Yeah but this game was in early access for a decade. A decade. That’s giving me star citizen vibes, except in this case the game wasn’t popular.
While I agree that the changes for 1.0 don’t look like enough to make it a full release, a lot of gamers categorically refuse to buy a game in early access and wait for the 1.0 release for the “full experience”. Nobody can say how many sales would have been generated.
Valve offers somewhat high visibility for a very short time as compensation. That doesn’t cost them anything and is very disappointing. Refund of some of the paid fees, or a discount for the players out of Valve’s pocket doesn’t sound unreasonable to me.
echodot@feddit.uk 16 hours ago
Tonava@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
a lot of gamers categorically refuse to buy a game in early access and wait for the 1.0 release for the “full experience”
I refuse to buy early access games just because if they sell enough, the devs won’t complete the game and it’ll be stuck in the “10 years in development” -phase
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Early access works when it means the developer wants to craft the game around player input. Satisfactory is a good example, baldurs gate 3 is another.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
It’s an opportunity cost. What other games would have otherwise shown? If the game isn’t appealing, that’s poor use of ad space and could result in lost sales for another game that would then in its place.
I think it’s the right thing to do, though perhaps the window should’ve been longer, like 3 days. But saying it costs nothing isn’t accurate.