"Great animation, great music, great combat but there aren't many bosses and areas so far so i thumb it down :( "
Depends how long it has been in early access imo. If it has been in early access for a few weeks/months yeah sure I dont agree with it but if it has been in early access for 1+ years and there isn't much development progress I agree with them
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
Early Access is only an excuse for problems if a product is still getting regular (and significant) content updates and bug fixes.
Also, just my opinion but I don't think games in early access should be allowed to have DLC sold until it exits EA (yea, they might try selling via in-app purchases instead, and there's arguments to be made about split teams working on the base game and DLC, but I just think its very deceptive from a consumer standpoint).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, technically you are not forced to buy a DLC. And if you feel like you can't resist buying anything you see, Steam might not be the right place for you in the first place ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think he means that by creating DLC's for EA games, the devs won't focus on updating the base game anymore. Honestly, it makes me think that they are finding new ways to get more money even before finishing their product. I kinda agree that they should not be allowed to sell DLC.
Comment has been collapsed.
^^ This. Just look at ARC and you'll see everything that is wrong with Early Acces. If a game dev thinks he can put out DLC before completing and getting the base game out of EA they should be permanently banned from ever putting anything on the platform they are selling on. I also think that return policy for EA games should be a lot longer than non-EA because I get a sense that EA is being abused in general. The ONLY game I've seen in EA that would be worth buying (if it was on GOG), is Dead Cells. There are just too many games stuck in EA-hell.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes plenty of this everywhere I am afraid and nothing you can do about it, thats the problem. Its not fair to developers or any other form of creativity.
Comment has been collapsed.
the entire idea of early access is to buy a game in its very early stages to support the developers
Many games are super unclear about what content they have, and there are "multiplayer" EA games where MP just doesn't work. Or they promise an open world survival crafting with zombies and crafting system is broken and there are no enemies. These all happened ; not every stage of development is valid to be sold as a "game". And besides that, EA is a sad trap review-wise. What's worse? Downvoting a game that's currently not enjoyable or recommending it because *maybe* it will have content sometimes? Noone should review promises, but the actual product. And afterall, a negative review can have a lot of positive criticism and description of some sort, while not actively promoting buying the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think there's a difference though between games that are terrible and unfinished and not playable and a game that is simply in progress and has solid mechanical and gameplay underpinnings and just lacks content. The first is legitimate to critique: that's not a game, it's a proof of concept (if even) using the engine. The second is a legitimate project that's simply being worked on and taking time, as most projects do. I think the idea of the thread is to critique reviews like this one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, so technically nicely working, enjoable games that's only fault is to be in EA for whatever reason. Yeah, in that case it's jsut stupid. Rimworld is already a huge, complex and well done system and it's alpha, so calling it out for it's EA stage would be quite ignorant about the content is has. But with Crosscode... I really don't know if I would rate positive or negative, but it's a very important thing if it's story is unfinished. For example a not-complete Telltale game is a sure nope for me, I wouldn't even start until it's finished, even if I got gifted or something. But regardless of the review "score", the positives should be mentioned, if the already existing parts are good.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if it has been in EA for 5 years, I understand people thumbdown the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of shitty early access games on Steam that get tossed on there so the developer can make a few bucks but never actually works on it and instead moves on to other projects that are being tossed on there as early access again to make a few bucks and to never be worked on again. This is what also makes is harder for developers who are sincere about their game and actually do work on it because nowadays the meaning of early access isn't exactly what it used to be anymore, especially on Steam. I know, not every developer is a scumbag but unfortunately, the number of scumbags has drastically increased over the past I don't even know how long who constantly abused the system. Hopefully, there will be a change in that in the future but I don't see that happening unless Steam finally does some real quality and progress control.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hate is a strong word, i feel bad for a dev sometimes.
Bu as others said it's not always so black or white, and some take years or abandoned it, and yes sometimes devs are genuinely working on constantly updating their game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope, I actually like and endorse it. If the developers are putting up a pre-beta build and ask full game price for it, then they either post something that is pretty much a full game which needs such a public testing, or if they are so short on money, then they can start a crowdfunding campaign. If the game is good enough, people will pay.
But right now, Early Access is just an excuse to post thirty minutes of work done in Unity, post an elaborate list of promises of what it may achieve once the Day of Judgement hits, and hope enough idiots will pay some money. Some of them are even trying to lure people with one-two updates, but eventually it is No Man's Sky all over again, in smaller scale.
The fact that games like H1Z1 or DayZ can get away with it is bad enough, they have caused dozens of such games to try and follow the same scam, only these two actually remained on top of the pile. Until NOSMALLLETTERALLOWED'S Battlegrounds take over, at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
OP isn't necessarily saying that you shouldn't leave a negative review of games that are just not worth anything because they aren't really a game yet. I think the argument was that some games are getting content and get negative reviews because even though they're good games, they don't have all the content yet and people leave negative reviews.
For example, I've posted an excerpt of a negative review from CrossCode (98% positive):
"Don't buy this game yet.
Its good but the fact that it isn't finished. Really kills the feeling of nostaligia, and the game in general...
Save your money and feeling of getting into something fun that is not complete."
The entire point of the review is that the game is in early access, and whether you like the program or not, it's not an accurate review of the game to say that "Hey, it's not done yet, so it sucks" while it's in active development and to purchase the game you have to click through the big old early access portal.
Comment has been collapsed.
Released: 15. May 2015
I think its very well allowed to criticize after 2 Years EA.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you've been following the production diaries, which are fairly frequent (at least monthly) and detailed, you would be a little slower to criticize. They have been pushing out significant updates every two/three months, keeping the community up to date on what's going on, and promising that they'll make the game right. The scheduled release date was this summer (it's been fairly significantly delayed) so it's not like they're drastically behind schedule, and what they have is honestly much better than most "released" games on Steam, so in this particular case it's not like they lied about when the game would be done. This is, in my opinion, an example of EA done right because it's transparent, actually supports development, and produces a good product.
Comment has been collapsed.
no i would not. it doesnt matter how much he does on it. its a fact that it came out 2 years ago and you paid 2 years ago for it.
If i pay for something i await to have simply a finished product after 2 years at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
And that game well deserves that negative. It should have more. It is a story-oriented game and it is still in beta after 26 MONTHS since it was launched as a paid product on Steam. An open-world RPG can be created in shorter time (and it was: Fallout: New Vegas was made entirely in 18 months). CrossCode does not say it is "Chapter 1" or "Chapter 1-x", it says it is a game sold at full price and early access would give it some excuse for maybe half a year. One year, if you are REALLY feeling generous.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you haven't played it, you probably shouldn't criticize that it should have more negative reviews. For one, the pre-release roadmap and the early access blurb used to say that it was going to be released, well, right around now, so it's not like it's really cheating anyone out of money if they said in the early access blurb that it would still be in development. Game creation times vary significantly by team size and ambition; F:NV was created by a massive development team with unlimited funds, while CrossCode is a small indie project with an involved development team that keeps the community updated and focuses on making a better game (if F:NV had spent more time in development squishing bugs, it would have been a much better game in my opinion, and I think it's the best modern Fallout, so...) instead of rushing through. It's not like they said "We'll be out of early access in three months!" like half the junk on EA that doesn't get updated. CrossCode is a hugely successful example of an Early Access game because it's actually benefited from feedback, supported development to make the game (they considered cutting the game short to release it early, but rejected that option) and all in all followed the best practices for early access, so giving a negative review of the game because reality got in the way is like saying "Yeah, the bridge they built is great, but they spent two extra months to implement safety features instead of just opening it early with what they could get done, so I'm going to give it a negative review."
Comment has been collapsed.
F:NV was created by a small team at Obsidian and about their funds, they almost lost money on it since Bethesda cheated them out of the revenue based on a bullshit clause: the game had to reach a metascore of 85 for them to pay up. It reached 84.
Additionally, all things you describe are very valid ways of game development.
Before releasing it at stores.
These things are put up on Fig as development goals and crowdfunding is used to raise this money, not selling it at a store and promising that maybe, once, years later, if all stars align, it may eventually become the game the store-goers actually paid for ages ago. Crowdfunding carries the potential of money going to waste and funders take that choice. When you go past that and enter the seller/buyer relationship, that puts it into a brand new level. A level where you cannot just say that okay, you pay now, and I will deliver the game years later.
This is also why I abhor DayZ and other endlessly beta games, because they are the biggest commercial scam in video gaming even if they remain actively developed. When mods do that, it is understandable as they are free content. But asking money at a store for a whimsical promise that may or may not be fulfilled is really scraping the borders of illegality.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Small" dev team? 15 programmers (and dozens of others)..
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_developers
Crosscode - 2 programmers (and 8 others).
http://www.radicalfishgames.com/presskit/sheet.php?p=crosscode#credits
Fallout NV's Area Designers alone outnumber the entire Crosscode dev team.
NV may have had a "small" dev team for a AAA title, but it was by no means a small dev team compared to most Early Access titles.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. And FO:NV used one of the most unintuitive scripting engines and had to built a several square kilometer open world with nearly fifty multi-branching fully voiced quest lines and several dozen NPCs, in 3D. CrossCode has RPGmaker to make a 2D top-down JRPG. As much as the dev team is small, so is the scale of the entire game and the complexity of its engine.
Plus it is still just a side detail and not really dealing with the original question of why the hell did they have to put up the game more than two years before they even planned to finish it, as a game on Steam store, sold for money for the general public.
(And as a bridging note, Bethesda Softworks also does that, with the added bonus of not even planning to finish their skeleton of games, they just expect the modding community to do it free for them.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, you're claiming Radical Fish uses a pre-built game engine, but so did Obsidian.
My point was, however, that you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing a triple A title with an immense budget to a much smaller indie project, and expecting similar development cycles.
You're also presuming to know how easy or difficult either game engine is to use. I could make the point that if modders are able to make mods for Fallout games (in some cases, complete world mods), then Obsidian should have had no issues creating content (I mean, they're professionals, after all) but I won't do that ... since I'm neither a modder nor a programmer.
why the hell did they have to put up the game more than two years before they even planned to finish it
The same reason most EA titles end up on EA: because they don't get a big pay-check up front from a publisher (or even the promise of a big check up front) to get the game out the door, and need funding during development so they can do things like ... oh, I dunno ... eat, put a roof over their heads, things like that. There are obviously other reasons teams release on EA - quality control, community feedback about their project, the option to expand their dev team, scamming the system (!!), etc, etc, but when you're talking about a small indie team, I'd imagine it's primarily funding to expand/finish the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it deserves the negative review if they felt giving it - I personally wouldn't even start it if it's not ready, so while it's in word, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone .
In a similar case I think I would start in caps talking about the game not being done and one should pay attention to it, but if the game (whatever it has) is good, then it's good. It would deserve mention even in a negative review, because "not finished, 0/10) quality reviews tell close to nothing about the game, while there is stuff to say about.
Comment has been collapsed.
tbh I would buy dayz again. I'm not happy about the development of that game, it's uber-slow, it doesn't take in account that it's an EA, etc...
but I had a great time and I made a couple of friends playing it.
I've recently bought battlegrounds too, I'm sick of csgo and I wanted another multiplayer. I've to admit that it's more polished than i thought, it's slightly unoptimized, but it's funny, totally worth the 22€ I've spent on gmg. I've seen worse stuff sold as "released" and for more money coff coff GTAV online coff
Anyway I generally agree with you, for every decent EA, there are a lot of scams
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know. I don't really like the Early Access concept. If somebody wants beta testers, I think the beta should be made available for free to a limited group in exchange for detailed feedback. If it's not ready for beta testing, they have no place charging money for it. If they want investors, there are more appropriate avenues to pursue.
Comment has been collapsed.
It has some merits and the concept can be done right. Just, naturally, valve does it in one of the worst way possible, because it generates revenue this way. GOG calls it "In Dev" and they do it as it should be: curated, with games having enough content to be featured in a store, but still needing some money to finish all features and maybe content with free patches. And not by adding in a new paid DLC on top of the paid beta like that whateveryoucallit dino-shooting thing did back then. Or deciding to separate one of the game modes to a full game and asking yet another full price for it, like H1Z1.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the inconsistency of Steam's version is what upsets people. Allowing essentially finished products to sit in EA for years alongside brand new start up gambles means that you never know what to expect from an EA title, but we always go in with some expectations, regardless, and don't like it when reality falls well short. I'm not a game developer, but based on how EA is being used, there must be some commercial benefits to keeping a game there. What we expect as customers is that Steam exercises some authority to stop developers abusing the system and provide some degree of certainty about what we can expect to find there. I didn't realise GOG had a similar program (and it's quite counterintuitive to think that a new, unfinished product should be available on a platform dedicated to old games that are considered to be good).
Comment has been collapsed.
That was the Good Old Games, this is now GOG. It changed. Just like how Steam was originally an online DRM and later a multiplayer client for some Valve-related games. GOG is now trying to expand, only it does slowly because they try to maintain some quality and some themes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, they've rebranded using the same letters but they now no longer mean anything? I love it when companies do that. Do you remember when KFC used to be Kentucky Fried Chicken or Kentucky Fried for short?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think Early Access is a very good system for releasing games - there is simply too many horribly bad games being released this way with huge promises that are never filled. In the vast majority of cases EA is just another way of saying "We're so bad at running a business that we can't find any financing", and that's not a really good sign for the longevity of the game.
But there are exceptions! There are great games that are released as Early Access with dedicated developers who have a solid business model, or even are working with a publisher already. In most cases these games have enough content already that you feel you get your money's worth.
Because that's the thing, right? You are paying to beta test these games. And it's not cheap either - sometimes up to 75% of the full game. When you put money down you expect to get your money's worth now - not ten years down the line. You pay less because you get less, but that also means that the difference between less and more must be the difference between content now and content later - if you pay 75% you should get 75% of the full game.
Otherwise they're just robbing you.
And no, I don't mind these reviews, or any reviews - everyone has the right to review the games they buy based on their own taste and thoughts and so on. There is no requirement for a review to be objective. If someone thumbs a game down because it has too little content it's no different than if someone thumbs it down because they don't like the colors or sounds or whatever. Reviews are subjective - it's up to the reader to decide whether any given review is relevant to them or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can understand that type of comments if the game has been in EA for ages and if devs abandoned it.
But it is up to Valve to fix concept of EA and in my opinion offer refund until game is out of EA, not full amount but for part the game didn't deliver.
E.g. Devs promised 10 things in game, 5 of those things are available and 5 not. So you can get refund for the 5 not available, in this example 50% of the paid price. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
If the game tells you what it has and what it'll make with a time schedule, then yeah, those downvoters are dumb (assuming that the time schedule has been followed)
In the real world though those people don't really exist. There might be one or two games out there that do that, but others don't.
If a game's in early access, then that doesn't mean that it can just lack basic stuff. Early Access was meant for games that were close to completion but needed extra funding to finish their project and polish it if need be.
DayZ, H1Z1, 7 Days to Die, Rust, ARK, The Forest, Shellshock Live, Squad, Gang Beasts, BeamNG.drive, The Long Dark, Project Zomboid, Space Engineers, Black Mesa, Hurtworld, Stranded Deep, Besiege, Stonehearth and I just had to give up here, because I literally just had to write out around 18/54 best selling games. The ones I wrote out were the ones that have been EA for over a year and should've been completed already. So, yeah, people should criticize games that abuse the system and use it as a shield.
The new early access games don't have this reason and there's a reason for that.
Comment has been collapsed.
There must be an official rule, that after 2 months of early access you release a full game or Mr. Garrison destroys your ass. If you won't fix the game in another month, you must be blacklisted from the platform for 2 years.
Comment has been collapsed.
People seem to be pretty bad at selecting EA. I bought a bunch- theres another bunch in my cart.
Theres only 1 single title i bought that flopped- and it was really well finished, a entire campaing/world (that i replayed a bunch of times) and that i think i got my money back with the hours and joy it gave me. Every now and then i kick it in again, its only sad the rest o the campaigns will never come.
1.
On the other hand my most played and favorite titles from the past 2 years were 70-80% EA.
And not a single one of then was released in 2 months.
By your rules subnautica, dead cells, warbands (amongst others) wouldn't be where they're at. Its your miss only.
(Damn, i missed battle brother pre release and price increase... and i don't think i will be able to grab long dark !!)
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, some of them might be good, but many just get stuck in EA limbo, therefore there must be some punishment for that. I remember times when EA meant more of head start than alpha or early beta. It's like micro-transactions: it's absolutely fine in F2P games, but now it trickles into B2P which is crossing the line, sadly, many people just let it happen...
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that punishment should exist for clearly ill intended practices and, overall, a punishment on not being allowed to push further games.
The reason is EA, like crowdfunding (its Valve's reaction to crowdfunding sites after all), is about investing on a project. Like any investment (and many publishers would sign bellow that) theres a risk implied.
Valves main failure on my view was allowing bad devs with clearly no intention on finishing anything pushing more games and EA titles getting promoted on the store for everybody; Valve should do it sparcely and then use their data to identify those who dig EA and those who don't.
Comment has been collapsed.
Had Valve had a set of strict rules for EA, you wouldn't see these kind of Reviews. People get frustrated with EA due to multiple cases in which the games were never finished and that's where Valve should step in. Unfortunately, they are busy cashing in the money from Steam Direct.
I do not agree with the actions of people reviewing those games, yet I completely understand it. It is an indirect way of pressuring the Devs to finish the game, by giving them bad PR. After all, there is nothing else standing between them finishing the game or not, so the customers are trying to protect the other potential customers, which I find essential for the well being of the industry.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like people said, early access is very, very problematic and games that avoid progress for too long or go to early access with barely any content deserve to get negative reviews for it.
It's unfortunate that sometimes honest devs get this treatment, but understandable. People have been disappointed many times before. I personally don't buy early access games anymore. I'll pay for a finished product or not at all (With the exception of backing kickstarter projects, and even then only if I really trust the devs).
Comment has been collapsed.
Tottally
But it varies by title. some are so early alpha that i can't disagree when people argument 'too soon'.
Beyond fake games theres the fact that too early players may not even grasp the vision and, way more common, they're barely started attempts by newcomers that clearly think they can chew more then they're capable. Its in part understandable - on paper and as you begin some projects seens way easier and more feasible and taking into account the time it took for then to reach that point they assume 'oh, in a year i will be so much further...'
Thats not how development goes unfortunally.
Thus a thumbs down as a warning is more then acceptable- needed even.
Comment has been collapsed.
Heh, quite the opposite. I hate it when people thumbup a shitty EA game for "having potential" ;D
Comment has been collapsed.
I totally agree. If you don't like the early access meaning, why would you buy and early access? It's like buy a purple t-shirt and then say "It's so cool but I don't like it has short sleeves :(". God! It's in his meaning it has short sleeves! -_- I can understand it in the way you say it, when the progammers just stop uploading things, because that's steal money, but not if you are just teasting and then upload things periodically
Comment has been collapsed.
Many early access games never get finished. Thumbs down on an early access is a great move. If devs and pubs want to milk the early access money, they should know they will get lots of downvotes if their early access doesn't blow people away.
If I ever played an early access game that really showed promise, that made me excited to get the final game, and that I saw the devs actively engaged on (like Grim Dawn was) - then it deserves an upvote. Otherwise, downvote away!
Comment has been collapsed.
"I didn't do the tutorial and i'm not smart enough for this game! Would never recommend this! Worst game ever!"
Seen way to many reviews like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
After a lot of thought, I still cannot choose a side. A LOT of garbage where devs have no intention to complete the game is on EA. That said a lot of pretty good indie games come through EA. Hell 7DTD has been in EA for a long time, but they are still working on it, and aside from this last update, have had regular updates during that time.
If the topic had been about really stupid reviews, I totally think that a high percentage of the reviews are unfair. The "I didn't do the tutorial and i'm not smart enough for this game! Would never recommend this! Worst game ever!" above me is a great example of a review that happens way too often. There are also a lot of negative reviews from people who do not like that the game controls are not EXACTLY like some similar game that they played a lot and were used to. Bottom line the entire review system is something that I take with a grain of salt and I actually read a LOT of reviews before I purchase a game to filter through these. One might say the reviews are 'more like guidelines'
But to keep the topic about EA, it is hard because clearly a lot of examples exist on both sides. i think I lean towards agreeing with OP that a lot of the reviews on EA games, are not taking into account that the game is in EA. To take it one step further the complaint that a review stating 'the game is too short' or 'not finished' is not valid EVEN IF the game has been in EA for a long time. a review that specifically called out 'slow development', 'no development in months' or to add a few words and give the review of 'the game is STILL short after 2 years in EA' would be more useful to review readers. But this is just my opinion, and it is MINE...wait I will share to other members of society meeting the minimum intelligence requirement. ;) Thanks for the discussion OP and everyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
its not really a thumbs down more than it is a recomendation. people dont always dislike the game when they write a "red" review. it can be possible that someone enjoyed a game but simply cant recommend it in its current state. thats why its important to actually read the reviews
Comment has been collapsed.
People are entitled to leave a bad review for whatever reason they like. I filter out reviews that I don't think are beneficial in any way whether this is complaints about new games lack of content or systems or whatever but only if they are obviously not of use.
In some cases a lack of content would be a problem if there was say only a single level to an early access game.
Devs need to remember that early access should be about feedback, not about funding development of the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is one golden rule when buying Early Access games:
Buy the game, if you are satisfied with the amount of content it has at the time of your purchase!
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.