sense to maintain an "Early Access", to a title that is in fact publicly open. Makes it look like a Scam, and it looks like one, there is a good chance it is.
SEANMCAD said: 2.The VAST MAJORITY of early access games that are still working on features do not any hint of an immersion breaker like you have described. Some have fences or walls in the way but for the love of fuck! how bad is that compared to 'mainstream titles' that even in a 'complete' state barely even let you have 1/4th the freedom a pre-alpha early access title does? I mean sweet mother of god are you fucking joking me? mainstream titles usually give you at best 2 ways to get to the next section, invisible walls everywhere, while an incomplete early access title gives you MORE freedom. anyway...no your complaint here is horseshit. more than 1/2 the time the features being worked on are not even environmental in the first place and has ZERO impact on your current immersion factor, the other 1/2 in which might be enviromental is handled with still more freedom than mainstream games.
If they are so finely polished, and better then released titles by AAA publishers, why are they still "early access"?
.....
VERY good question, question I ask myself. usually in the inverse though (why are AAA so bad compared to these games) I dont have an answer, its not logical, but it is factual
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.
that doesnt answer my question.
Why does it matter?
call it a purple elephant for all I care, its symantics
1) I have a very low tolerance for bugs, especially if they impact my gameplay. My assumption is most EAs can't meet this threshold.
Heck I bought Wasteland 2 just last December and the two significant issues I ran into really annoyed me, but I pushed through and finished the game. But I didn't like it.
2) I hate playing games missing core feature and functionality while in development. Let's look at AA alpha, I was in a zone and ran into a "blank" area with actual "under construction" signs. Was told they would be available at launch (they lied).
Classes and skills missing or not balanced as they will be at launch are a huge frustration for me.
3) I'm old, I dislike change, and have a hard time dealing with evolving game mechanics on normal release schedules. One reason I enjoy EVE is how little has actually changed since 2007 when I joined. (4 yrs after its launch)
4) Progression. I live for it, primary reason I play, can't abide restarting or "completing" same content for a second time. Which is why I abhor gear grinding raids just to get my next set piece. I killed Ragnaros already, let him stay dead and let me move on.
At the end of the day I feel the real "fun" of MMORPGs is experiencing the sum of their parts, and not the individual pieces.
It's why I told you previously I now plan to wait anywhere from 6 months to a year post launch to try any new game. (with one exception, CU I'll play at launch as my friends will be there.
Of course if no game ever comes out of EA until 4 years after EA launch (a ridiculous, proposal, 6 months to a year at most is acceptable to me) then I might be playing EVE for a lot more years than I first thought.
BTW, while none of this is personal for me, I really have no concerns for hurting your feelings on this issue.
It's not likely either one of us will ever yield on this so expect to cross swords again in the future.
Thank you for your well spelled out answer. here is my respoinse.
1. as I have repeatedly pointed out early access titles I have been exposed with do NOT have bugs. maybe one or two if you hunt really hard but on average very low bug count...very low.
2.The VAST MAJORITY of early access games that are still working on features do not any hint of an immersion breaker like you have described. Some have fences or walls in the way but for the love of fuck! how bad is that compared to 'mainstream titles' that even in a 'complete' state barely even let you have 1/4th the freedom a pre-alpha early access title does? I mean sweet mother of god are you fucking joking me? mainstream titles usually give you at best 2 ways to get to the next section, invisible walls everywhere, while an incomplete early access title gives you MORE freedom. anyway...no your complaint here is horseshit. more than 1/2 the time the features being worked on are not even environmental in the first place and has ZERO impact on your current immersion factor, the other 1/2 in which might be enviromental is handled with still more freedom than mainstream games.
3. This reason I can actually understand and I do not have a problem with it.
4. Mainstream Single player games have a playable lifespan of about 60 hours. thats it, DONE. after 60 hours no more replay. So unless your the type of player who likes to build a city voxel block by voxel block in survial mode investing hunderds of hours then you really dont have much to complain about here now do you?
my impression here is that people feel a certian way and are looking for reasons to fit their feeling despite the fact them not actually experiencing these claims but trying to rest on the concept of plausibility.
we should not tolerate that, unless you have specifically encountered something you are claiming tobe a problem please do not assume its a problem that is pervasive. and keep in mind your trying to sell these plausible senerios you dont actually encounter to someone who actually plays early access titles on a regular biases.
Your retorts mostly apply to single player games which I've made very clear I don't partake of very often.
My perspectives are almost entirely from a MMORPG perspective and I assure you every scenario I laid out is one I've experienced on several occasions.
I will agree on one point, mainstream MMORPGs didn't work for me so my playtime is strictly niche.
BTW, take a look at the Grim Dawn Development section in Wikipedia for a great example of point #2 and why I wouldn't play that game until launched in Feb 2016. (build 31)
Not to pile on, but the legend of Aria news article and player responses perfectly illustrates almost everyone of my points, doubling of map size, bugs, etc, all in alpha build that's going on for over a year.
Not seeing a lot of "fun" in the player replies either.
Done proving my point, case closed, you lose, goodnight.
goddamit
there is no such thing as an Steam Early Access MMO to begin with so if your talking about MMOs please be mineful to not randomly throw nuclear hand geradades into the field of Steam Early Access with no fucks given.
thanks.
Be clear, on forums I often here a lot of shit talk about Steam Early Access games. when people say 'early access' they are often thinking 'steam early access'.
some asshat developer who releases their game and call it 'early access' does but not within the steam early access system is different.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
Here is my radical idea, one that gets criticized a lot around here.
if the experience is worth the money to you compared to where else you can spend that money then evaluation is complete
done...that is the only requirement.
Is the steak tasty and for the price? yes...then that is all you need to worry about. unless we want to start talking about internationally recognized human rights or public safety I think we are done at that evaulation alone
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. It doesn't matter. Youre the one who puked out the challenge ("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') and I responded to it. You got what you asked for. Don't bellyache to me if it doesn't align with your world view.
3. I'm not trash talking anything and never said anything like that. I play 7DTD and have played Rust, Project Z, and SotA. I also don't live in some fantasy world where I think they'll ever come out of EA or change in ways I like. The nature of EA.
All you've been doing for the last eight pages is blindly gushing over your own game choices, telling others they are wrong, insulting people's intelligence, putting words in other people's mouth based on your own personal preferences, and arguing for the sake of arguing. GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time.
~~ postlarval ~~
Ark! Ark is still listed as Early Access too.
What's funny is that both Ark and 7DTD have both released games to console and 7DTD actually cut a disc, so wtf did they put on the disc? Remember when they used to talk about going gold?
On top of that Ark has released another version entirely and an expansion?
So are these released or what? Every game pushes out updates, but when do you call it released?
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
----------------
~~ postlarval ~~
2. you failed my challenge but besides that its not like 'you win the challenge now all conversations are over' I am challenging you for a secondary reason.
3. you absolutely are. If I went around telling people every day that The Witcher, Destiny and The Division are horrible games BECAUSE they have dishonest advertising and NEVER...not ONCE ever mention anything about the game play itself I can assure you people like yourself would be hyper pissed
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EA is this fancy "shield" they get to hide behind while they sell their game, collect money from their players, and simultaneously disavow any responsibility for it's issues.
That looks like a Scam to me.
do they exist? yeah they do, but nowhere remotely near the level you people seem to think. if they did nobody would be playing those games. So your just basing an entire mythology on well...inaccurate information
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Sounds like you are the one trying to sell the scam here as well.
That said, I dont appreciate you changing 'hide behind EA, to justify their bugs
' to 'bug free'. you know goddamn good and well there is a huge difference between the two.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I think it's understandable why they would want to hide behind it. It's no different than "Open Beta" which became super popular like a decade ago now. There were games that would just live on in "Open Beta" indefinitely. There are other reasons for it besides hiding, though. Some countries, like Canada, will give you funds to continue development on projects under development through research grants, etc. However, as soon as you release, those all go away. So if there are, in fact, features that they are still working on which would allow them to take advantage of that funding, I don't see why any small company wouldn't. You can bet larger companies do.
That being said, I was never a fan of games living on as "Open Beta" indefinitely and I'm also not a fan of living on in early access indefinitely.
EDIT: Just for the record, I don't think this practice tells us who is dubious and, in fact, it doesn't really help us at all during initial crowdfunding phases. Also, these games are quite playable, so I'm sure if you put your money into it, you'd get your money worth, which is more I can say for many games. Maybe it's a question for the developer as to why they retain the early access tag. Maybe the community needs to start holding developers accountable.
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
----------------
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Early Access....you are paying for early access to the game, with the game being defined by release 1.0. The expectation in software development, as you're aware, is that it is impossible to release bug-free software. Thus, early access is supposed to be a tradeoff - you get to pay for the privilege of playing the game before the general public, but you expect to encounter more bugs than the fully released game because it's still going through final testing and polish.
So, my cut-off time is the 3-6 month mark. I strongly believe that all EA games should be feature complete, but just be missing polish. You are still essentially helping the devs do their final testing, ensuring the product is ready for general release.
If a game is not feature complete, then you are not paying for early access, you are simply funding development and acting as a low quality tester.
Now, I say again, I have no problem from a personal point of view if you get your value for money from early access and you are fully aware of what you're doing. I do still find it unethical as it plays on the ignorance of the general public. Even if steam will give you a refund before 2hrs of gameplay, it may take you 5 hours of gameplay to release that what you've bought is actually missing 50% of the game.
If a game has been in early access for a long period of time....yeh, my earlier statements about laziness and bad ethics definitely apply.
Maybe it's just a terminology thing? Crowd funding at least has an honest name - you know you are funding the development of a game and that it is a big risk. Early Access mostly seems to mean the same thing as crowd funding, it just hides that fact from you.
Kerbal Space Program one of favorite games of all time was in early access for 3 years. So can you think of why I would use 4 years as a benchmark?
regarding feature complete I again fail to see why its so important that it trumps the importance of the game play as it currently stands. your take, (and many here) is 'not complete?' 'full stop not looking at it all whatsoever, its garbage, the developers are from satan'. that very extreme
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
How?
look if your going to ignore what the substance of what I said just dont bother to reply.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Others don't believe developers should take money if they don't have a solid clue what their game wants to be when it grows up, and I'm one of them.
You're basing your opinion on the state of the EA games you play TODAY. What happens if your favorite game does a 180 and becomes a game you hate? Maybe you're ok with that and you'll move onto another game, but many players are NOT ok with it.
One of the good things about most released games is that the heart of the game and gameplay is pretty much set in stone and unlikely to change. You can choose if you want to play it based on a finished state. Fun is only one aspect. Some players want a promise longevity as well. In that context, many EA games are too risky to invest much time on when there are a lot of games out there that have grown up enough that players know what they're getting.
Take this for what it's worth and I doubt it will be worth much since you're too wrapped up in your own hype to notice anything but the bullshit you tell yourself.
This is the last time I respond to you. It's obvious at this point you're just arguing for the sake of argument. Troll away or go crawl back under your bridge. Whatever.
~~ postlarval ~~
"This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development. "
Who reads that, then gets duped into thinking they're buying a release quality product or a feature complete one?
Don't confuse early access in this sense with what MMOs tend to offer with pre-release headstarts.
These are not feature complete games.
3-6 months? anything over is lazy and unethical? How long has divinity:OS 2 been in EA again (will be about a year when it release in Sep), how long was D:OS ? That is certainly not an unethical dev they make great products.
You gotta judge by the individual in these cases. Blanket statements just don't work.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
that is what would be called a 'different reason' from the one being pontificated by many over the past few days.
I am TOTALLY fine with 'some people do not want to invest time and energy into playing a game if the developers can change the core game systems at any time'. I am totally fine with that, completely reasonable and fair, the statement even contains the suggestion that not ALL people feel that way. the only thing is, you and your crew havent been coming remotely close to saying that until now. but thank you for doing so.
not to argue your position but just to point out as an obversation, I have 848 hours in 7 days to die and i have loved every hour of it despite having a few times having to loose my build and/or wait until a major update comes out. but very far from a deal breaker
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Heck I bought Wasteland 2 just last December and the two significant issues I ran into really annoyed me, but I pushed through and finished the game. But I didn't like it.
2) I hate playing games missing core feature and functionality while in development. Let's look at AA alpha, I was in a zone and ran into a "blank" area with actual "under construction" signs. Was told they would be available at launch (they lied).
Classes and skills missing or not balanced as they will be at launch are a huge frustration for me.
3) I'm old, I dislike change, and have a hard time dealing with evolving game mechanics on normal release schedules. One reason I enjoy EVE is how little has actually changed since 2007 when I joined. (4 yrs after its launch)
4) Progression. I live for it, primary reason I play, can't abide restarting or "completing" same content for a second time. Which is why I abhor gear grinding raids just to get my next set piece. I killed Ragnaros already, let him stay dead and let me move on.
At the end of the day I feel the real "fun" of MMORPGs is experiencing the sum of their parts, and not the individual pieces.
It's why I told you previously I now plan to wait anywhere from 6 months to a year post launch to try any new game. (with one exception, CU I'll play at launch as my friends will be there.)
Of course if no game ever comes out of EA until 4 years after EA launch (a ridiculous, proposal, 6 months to a year at most is acceptable to me) then I might be playing EVE for a lot more years than I first thought.
BTW, while none of this is personal for me, I really have no concerns for hurting your feelings on this issue.
It's not likely either one of us will ever yield on this so expect to cross swords again in the future.
"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
1. as I have repeatedly pointed out early access titles I have been exposed with do NOT have bugs. maybe one or two if you hunt really hard but on average very low bug count...very low.
2.The VAST MAJORITY of early access games that are still working on features do not any hint of an immersion breaker like you have described. Some have fences or walls in the way but for the love of fuck! how bad is that compared to 'mainstream titles' that even in a 'complete' state barely even let you have 1/4th the freedom a pre-alpha early access title does? I mean sweet mother of god are you fucking joking me? mainstream titles usually give you at best 2 ways to get to the next section, invisible walls everywhere, while an incomplete early access title gives you MORE freedom. anyway...no your complaint here is horseshit. more than 1/2 the time the features being worked on are not even environmental in the first place and has ZERO impact on your current immersion factor, the other 1/2 in which might be enviromental is handled with still more freedom than mainstream games.
3. This reason I can actually understand and I do not have a problem with it.
4. Mainstream Single player games have a playable lifespan of about 60 hours. thats it, DONE. after 60 hours no more replay. So unless your the type of player who likes to build a city voxel block by voxel block in survial mode investing hunderds of hours then you really dont have much to complain about here now do you?
my impression here is that people feel a certian way and are looking for reasons to fit their feeling despite the fact them not actually experiencing these claims but trying to rest on the concept of plausibility.
we should not tolerate that, unless you have specifically encountered something you are claiming tobe a problem please do not assume its a problem that is pervasive. and keep in mind your trying to sell these plausible senerios you dont actually encounter to someone who actually plays early access titles on a regular biases.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
My perspectives are almost entirely from a MMORPG perspective and I assure you every scenario I laid out is one I've experienced on several occasions.
I will agree on one point, mainstream MMORPGs didn't work for me so my playtime is strictly niche.
BTW, take a look at the Grim Dawn Development section in Wikipedia for a great example of point #2 and why I wouldn't play that game until launched in Feb 2016. (build 31)
Not to pile on, but the legend of Aria news article and player responses perfectly illustrates almost everyone of my points, doubling of map size, bugs, etc, all in alpha build that's going on for over a year.
Not seeing a lot of "fun" in the player replies either.
Done proving my point, case closed, you lose, goodnight.
"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
That is the one thing you can't address, as every MMO I have ever played, heck every Online game I have played, had no issues adding features, maps, dungeons, classes, even tweaks and bug fixes, as well adding any other kind of content to their game, after Launch.
This is why it makes no sense to maintain an "Early Access", to a title that is in fact publicly open. Makes it look like a Scam, and it looks like one, there is a good chance it is.
VERY good question, question I ask myself. usually in the inverse though (why are AAA so bad compared to these games) I dont have an answer, its not logical, but it is factual
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
there is no such thing as an Steam Early Access MMO to begin with so if your talking about MMOs please be mineful to not randomly throw nuclear hand geradades into the field of Steam Early Access with no fucks given. thanks.
Be clear, on forums I often here a lot of shit talk about Steam Early Access games. when people say 'early access' they are often thinking 'steam early access'.
some asshat developer who releases their game and call it 'early access' does but not within the steam early access system is different.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me