At this point, it's a waste of 40 bucks. I was liking it a bit, but then randomly, I couldn't build anything at all. Hope they fix it?
@Slapshot1188 mentioned earlier his group ran into the same issue, said Devs are working on a fix.
Have to expect some shenanigans on Day 1 of any game, but especially early access alphas for sure.
I don't have much tolerance for such so I let games cook awhile before buying in.
Look at 7D2D, I waited like 5 years into early access before buying it on a Steam sale but didn't bother trying it until last summer (year 9) when they released their Alpha 21 build.
Still is missing some promised content, runs like arse even on top end computers yet is one of my favorites titles in the last 10 years. Steam says I have 2217 hours in game since June 2023)
I guess it might be finally time to leave (or update) my Steam review and tell everyone how it totally sucks because 1.0 is releasing in July (which I don't have to pay for) and is still incomplete and buggy, just another damn cash grab for sure.
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’m in Disney World so not playing the last 2 days (talk about SCAM… Disney has this on a whole other level). But from what my guys are saying, the issues were fixed and building is well under way.
They were on from morning and are still on as of 1:30 am so I guess they are having fun.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I mentioned this before, and I'll say it again, that I'm starting to think early access is a really bad idea long term.
So many players wave away early access warnings, such that if the game isn't largely complete it isn't long before the term "money grab" is thrown around or "bugfest" and then you end up with steam review in the toilet because 95% of the players judge it as a completed project.
I'm shocked at how many people in FO left in disgust because of the PvP - even though the game advertised itself that way. It attracted the wrong people somehow.
I'm starting to think that before access to a game is given there needs to be some mandatory reading and a quiz that a user has to pass to continue, or fail and get an automatic refund.
"This game is a PvP game, do you know what that means?"
"Again, in this game someone might murder your character and take your stuff, are you sure you're okay with that?"
"If it would offend you to die to another player, please click the REFUND button now."
"Here is what early access means: bug filled, feature incomplete, mess - DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"
And then when a person goes and leaves a steam review like "THIS GAME IS INCOMPLETE AND ANOTHER PLAYER KILLLED ME" the person can then be banned from the internet.
I am just wondering if it was the actual PvP or the fact that the game might have oversold their justice system or other aspects that the developers did hold out during interviews or on the forum would have some checks and balances.
Many players can handle PvP but what they cannot handle is when they have no opportunity at all and constant ganking and being farmed is rampant.
Of course there are players who leave the minute they are killed. Those cannot make up the majority of people who leave bad reviews because of PvP. I feel some how your disproportionate ire at them being misplaced.
Also if I spent 500 hours and above, leaving a poor review only because the game is in early access is dishonest. How did I manage to play that long? Reviews like these are suspect unless they clearly write reasons for why they feel one should not buy it.
The most important part of review is the number of hours the reviewer spent on the game and the reasons they left or feel the buyer should not buy the game. Early access on its own isn't enough because that caveat is already present on the front page of the display for buying the game. There has to be added reasons that go beyond simply early access like the game systems being almost completely absent or widespread bugs making the game impossible to play. Again if you are spending 500 hours and above you must be a masochist for tolerating so much and those reasons must be clearly set out otherwise it just looks like anger for some changes the developer has made to the game.
Of course I have no idea because I have bought many games in early access and really enjoyed them. I have not left any bad reviews because I do extensive research before buying so am seldom taken by surprise and feel cheated.
I mentioned this before, and I'll say it again, that I'm starting to think early access is a really bad idea long term.
So many players wave away early access warnings, such that if the game isn't largely complete it isn't long before the term "money grab" is thrown around or "bugfest" and then you end up with steam review in the toilet because 95% of the players judge it as a completed project.
I'm shocked at how many people in FO left in disgust because of the PvP - even though the game advertised itself that way. It attracted the wrong people somehow.
I'm starting to think that before access to a game is given there needs to be some mandatory reading and a quiz that a user has to pass to continue, or fail and get an automatic refund.
"This game is a PvP game, do you know what that means?"
"Again, in this game someone might murder your character and take your stuff, are you sure you're okay with that?"
"If it would offend you to die to another player, please click the REFUND button now."
"Here is what early access means: bug filled, feature incomplete, mess - DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"
And then when a person goes and leaves a steam review like "THIS GAME IS INCOMPLETE AND ANOTHER PLAYER KILLLED ME" the person can then be banned from the internet.
Another player is seeing the light, the thing about early access was when it first came in there were no red flags. But some like me and Kyleran put a question mark over this right from the start. Its obvious that the first few studios doing this were not telling us how EA would evolve. Plus, we have known since the internet began that studios move to more abusive practices as time goes on. Not all of them of course, but eventually enough to create a sea change the way buying outfits work, levelling works, live service works, anything where money is involved in fact.
So this was "just for indie" and looked like it was going to last one or two years for any game. And one way or another the game would launch. You were going to pay for EA but that was it, the game was not charging you with a fully fledged cash shop. Indeed some EA games were wating fairly close to launch then bringing up the cash shop for testing.
Look where early access is now! It has become a way of launching still in development games and cashing in on them. You may or may not see a real launch, but the only thing that will launch early is the cash shop.
So I just went through Steam's Pax Dei review, filtered out positive reviews and ordered by most helpful. I read through the top 20 in the list and skimmed maybe another 30 just to get a feel for the trend if there was one. You know how many complain about the open PVP and getting ganked? Zero. Not one. The one that even mentioned PvP complained there wasn't enough of it.
This idea that people are review bombing the game because of the open PVP is a complete straw man. It's not happening.
The trend I do see is basically summarized by this: Game is incomplete and not worth the current asking price. It needs another year or two to bake in the oven.
Look where early access is now! It has become a way of launching still in development games and cashing in on them. You may or may not see a real launch, but the only thing that will launch early is the cash shop.
For me the light that went on isn't that EA is risky, I threw money at FO knowing they were likely to fail, but did so because I want to support developers who bring good ideas to the fore.
For me the realization - the *light just came on* idea is - that it may be bad for the developer.
Look where early access is now! It has become a way of launching still in development games and cashing in on them. You may or may not see a real launch, but the only thing that will launch early is the cash shop.
For me the light that went on isn't that EA is risky, I threw money at FO knowing they were likely to fail, but did so because I want to support developers who bring good ideas to the fore.
For me the realization - the *light just came on* idea is - that it may be bad for the developer.
I have been leaning towards a "maybe its time to end the EA cycle and go back to closed beta". I think a lot of it is terminology and meaning and people's interpretations there of. For me, historically, I thought about EA as what a very early open beta use to be. It would be a very playable, main feature complete version where the devs needed many players to test things. Often EA would last a few months to a 6-9 months tops. In that time, it created a lot of publicity and news and excitement about the game. I remember getting chosen for betas like SWG and it was awesome and I psyched up my entire EQ guild at the time with being in the beta. (not saying open beta and EA are the same or were but they were closer than what EA use to be and what EA is now).
But I think through the years, EA now is almost pre-alpha versions with a barely playable game missing most systems and features. I think the goal for many devs is no longer testing but sales to make money. But this is where the damage comes in. Sure they get a quick influx of cash but the game then just dies off and nobody cares. Look at the plummeting player count for games like Enshrouded and Nightingale on steam. Its a cliff. The quest is do the fans come back and that has yet to be seen.
I think Pax Dei will follow the same trend. I cannot wait to see player counts in 2-3 weeks. I just think what devs and game companies mean or want from EA is not what players want and players are no longer patient and are happy to move on to other games. I cannot speak for others but for me, Conan Exiles dropping the battle pass and changing their content system is more exciting than buying Pax Dei and starting a half-baked game that needs a lot more time (per reviews).
Look where early access is now! It has become a way of launching still in development games and cashing in on them. You may or may not see a real launch, but the only thing that will launch early is the cash shop.
For me the light that went on isn't that EA is risky, I threw money at FO knowing they were likely to fail, but did so because I want to support developers who bring good ideas to the fore.
For me the realization - the *light just came on* idea is - that it may be bad for the developer.
I have been leaning towards a "maybe its time to end the EA cycle and go back to closed beta". I think a lot of it is terminology and meaning and people's interpretations there of. For me, historically, I thought about EA as what a very early open beta use to be. It would be a very playable, main feature complete version where the devs needed many players to test things. Often EA would last a few months to a 6-9 months tops. In that time, it created a lot of publicity and news and excitement about the game. I remember getting chosen for betas like SWG and it was awesome and I psyched up my entire EQ guild at the time with being in the beta. (not saying open beta and EA are the same or were but they were closer than what EA use to be and what EA is now).
But I think through the years, EA now is almost pre-alpha versions with a barely playable game missing most systems and features. I think the goal for many devs is no longer testing but sales to make money. But this is where the damage comes in. Sure they get a quick influx of cash but the game then just dies off and nobody cares. Look at the plummeting player count for games like Enshrouded and Nightingale on steam. Its a cliff. The quest is do the fans come back and that has yet to be seen.
I think Pax Dei will follow the same trend. I cannot wait to see player counts in 2-3 weeks. I just think what devs and game companies mean or want from EA is not what players want and players are no longer patient and are happy to move on to other games. I cannot speak for others but for me, Conan Exiles dropping the battle pass and changing their content system is more exciting than buying Pax Dei and starting a half-baked game that needs a lot more time (per reviews).
It's never going back to those halcyon days because game development costs are through the roof. They cannot afford to leave early access money on the table. The way they are doing it is what is wrong.
They should reach a playable state that has a relatively high amount of systems in and relatively playable experience without too many game breaking bugs. Then they can get money for the next year of development while in early access but actually working towards release. Sadly most of these developers start early access far too early and end up doing a lot of damage to their games.
The examples people talk about are also not MMORPGs. Survival games have limited content. When you talk about Enshrouded and Palworld or Nightingale you're clearly not talking about MMORPGs , all these games are not like having an end game like in WoW or Everquest nor the population to support it. So of course once the content dries up people leave until the next content drop. However these developers are not looking to maintain people throughout the year. In fact Palworld developers told their players to go and play other games until they introduce new content.
I believe when we go and look at what these new genre of survival games are we should remember they are not what makes MMORPG playable for months on end. I don't play them like I would my pet love Everquest 2 or even FFXIV. The differences are so stark and therefore the world persisting for months is also simply not there for us to form these long term attachments. The world also does not even remind me of what I feel when I play other MMORPGs.
I believe when we go and look at what these new genre of survival games are we should remember they are not what makes MMORPG playable for months on end. I don't play them like I would my pet love Everquest 2 or even FFXIV. The differences are so stark and therefore the world persisting for months is also simply not there for us to form these long term attachments. The world also does not even remind me of what I feel when I play other MMORPGs.
This.
One reason I don't like some of the newer games - I don't want to keep starting over again.
So I just went through Steam's Pax Dei review, filtered out positive reviews and ordered by most helpful. I read through the top 20 in the list and skimmed maybe another 30 just to get a feel for the trend if there was one. You know how many complain about the open PVP and getting ganked? Zero. Not one. The one that even mentioned PvP complained there wasn't enough of it.
This idea that people are review bombing the game because of the open PVP is a complete straw man. It's not happening.
The trend I do see is basically summarized by this: Game is incomplete and not worth the current asking price. It needs another year or two to bake in the oven.
I think that's pretty much accurate. As for whether it's worth it, I don't know yet. Between the Alphas, the Preview and the launch day I can't really complain about $30 bucks.
I think one other thing folks should be VERY aware of... they have been quite open that they WILL wipe our progress. Characters... items... property... sometimes one, sometimes all. And all will be wiped AGAIN before full launch. So for folks that really, REALLY grow attached to their pixels that's likely a big deal breaker.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
So I just went through Steam's Pax Dei review, filtered out positive reviews and ordered by most helpful. I read through the top 20 in the list and skimmed maybe another 30 just to get a feel for the trend if there was one. You know how many complain about the open PVP and getting ganked? Zero. Not one. The one that even mentioned PvP complained there wasn't enough of it.
This idea that people are review bombing the game because of the open PVP is a complete straw man. It's not happening.
The trend I do see is basically summarized by this: Game is incomplete and not worth the current asking price. It needs another year or two to bake in the oven.
I don’t think anyone was doing that or saying that. Regarding the PvP. They ARE saying it’s incomplete.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It's never going back to those halcyon days because game development costs are through the roof. They cannot afford to leave early access money on the table. The way they are doing it is what is wrong.
They should reach a playable state that has a relatively high amount of systems in and relatively playable experience without too many game breaking bugs. Then they can get money for the next year of development while in early access but actually working towards release. Sadly most of these developers start early access far too early and end up doing a lot of damage to their games.
The examples people talk about are also not MMORPGs. Survival games have limited content. When you talk about Enshrouded and Palworld or Nightingale you're clearly not talking about MMORPGs , all these games are not like having an end game like in WoW or Everquest nor the population to support it. So of course once the content dries up people leave until the next content drop. However these developers are not looking to maintain people throughout the year. In fact Palworld developers told their players to go and play other games until they introduce new content.
I believe when we go and look at what these new genre of survival games are we should remember they are not what makes MMORPG playable for months on end. I don't play them like I would my pet love Everquest 2 or even FFXIV. The differences are so stark and therefore the world persisting for months is also simply not there for us to form these long term attachments. The world also does not even remind me of what I feel when I play other MMORPGs.
The thing is every time the gaming industry thinks of a new way to make money out of us we hear the same old refrain: "because game development costs are through the roof".
Gaming is now the biggest entertainment industry in the world it does not seem to me to need yet another cash injection. However, what I do believe is that once a new way of making money if promulgated no studio thinks it can afford to be the studio that does not take it up. There's the difference, its not a matter of need due to costs, its the fact that if Studio XYZ does not have this money and competitors do when they are developing a game that's bad business.
Of course all this depends on when and how much we are prepared to pay and as yet apart from the kick back on loot boxes (which are still there!) there is no limit.
What Wargfoot said, its bad for the studio, well think back to before early access. If you launched a game that was not ready and then had to make changes on the fly that is really difficult to do (hello, FFXIV). This is what early access is, players are playing and you have to try to accommodate them while still developing. Its just not the best way is it?
It isn't just the resource gathering/skill advancement in a new game, but also learning how to play it - which isn't a small thing in these types of games. Finding stuff in the UI, learning what areas you need to hunt for reagents, etc. Even learning new keyboard combos and all that.
Honestly, that is what keeps me from trying new games. I just look at the ads and think, "Gah, so much to learn about this title, fuh-get-abut-it"
So I just went through Steam's Pax Dei review, filtered out positive reviews and ordered by most helpful. I read through the top 20 in the list and skimmed maybe another 30 just to get a feel for the trend if there was one. You know how many complain about the open PVP and getting ganked? Zero. Not one. The one that even mentioned PvP complained there wasn't enough of it.
This idea that people are review bombing the game because of the open PVP is a complete straw man. It's not happening.
The trend I do see is basically summarized by this: Game is incomplete and not worth the current asking price. It needs another year or two to bake in the oven.
I don’t think anyone was doing that or saying that. Regarding the PvP. They ARE saying it’s incomplete.
If you scroll up to my post you quoted her and look at the post above it. That post quoted Wargfoot talking about some reading exam and people being offended by getting killed in open PVP. That's what I was referencing.
Comments
Have to expect some shenanigans on Day 1 of any game, but especially early access alphas for sure.
I don't have much tolerance for such so I let games cook awhile before buying in.
Look at 7D2D, I waited like 5 years into early access before buying it on a Steam sale but didn't bother trying it until last summer (year 9) when they released their Alpha 21 build.
Still is missing some promised content, runs like arse even on top end computers yet is one of my favorites titles in the last 10 years. Steam says I have 2217 hours in game since June 2023)
I guess it might be finally time to leave (or update) my Steam review and tell everyone how it totally sucks because 1.0 is releasing in July (which I don't have to pay for) and is still incomplete and buggy, just another damn cash grab for sure.
"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
They were on from morning and are still on as of 1:30 am so I guess they are having fun.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Many players can handle PvP but what they cannot handle is when they have no opportunity at all and constant ganking and being farmed is rampant.
Of course there are players who leave the minute they are killed. Those cannot make up the majority of people who leave bad reviews because of PvP. I feel some how your disproportionate ire at them being misplaced.
Also if I spent 500 hours and above, leaving a poor review only because the game is in early access is dishonest. How did I manage to play that long? Reviews like these are suspect unless they clearly write reasons for why they feel one should not buy it.
The most important part of review is the number of hours the reviewer spent on the game and the reasons they left or feel the buyer should not buy the game. Early access on its own isn't enough because that caveat is already present on the front page of the display for buying the game. There has to be added reasons that go beyond simply early access like the game systems being almost completely absent or widespread bugs making the game impossible to play. Again if you are spending 500 hours and above you must be a masochist for tolerating so much and those reasons must be clearly set out otherwise it just looks like anger for some changes the developer has made to the game.
Of course I have no idea because I have bought many games in early access and really enjoyed them. I have not left any bad reviews because I do extensive research before buying so am seldom taken by surprise and feel cheated.
So this was "just for indie" and looked like it was going to last one or two years for any game. And one way or another the game would launch. You were going to pay for EA but that was it, the game was not charging you with a fully fledged cash shop. Indeed some EA games were wating fairly close to launch then bringing up the cash shop for testing.
Look where early access is now! It has become a way of launching still in development games and cashing in on them. You may or may not see a real launch, but the only thing that will launch early is the cash shop.
This idea that people are review bombing the game because of the open PVP is a complete straw man. It's not happening.
The trend I do see is basically summarized by this:
Game is incomplete and not worth the current asking price. It needs another year or two to bake in the oven.
For me the realization - the *light just came on* idea is - that it may be bad for the developer.
But I think through the years, EA now is almost pre-alpha versions with a barely playable game missing most systems and features. I think the goal for many devs is no longer testing but sales to make money. But this is where the damage comes in. Sure they get a quick influx of cash but the game then just dies off and nobody cares. Look at the plummeting player count for games like Enshrouded and Nightingale on steam. Its a cliff. The quest is do the fans come back and that has yet to be seen.
I think Pax Dei will follow the same trend. I cannot wait to see player counts in 2-3 weeks. I just think what devs and game companies mean or want from EA is not what players want and players are no longer patient and are happy to move on to other games. I cannot speak for others but for me, Conan Exiles dropping the battle pass and changing their content system is more exciting than buying Pax Dei and starting a half-baked game that needs a lot more time (per reviews).
They should reach a playable state that has a relatively high amount of systems in and relatively playable experience without too many game breaking bugs. Then they can get money for the next year of development while in early access but actually working towards release. Sadly most of these developers start early access far too early and end up doing a lot of damage to their games.
The examples people talk about are also not MMORPGs. Survival games have limited content. When you talk about Enshrouded and Palworld or Nightingale you're clearly not talking about MMORPGs , all these games are not like having an end game like in WoW or Everquest nor the population to support it. So of course once the content dries up people leave until the next content drop. However these developers are not looking to maintain people throughout the year. In fact Palworld developers told their players to go and play other games until they introduce new content.
I believe when we go and look at what these new genre of survival games are we should remember they are not what makes MMORPG playable for months on end. I don't play them like I would my pet love Everquest 2 or even FFXIV. The differences are so stark and therefore the world persisting for months is also simply not there for us to form these long term attachments. The world also does not even remind me of what I feel when I play other MMORPGs.
One reason I don't like some of the newer games - I don't want to keep starting over again.
I think one other thing folks should be VERY aware of... they have been quite open that they WILL wipe our progress. Characters... items... property... sometimes one, sometimes all. And all will be wiped AGAIN before full launch. So for folks that really, REALLY grow attached to their pixels that's likely a big deal breaker.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Gaming is now the biggest entertainment industry in the world it does not seem to me to need yet another cash injection. However, what I do believe is that once a new way of making money if promulgated no studio thinks it can afford to be the studio that does not take it up. There's the difference, its not a matter of need due to costs, its the fact that if Studio XYZ does not have this money and competitors do when they are developing a game that's bad business.
Of course all this depends on when and how much we are prepared to pay and as yet apart from the kick back on loot boxes (which are still there!) there is no limit.
What Wargfoot said, its bad for the studio, well think back to before early access. If you launched a game that was not ready and then had to make changes on the fly that is really difficult to do (hello, FFXIV). This is what early access is, players are playing and you have to try to accommodate them while still developing. Its just not the best way is it?
Honestly, that is what keeps me from trying new games.
I just look at the ads and think, "Gah, so much to learn about this title, fuh-get-abut-it"