I dont understand why this is even considered EA. It charges customers, its open to the public, even has a sub?
So its in EA because everything is subpar but its given good ratings on future hope?
Pre-Pre-Alpha, Pre-Alpha, Alpha, EA, Beta its all becoming a joke. They are charging at all these stages now exactly as a released game.
I dont see what incentive games have in saying they are released ever. This is why these games are permanantly in a pre-release state, because people give them the benefit of doubt.
Some interesting psychology going on. And people say these games are not innovating. They are focused innovating monetization and deception. Alot of people are falling for it.
I dont understand why this is even considered EA. It charges customers, its open to the public, even has a sub?
So its in EA because everything is subpar but its given good ratings on future hope?
Pre-Pre-Alpha, Pre-Alpha, Alpha, EA, Beta its all becoming a joke. They are charging at all these stages now exactly as a released game.
I dont see what incentive games have in saying they are released ever. This is why these games are permanantly in a pre-release state, because people give them the benefit of doubt.
Some interesting psychology going on. And people say these games are not innovating. They are focused innovating monetization and deception. Alot of people are falling for it.
It is early access because the one that put it on Steam declared it so. The game doesn't have a sub yet so charges nothing, though one is planned for the future.
It is an early access review so is based on early access.
Many people won't buy games until they are in a release state. The incentive to complete them is increased profitability. There are plenty of early access games that have moved on to a release state so that are not all permanently so.
I dont understand why this is even considered EA. It charges customers, its open to the public, even has a sub?
So its in EA because everything is subpar but its given good ratings on future hope?
Pre-Pre-Alpha, Pre-Alpha, Alpha, EA, Beta its all becoming a joke. They are charging at all these stages now exactly as a released game.
I dont see what incentive games have in saying they are released ever. This is why these games are permanantly in a pre-release state, because people give them the benefit of doubt.
Some interesting psychology going on. And people say these games are not innovating. They are focused innovating monetization and deception. Alot of people are falling for it.
It is early access because the one that put it on Steam declared it so. The game doesn't have a sub yet so charges nothing, though one is planned for the future.
It is an early access review so is based on early access.
Many people won't buy games until they are in a release state. The incentive to complete them is increased profitability. There are plenty of early access games that have moved on to a release state so that are not all permanently so.
Near as I can tell the game is already charging for the premium pass, in fact one can't access anything beyond the first two chapters without it.
It's released and no, the developers don't get to decide what state it is in, consumers do, and if people are paying money for it, game is released by any reasonable measure.
You dont always need to support such obtuse positions you know.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I dont understand why this is even considered EA. It charges customers, its open to the public, even has a sub?
So its in EA because everything is subpar but its given good ratings on future hope?
Pre-Pre-Alpha, Pre-Alpha, Alpha, EA, Beta its all becoming a joke. They are charging at all these stages now exactly as a released game.
I dont see what incentive games have in saying they are released ever. This is why these games are permanantly in a pre-release state, because people give them the benefit of doubt.
Some interesting psychology going on. And people say these games are not innovating. They are focused innovating monetization and deception. Alot of people are falling for it.
It is early access because the one that put it on Steam declared it so. The game doesn't have a sub yet so charges nothing, though one is planned for the future.
It is an early access review so is based on early access.
Many people won't buy games until they are in a release state. The incentive to complete them is increased profitability. There are plenty of early access games that have moved on to a release state so that are not all permanently so.
Near as I can tell the game is already charging for the premium pass, in fact one can't access anything beyond the first two chapters without it.
It's released and no, the developers don't get to decide what state it is in, consumers do, and if people are paying money for it, game is released by any reasonable measure.
You dont always need to support such obtuse positions you know.
Checking again it appears I misread the chart. Only one of the features is coming soon so you can indeed buy the pass. My mistake there.
If the game is listed as Early Access it is and will remain so until that status is updated. Consumers have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever.
There is nothing obtuse about making a mistake and saying what Early Access actually is when some want to contrive otherwise.
I still think calling it a preview is the solution. If you go to a preview of a play, you may only see the first act. You can say though that it was "great" or "terrible' or "promising".
You could say "If the rest of it is as good as this part, the final play will be great."
"We only got to preview a small part of the game, that's all that is ready now. What we see so far is promising. If the rest of the game is as good as this part, it'll probably get an 8/10 in a review after release."
To an extent MMORPG.com is already doing that by putting "Early Access" in the title, to call it preview would indicate that you will follow up with a review, something sites may not have the money to do.
I dont understand why this is even considered EA. It charges customers, its open to the public, even has a sub?
So its in EA because everything is subpar but its given good ratings on future hope?
Pre-Pre-Alpha, Pre-Alpha, Alpha, EA, Beta its all becoming a joke. They are charging at all these stages now exactly as a released game.
I dont see what incentive games have in saying they are released ever. This is why these games are permanantly in a pre-release state, because people give them the benefit of doubt.
Some interesting psychology going on. And people say these games are not innovating. They are focused innovating monetization and deception. Alot of people are falling for it.
I don’t believe the developer’s intent is to deceive. Half of the game is accessible for free, there is no box price, the subscription is $5.99 a month, and there are no micro-transactions and there’s no plans to add them either. There is no other mmo that such reasonable and ethical monetization practices.
I dont understand why this is even considered EA. It charges customers, its open to the public, even has a sub?
So its in EA because everything is subpar but its given good ratings on future hope?
Pre-Pre-Alpha, Pre-Alpha, Alpha, EA, Beta its all becoming a joke. They are charging at all these stages now exactly as a released game.
I dont see what incentive games have in saying they are released ever. This is why these games are permanantly in a pre-release state, because people give them the benefit of doubt.
Some interesting psychology going on. And people say these games are not innovating. They are focused innovating monetization and deception. Alot of people are falling for it.
It is early access because the one that put it on Steam declared it so. The game doesn't have a sub yet so charges nothing, though one is planned for the future.
It is an early access review so is based on early access.
No, I dont believe MMORPG.com is owned by Steam. Customers dont have to accept what an advertiser propogandizes. We can call it whatever state we want too.
If an airplane manufacturer slaps a "car" label on their new flying plane, that wont help them avoid FFA regulations.
If a law passed or Steam, Epic and Apple flipped their policies to "Studios can not charge a cent until the game actually launches"
I guarantee almost every one of those EA games would magically hit release by the day that policy went into effect.
That would never happen. Steam is the one that added an early access option in the first place. If they didn't have an early access option, then developers just wouldn't put it on Steam until its ready to "launch", but they could still make it available independently. People have already been paying for alpha and beta access outside of Steam.
If a law passed or Steam, Epic and Apple flipped their policies to "Studios can not charge a cent until the game actually launches"
I guarantee almost every one of those EA games would magically hit release by the day that policy went into effect.
That would never happen. Steam is the one that added an early access option in the first place. If they didn't have an early access option, then developers just wouldn't put it on Steam until its ready to "launch", but they could still make it available independently. People have already been paying for alpha and beta access outside of Steam.
First off, never is a bit extreme.
It could happen, who knows if it ever will.
But if all studios and platforms were held liable for refunds of unfinished products I could easily see them doing it. There are just no real enforceable consumer protections for gamers at this moment.
Here is an example of one, if the law changed to cover 1+ years that would do it.
2. United Kingdom (UK)
Consumer Rights Act (2015)
Post-Brexit, the UK continues to enforce strong consumer protections for digital products.
Key Protections:
Games Must Be of Satisfactory Quality: Games must be free from significant bugs or defects.
Games Must Match Descriptions: If the game is advertised as having specific features, those features must be present.
30-Day Refund Window: Consumers can request a refund within 30 days of purchase if the game is not functional or as advertised.
Repair or Replacement: If the game is outside the 30-day window, the developer must repair or replace it. If they fail, consumers can demand a refund.
Example: A consumer can request a refund if a game they purchased is incomplete or fails to function properly on their system.
If a law passed or Steam, Epic and Apple flipped their policies to "Studios can not charge a cent until the game actually launches"
I guarantee almost every one of those EA games would magically hit release by the day that policy went into effect.
That would never happen. Steam is the one that added an early access option in the first place. If they didn't have an early access option, then developers just wouldn't put it on Steam until its ready to "launch", but they could still make it available independently. People have already been paying for alpha and beta access outside of Steam.
First off, never is a bit extreme.
It could happen, who knows if it ever will.
But if all studios and platforms were held liable for refunds of unfinished products I could easily see them doing it. There are just no real enforceable consumer protections for gamers at this moment.
Here is an example of one, if the law changed to cover 1+ years that would do it.
2. United Kingdom (UK)
Consumer Rights Act (2015)
Post-Brexit, the UK continues to enforce strong consumer protections for digital products.
Key Protections:
Games Must Be of Satisfactory Quality: Games must be free from significant bugs or defects.
Games Must Match Descriptions: If the game is advertised as having specific features, those features must be present.
30-Day Refund Window: Consumers can request a refund within 30 days of purchase if the game is not functional or as advertised.
Repair or Replacement: If the game is outside the 30-day window, the developer must repair or replace it. If they fail, consumers can demand a refund.
Example: A consumer can request a refund if a game they purchased is incomplete or fails to function properly on their system.
But what if a consumers wants to participate and play the game before it is "ready"? It is the right of the consumer to decide if they want to pay for early access. So, actually the early access tag is a good thing because it signals to the consumers that the product is "incomplete" so they don't end up inadvertently buying an unfinished game.
If a law passed or Steam, Epic and Apple flipped their policies to "Studios can not charge a cent until the game actually launches"
I guarantee almost every one of those EA games would magically hit release by the day that policy went into effect.
That would never happen. Steam is the one that added an early access option in the first place. If they didn't have an early access option, then developers just wouldn't put it on Steam until its ready to "launch", but they could still make it available independently. People have already been paying for alpha and beta access outside of Steam.
First off, never is a bit extreme.
It could happen, who knows if it ever will.
But if all studios and platforms were held liable for refunds of unfinished products I could easily see them doing it. There are just no real enforceable consumer protections for gamers at this moment.
Here is an example of one, if the law changed to cover 1+ years that would do it.
2. United Kingdom (UK)
Consumer Rights Act (2015)
Post-Brexit, the UK continues to enforce strong consumer protections for digital products.
Key Protections:
Games Must Be of Satisfactory Quality: Games must be free from significant bugs or defects.
Games Must Match Descriptions: If the game is advertised as having specific features, those features must be present.
30-Day Refund Window: Consumers can request a refund within 30 days of purchase if the game is not functional or as advertised.
Repair or Replacement: If the game is outside the 30-day window, the developer must repair or replace it. If they fail, consumers can demand a refund.
Example: A consumer can request a refund if a game they purchased is incomplete or fails to function properly on their system.
But what if a consumers wants to participate and play the game before it is "ready"? It is the right of the consumer to decide if they want to pay for early access. So, actually the early access tag is a good thing because it signals to the consumers that the product is "incomplete" so they don't end up inadvertently buying an unfinished game.
Sometimes consumers need to be protected from their own follies, even when they aren't aware of the need or desire to be so protected.
As an example, some years back a young man and his friends decided to partake in an "adventure" cave tour run by a company in Kentucky.
During the course of the tour the young man in question got stuck due to several factors and ended up dying in the cave. (yeah, it's a pretty horrible way to go, go look up Nutty Putty if you want to have nightmares about how bad it can be)
Now the tour had been billed as risky, and waivers had been signed by all so the tour operators claimed they shouldn't be held liable.
The Court in Kentucky wasn't buying it. They said the consumers did not have the same level of information as the tour operators therefore could not sign off on the risk even though they willingly chose to do so despite the warnings.
So while not life or death, a court could well decide gamers don't have the full level of info on early access games and a proper understanding of what the risks are that the product may never materialize as promised.
Many a developer often releases into early access full well knowing the stars may not align and that there is a good chance the doors won't stay open long enough to complete the promised product.
Courts may one day decide to protect consumers from such actions occurring even if it isn't something they desire.
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
If a law passed or Steam, Epic and Apple flipped their policies to "Studios can not charge a cent until the game actually launches"
I guarantee almost every one of those EA games would magically hit release by the day that policy went into effect.
That would never happen. Steam is the one that added an early access option in the first place. If they didn't have an early access option, then developers just wouldn't put it on Steam until its ready to "launch", but they could still make it available independently. People have already been paying for alpha and beta access outside of Steam.
First off, never is a bit extreme.
It could happen, who knows if it ever will.
But if all studios and platforms were held liable for refunds of unfinished products I could easily see them doing it. There are just no real enforceable consumer protections for gamers at this moment.
Here is an example of one, if the law changed to cover 1+ years that would do it.
2. United Kingdom (UK)
Consumer Rights Act (2015)
Post-Brexit, the UK continues to enforce strong consumer protections for digital products.
Key Protections:
Games Must Be of Satisfactory Quality: Games must be free from significant bugs or defects.
Games Must Match Descriptions: If the game is advertised as having specific features, those features must be present.
30-Day Refund Window: Consumers can request a refund within 30 days of purchase if the game is not functional or as advertised.
Repair or Replacement: If the game is outside the 30-day window, the developer must repair or replace it. If they fail, consumers can demand a refund.
Example: A consumer can request a refund if a game they purchased is incomplete or fails to function properly on their system.
But what if a consumers wants to participate and play the game before it is "ready"? It is the right of the consumer to decide if they want to pay for early access. So, actually the early access tag is a good thing because it signals to the consumers that the product is "incomplete" so they don't end up inadvertently buying an unfinished game.
Sometimes consumers need to be protected from their own follies, even when they aren't aware of the need or desire to be so protected.
As an example, some years back a young man and his friends decided to partake in an "adventure" cave tour run by a company in Kentucky.
During the course of the tour the young man in question got stuck due to several factors and ended up dying in the cave. (yeah, it's a pretty horrible way to go, go look up Nutty Putty if you want to have nightmares about how bad it can be)
Now the tour had been billed as risky, and waivers had been signed by all so the tour operators claimed they shouldn't be held liable.
The Court in Kentucky wasn't buying it. They said the consumers did not have the same level of information as the tour operators therefore could not sign off on the risk even though they willingly chose to do so despite the warnings.
So while not life or death, a court could well decide gamers don't have the full level of info on early access games and a proper understanding of what the risks are that the product may never materialize as promised.
Many a developer often releases into early access full well knowing the stars may not align and that there is a good chance the doors won't stay open long enough to complete the promised product.
Courts may one day decide to protect consumers from such actions occurring even if it isn't something they desire.
I see the logic, but a few dollars is hardly a comparable risk. The info is there on the store page and in reviews like the one. And you can play it for free, so there’s not really any risk in this case. You can also get a refund for early access games, though I’m not sure about subscription based games.
Now what about Kickstarter or crowdfunding? That’s even less info and more risk. You’re not even guaranteed a product. Should it be illegal? I think that’s Early access has a legitimate use, even more so than crowdfunding. In this case, they are testing and modifying the game based on feedback during the final stretch of development. It’s playable, enjoyable for some, and has a clear goal for its launch state.
Path of Exile 2 is also launching into early access. But you have to pay money for it and they’re still selling their $480 supporter packs. Yet it’s receiving lots of praise and many are looking forward to it. Meanwhile, this game releases for free with a $5.99 sub and no microtransactions and suddenly it’s a problem.
If a law passed or Steam, Epic and Apple flipped their policies to "Studios can not charge a cent until the game actually launches"
I guarantee almost every one of those EA games would magically hit release by the day that policy went into effect.
That would never happen. Steam is the one that added an early access option in the first place. If they didn't have an early access option, then developers just wouldn't put it on Steam until its ready to "launch", but they could still make it available independently. People have already been paying for alpha and beta access outside of Steam.
First off, never is a bit extreme.
It could happen, who knows if it ever will.
But if all studios and platforms were held liable for refunds of unfinished products I could easily see them doing it. There are just no real enforceable consumer protections for gamers at this moment.
Here is an example of one, if the law changed to cover 1+ years that would do it.
2. United Kingdom (UK)
Consumer Rights Act (2015)
Post-Brexit, the UK continues to enforce strong consumer protections for digital products.
Key Protections:
Games Must Be of Satisfactory Quality: Games must be free from significant bugs or defects.
Games Must Match Descriptions: If the game is advertised as having specific features, those features must be present.
30-Day Refund Window: Consumers can request a refund within 30 days of purchase if the game is not functional or as advertised.
Repair or Replacement: If the game is outside the 30-day window, the developer must repair or replace it. If they fail, consumers can demand a refund.
Example: A consumer can request a refund if a game they purchased is incomplete or fails to function properly on their system.
But what if a consumers wants to participate and play the game before it is "ready"? It is the right of the consumer to decide if they want to pay for early access. So, actually the early access tag is a good thing because it signals to the consumers that the product is "incomplete" so they don't end up inadvertently buying an unfinished game.
Sometimes consumers need to be protected from their own follies, even when they aren't aware of the need or desire to be so protected.
As an example, some years back a young man and his friends decided to partake in an "adventure" cave tour run by a company in Kentucky.
During the course of the tour the young man in question got stuck due to several factors and ended up dying in the cave. (yeah, it's a pretty horrible way to go, go look up Nutty Putty if you want to have nightmares about how bad it can be)
Now the tour had been billed as risky, and waivers had been signed by all so the tour operators claimed they shouldn't be held liable.
The Court in Kentucky wasn't buying it. They said the consumers did not have the same level of information as the tour operators therefore could not sign off on the risk even though they willingly chose to do so despite the warnings.
So while not life or death, a court could well decide gamers don't have the full level of info on early access games and a proper understanding of what the risks are that the product may never materialize as promised.
Many a developer often releases into early access full well knowing the stars may not align and that there is a good chance the doors won't stay open long enough to complete the promised product.
Courts may one day decide to protect consumers from such actions occurring even if it isn't something they desire.
I see the logic, but a few dollars is hardly a comparable risk. The info is there on the store page and in reviews like the one. And you can play it for free, so there’s not really any risk in this case. You can also get a refund for early access games, though I’m not sure about subscription based games.
Now what about Kickstarter or crowdfunding? That’s even less info and more risk. You’re not even guaranteed a product. Should it be illegal? I think that’s Early access has a legitimate use, even more so than crowdfunding. In this case, they are testing and modifying the game based on feedback during the final stretch of development. It’s playable, enjoyable for some, and has a clear goal for its launch state.
Path of Exile 2 is also launching into early access. But you have to pay money for it and they’re still selling their $480 supporter packs. Yet it’s receiving lots of praise and many are looking forward to it. Meanwhile, this game releases for free with a $5.99 sub and no microtransactions and suddenly it’s a problem.
Yeah, at days end who really cares if an entertainment product purchased for $5 to $100 doesn't pan out, bigger issues in the world to worry about.
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 dont understand why this is even considered EA. It charges customers, its open to the public, even has a sub?
So its in EA because everything is subpar but its given good ratings on future hope?
Pre-Pre-Alpha, Pre-Alpha, Alpha, EA, Beta its all becoming a joke. They are charging at all these stages now exactly as a released game.
I dont see what incentive games have in saying they are released ever. This is why these games are permanantly in a pre-release state, because people give them the benefit of doubt.
Some interesting psychology going on. And people say these games are not innovating. They are focused innovating monetization and deception. Alot of people are falling for it.
It is early access because the one that put it on Steam declared it so. The game doesn't have a sub yet so charges nothing, though one is planned for the future.
It is an early access review so is based on early access.
No, I dont believe MMORPG.com is owned by Steam. Customers dont have to accept what an advertiser propogandizes. We can call it whatever state we want too.
If an airplane manufacturer slaps a "car" label on their new flying plane, that wont help them avoid FFA regulations.
MMORPG has nothing to do with this nonsense. It isn't they who are making ridiculous claims that have no basis in fact. Steam itself defines what Early Access means on their platform and they are the only ones that have any say in it.
Anyone that wants can misrepresent it all they like. I can correct that misrepresentation all I like and very well may when I see it. I have a distaste for inaccuracy.
Airplane manufacturers don't sell early access planes.
It was boring, plodding and it genuinely will not have the legs this "review" says it will. The systems even for EA were baron. I think in the first 4 hours I had to submit no less than 6 bug tickets and my toon become stuck twice along with two crashes to desktop. Avoid this one.
Yeah, you either love these types of (numbers go up=brain happy) games, or despise them. There isn't much in between.
I assume you were never a fan of MMOs like Runescape, Linage, SWG, A Tale in the Desert where there is hours of grinding to advance, it's OK, most likely a generational/interest thing.
It's pretty early so there is plenty I feel is missing from the game, but I see it getting better due to how they have been excepting feedback. They have also been pretty quick about bug fixing and updates and I haven't had any so you must have played earlier on.
I know those games you mentioned quite well. The only one even remotely close t this would be tale in the desert. I had more fun in that game. It was released over 2 DECADES ago and you could do more. Even saying it in the same sentence as SWG should get you banned. And I am not talking about preference of your friend or whoever. I'm talking the sheer depth and complexity of the systems, craftying, resource etc. In Brighter Shores you walk a room over, buy 2 things. In swg your arse better know how to skin hide, and where to find the good stuff.
This game is awful IMO. I cannot believe there are people, 25 years after everquest launched, that thing THIS is a game worth playing.
Its literally who remembers to afk the best. and you are in the same zones 1000 lvl's later clicking the same plant or same fish or same goblin. It speaks to the disaster that has been the MMO scene pretty much for 15 years now, that this game has people actively trying to lvl up so the eels change their name.
I dont understand why this is even considered EA. It charges customers, its open to the public, even has a sub?
So its in EA because everything is subpar but its given good ratings on future hope?
Pre-Pre-Alpha, Pre-Alpha, Alpha, EA, Beta its all becoming a joke. They are charging at all these stages now exactly as a released game.
I dont see what incentive games have in saying they are released ever. This is why these games are permanantly in a pre-release state, because people give them the benefit of doubt.
Some interesting psychology going on. And people say these games are not innovating. They are focused innovating monetization and deception. Alot of people are falling for it.
It is early access because the one that put it on Steam declared it so. The game doesn't have a sub yet so charges nothing, though one is planned for the future.
It is an early access review so is based on early access.
No, I dont believe MMORPG.com is owned by Steam. Customers dont have to accept what an advertiser propogandizes. We can call it whatever state we want too.
If an airplane manufacturer slaps a "car" label on their new flying plane, that wont help them avoid FFA regulations.
MMORPG has nothing to do with this nonsense. It isn't they who are making ridiculous claims that have no basis in fact. Steam itself defines what Early Access means on their platform and they are the only ones that have any say in it.
Anyone that wants can misrepresent it all they like. I can correct that misrepresentation all I like and very well may when I see it. I have a distaste for inaccuracy.
Airplane manufacturers don't sell early access planes.
Perhaps then neither should Game Developers sell early access games.
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
Comments
So its in EA because everything is subpar but its given good ratings on future hope?
Pre-Pre-Alpha, Pre-Alpha, Alpha, EA, Beta its all becoming a joke. They are charging at all these stages now exactly as a released game.
I dont see what incentive games have in saying they are released ever. This is why these games are permanantly in a pre-release state, because people give them the benefit of doubt.
Some interesting psychology going on. And people say these games are not innovating. They are focused innovating monetization and deception. Alot of people are falling for it.
It is early access because the one that put it on Steam declared it so. The game doesn't have a sub yet so charges nothing, though one is planned for the future.
It is an early access review so is based on early access.
Many people won't buy games until they are in a release state. The incentive to complete them is increased profitability. There are plenty of early access games that have moved on to a release state so that are not all permanently so.
It's released and no, the developers don't get to decide what state it is in, consumers do, and if people are paying money for it, game is released by any reasonable measure.
You dont always need to support such obtuse positions you know.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Checking again it appears I misread the chart. Only one of the features is coming soon so you can indeed buy the pass. My mistake there.
If the game is listed as Early Access it is and will remain so until that status is updated. Consumers have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever.
There is nothing obtuse about making a mistake and saying what Early Access actually is when some want to contrive otherwise.
https://www.gamesradar.com/games/mmo/runescape-creators-new-cozy-mmo-shouts-no-microtransactions-from-the-rooftops-as-it-charts-november-launch-after-a-closed-beta-coming-this-month/
I guarantee almost every one of those EA games would magically hit release by the day that policy went into effect.
No, I dont believe MMORPG.com is owned by Steam. Customers dont have to accept what an advertiser propogandizes. We can call it whatever state we want too.
If an airplane manufacturer slaps a "car" label on their new flying plane, that wont help them avoid FFA regulations.
It could happen, who knows if it ever will.
But if all studios and platforms were held liable for refunds of unfinished products I could easily see them doing it. There are just no real enforceable consumer protections for gamers at this moment.
Here is an example of one, if the law changed to cover 1+ years that would do it.
2. United Kingdom (UK)
Consumer Rights Act (2015)
Post-Brexit, the UK continues to enforce strong consumer protections for digital products.
Key Protections:
Example: A consumer can request a refund if a game they purchased is incomplete or fails to function properly on their system.
As an example, some years back a young man and his friends decided to partake in an "adventure" cave tour run by a company in Kentucky.
During the course of the tour the young man in question got stuck due to several factors and ended up dying in the cave. (yeah, it's a pretty horrible way to go, go look up Nutty Putty if you want to have nightmares about how bad it can be)
Now the tour had been billed as risky, and waivers had been signed by all so the tour operators claimed they shouldn't be held liable.
The Court in Kentucky wasn't buying it. They said the consumers did not have the same level of information as the tour operators therefore could not sign off on the risk even though they willingly chose to do so despite the warnings.
So while not life or death, a court could well decide gamers don't have the full level of info on early access games and a proper understanding of what the risks are that the product may never materialize as promised.
Many a developer often releases into early access full well knowing the stars may not align and that there is a good chance the doors won't stay open long enough to complete the promised product.
Courts may one day decide to protect consumers from such actions occurring even if it isn't something they desire.
"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
Path of Exile 2 is also launching into early access. But you have to pay money for it and they’re still selling their $480 supporter packs. Yet it’s receiving lots of praise and many are looking forward to it. Meanwhile, this game releases for free with a $5.99 sub and no microtransactions and suddenly it’s a problem.
"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
MMORPG has nothing to do with this nonsense. It isn't they who are making ridiculous claims that have no basis in fact. Steam itself defines what Early Access means on their platform and they are the only ones that have any say in it.
Anyone that wants can misrepresent it all they like. I can correct that misrepresentation all I like and very well may when I see it. I have a distaste for inaccuracy.
Airplane manufacturers don't sell early access planes.
I know those games you mentioned quite well. The only one even remotely close t this would be tale in the desert. I had more fun in that game. It was released over 2 DECADES ago and you could do more. Even saying it in the same sentence as SWG should get you banned. And I am not talking about preference of your friend or whoever. I'm talking the sheer depth and complexity of the systems, craftying, resource etc. In Brighter Shores you walk a room over, buy 2 things. In swg your arse better know how to skin hide, and where to find the good stuff.
This game is awful IMO. I cannot believe there are people, 25 years after everquest launched, that thing THIS is a game worth playing.
Its literally who remembers to afk the best. and you are in the same zones 1000 lvl's later clicking the same plant or same fish or same goblin. It speaks to the disaster that has been the MMO scene pretty much for 15 years now, that this game has people actively trying to lvl up so the eels change their name.
"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