Comment on Steam now warns about Early Access that have not been updated in months.

• FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Whenever I buy early access I ask my self “if the devs evaporated and development stopped permanently tomorrow, would I still buy this game?” It has snagged me some games I love like valheim, window kill, palworld and blade & sorcery. It’s also gotten me some games I enjoyed but still felt like a paid a good price for it, and also dodged a few bullets because the games look fun but weren’t complete and I didn’t buy

  source

  • RixMixed@lemmy.ca ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    This is great advice.

    source
• KillerTofu@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  And plenty of early access games that die on the vine. Pay to be an alpha tester? You do you.

  source

  • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    And your don’t want to? You do you. You’re the one trying to suggest an outright ban, then you suggest a personal solution. Take your own advice.

    source
  • knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Game developers also like to get paid, if early access wouldn’t be an option we would have far less indie games and far more half baked 1.0 releases. No one is forcing you to buy ea titles.

    source
  • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Okay, you develop and release a game for free then, only being allowed to charge for it after a few years.

    What, you don’t want to do that?

    source

    • TyrianMollusk@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Not charging until the game properly releases is normal. Most devs need to manage and deal with that, and beta testing used to be an expense on the devs. Now, the buyers are paying the devs to beta test, taking the project risk for the devs. Even if the system were free to both sides, it’s still beneficial to the devs, but without the corruption of thinking they should be making money during beta testing–money that they’ll happily keep as they walk away if their project fails to deliver what they sold.

      There’s a more fair solution out there than letting devs just sell their games before they finish.

      source

      • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Normal is taking a publishers promises up the ass to fund the game. Granted if I see the next Need for Speed up on early access for $60 then yeah, I get what you are saying, but early access was made so small teams (or solo devs) can not starve while working on a passion project.

        A couple of games that come to mind are BeamNG, which only released on early access after 3 years in development (and offering the full game at a very low price); it’s still in development, almost 13 years so far, with regular updates. And Motor Town, which afaik is a team of two people, one making the world and the other doing everything else; they have been in development for 3 years now.

        And example of a successful game that started in early access and was finished is Wreckfest. It took something like 5 years. If I remember correctly they had to take a publishing deal midway through, which is unfortunate, but the finished project is great.

        Early access is an alternative way to stay afloat while making a game. At least, that’s how it should be. Everything in life has risks. Losing $10-20 after a year of playing a game in development just to have the dev croak, lose interest, change career paths… Isn’t that big of a deal. I’d much rather take that frustration and channel it to piece of shit publishers that axe games a few years after release, taking the full amount and running.

        source
  • Atropos@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Yeah, I don’t buy early access for this reason except in extremely rare circumstances.

    But that doesn’t mean we should prevent others from buying into early access. Let people make their own decisions!

    source