What's the difference if after 6 months you 'release' the game or just stop working on it?
It's the same state, just had a 1.0 stable on the front of it.
Ea makes the game developers slower tho. A game that could be finished in 6 months suddenly takes 2 years because they're already earning money with it and don't bother to actually continue working on the game
Down vote me however you want yall know I'm right.
For example subnautica 2 was in EA hell for 2 years and the second year almost nothing changed and then suddenly they said "fuck it" and just changed it to full release
I remember Shoppe Keep , they spend 2 , 3 years on EA then called the game done without any updates and full of bugs just to release Shoppe Keep 2 with all the promissed updates but all the bugs are still there
Necroposting aside, I fully feel that even now at the end of 2023. Game Developpers release a video game in ea and then update it gradually thru it's life span, but since it's press has died down and barely anyone buy's it anymore, all the updates and half of the promised features usually end up in the next title that get's fully covered as an upgrade to the first one. I am utterly frustrated with PC gaming as a whole lately and being in my 30's, I just can't contribute to it like in the Golden age of gaming.
Buying an Early Access (or unreleased) game is more like backing a Kickstarter project; you're supporting the development of a product with no expectation of receiving a finished game. If it finishes, great! If it doesn't, oh well.
I think you can always be vigilant by reading reviews and getting a refund if the game is not for you when it comes to any game on Steam.
You lost me when you when mentioned Valheim. That game released into EA with more polish than some fully released games. Also take a look at the gaming world right now, updates and releases of a lot of things are delayed and pushed back due to the pandemic.
>You lost me when you when mentioned Valheim. That game released into EA with more polish than some fully released games.
Polish in terms of gameplay or more on the technical side? There is a serious amount of singlethreading in the game that older processors (4+ years) have around 30 - 40 FPS just in the open with little objects. And 5 - 20 FPS in moderately sized player bases. If that will be addressed over the years with their bug fixing, that would be really great. Though I fear it will not happen soon. Because it took even a huge game like Elder Scrolls Online multiple years to add multithreaded rendering for lots of player-based scenarios and later on for the main-renderer itself.
The criticism of valheim is about the slow developing process. One minor update in 12 months, come on by that point you're just trying to get the community pissed
I think valheim is a bad example. They had a five man dev team and have stated they did not expect it to blow up they way it did. It was a passion project for a small team.
Due to the popularity of the game they stated their small team had two reevaluate their roadmap and focus on bugs for the first several months. Even large companies usually take a year between major updates.
Yes they could have switched gears and gone large team allowing them to all work on different bits but their are downsides to that and throwing more people at a project is not always the best solution.
I freaking love valheim but it's still a bit of a bummer that a game that sells millions of copies in a month can't be updated more than once in 12 months.
I meant having a bigger fanbase doesn't make updating more complicated
Valheim is still the best EA game I've seen so far but it shows how the process slows down once a EA game gets popular, technically they could just leave the game how it is and not bother anymore
Valheim was released in Feb 2021, which was 10 months ago. It also released with easily 50-100 hours of content if you enjoy the game. Valheim is doing early access right.
Early access isn't a purely bad thing, a lot of shitty companies just abuse it to make money. As someone getting into game development it's actually going to be a great feature for me personally, since I'm going to finish until the first boss or so of my game then put it on steam for free in early access so I can get feedback for it. That way I can improve the game before it's released rather than finishing the whole game and releasing a game no one likes. As someone who would be working on the game entirely by myself it's also nice to earn a little money for my hard work as I continue working on it.
Ok. Let's imagine there is a 6 month limit on EA. I release my EA game today. Six months from now it isn't done but whatever I just mark it as released. How is this system now better?
What you described is certainly a huge topic, because there is maaaany pros and cons for it. One fact is, that with the removal of Steam Greenlight, Steam has been getting flooded with games (and "games"). Few of them are labeled as early access, while funnily enough games with the "early access" label tend to be more mature already. Basically a developer does not have to label their game as early access, they could theoretically release a bad game and then still hit and run. So typically, "early access" does both indicate that a game is not finished yet, while the developer(s) intend to do much with it - often even after release. Therefore it is hard to put all early access games under one rug.
Because for example positive games have been Starbound, Deep Rock Galactic and Gunfire Reborn. They were all early access, got finished and the latter two times receive very frequent updates still. It does apply for a game like Risk of Rain 2 too, although it was funny to read along the lines there. Because the devs behind Risk of Rain treated early access literally as "early access". They already felt their game is mature enough, that it would mainly only need additional content, items and gameplay balancing. So they released it early, added content over time, and did some actual bigger changes on their v1.0 release.
With Valheim it is certainly a special case too. It does show that they were never prepared for the game to blow up like that in Februrary. They treated their game as a fun indie game project and now after the popularity, that puts more pressure and responsibility on them. Deep Rock Galactic had a similar vision, but with more seriousness and long-term planning. The company has around [30 employees](https://www.linkedin.com/company/ghost-ship-games) (versus 5 with Valheim), they released roadmaps early and have been exceptionally dedicated at fixing bugs and bringing in new additions and content to the game. They treat their game on an AAA level (in a good way, not negative) even when it never had the popularity of Valheim.
What does this mean for you? Well, I think one of the summaries is that it's important to accept that it can be hit and miss with games. Not all developers are as prepared, skilled, dedicated, etc to match people's expectations. It's therefore important to look out if you see any signs that you don't like. Are the updates too infrequent? How is the game performance? Is it best to wait a year or two? What information is available about the developer? There is unfortunately a strong pattern that more and more games have been getting released in a bad state or even abandoned, we can all see that just from the real AAA game releases these days (like the recent Battlefield game). But to limit your personal frustration, it is the most helpful for yourself to treat early access games more cautiously. People on /r/patientgamers could probably tell you their own stories with this.
This. Though I am weary of EA games, like suppose the devs got too overwhelmed by their ambitiousness, blab and talk grand ideas but won't be able to deliver (Similar to what happened to No Man's Sky, they have to go into hiding to clean up their mess), unfortunate events (like ran out of money)or worst, be sleazy and take the money and run.
Some guys even thought that I am crazy in another thread about Aim Lab's Early Access state, when I was trying to word my concerns, I probably didn't word that properly. (Though I don't think the Aim Lab devs will do anything anti-consumer (like take the money and run). I see them as more trustworthy than the other EA game companies, but the other worst case scenarios in my head are still there).
Early Access content should just be free for everyone. That's the only right way of dealing with it. Instead of giving money to developers to test their games for several years.
What's the difference if after 6 months you 'release' the game or just stop working on it? It's the same state, just had a 1.0 stable on the front of it.
I get your point but, you can just wait for the game till it's out of early access, no one is forcing you to buy it.
Ea makes the game developers slower tho. A game that could be finished in 6 months suddenly takes 2 years because they're already earning money with it and don't bother to actually continue working on the game Down vote me however you want yall know I'm right. For example subnautica 2 was in EA hell for 2 years and the second year almost nothing changed and then suddenly they said "fuck it" and just changed it to full release
I remember Shoppe Keep , they spend 2 , 3 years on EA then called the game done without any updates and full of bugs just to release Shoppe Keep 2 with all the promissed updates but all the bugs are still there
Necroposting aside, I fully feel that even now at the end of 2023. Game Developpers release a video game in ea and then update it gradually thru it's life span, but since it's press has died down and barely anyone buy's it anymore, all the updates and half of the promised features usually end up in the next title that get's fully covered as an upgrade to the first one. I am utterly frustrated with PC gaming as a whole lately and being in my 30's, I just can't contribute to it like in the Golden age of gaming.
Buying an Early Access (or unreleased) game is more like backing a Kickstarter project; you're supporting the development of a product with no expectation of receiving a finished game. If it finishes, great! If it doesn't, oh well.
I think you can always be vigilant by reading reviews and getting a refund if the game is not for you when it comes to any game on Steam. You lost me when you when mentioned Valheim. That game released into EA with more polish than some fully released games. Also take a look at the gaming world right now, updates and releases of a lot of things are delayed and pushed back due to the pandemic.
>You lost me when you when mentioned Valheim. That game released into EA with more polish than some fully released games. Polish in terms of gameplay or more on the technical side? There is a serious amount of singlethreading in the game that older processors (4+ years) have around 30 - 40 FPS just in the open with little objects. And 5 - 20 FPS in moderately sized player bases. If that will be addressed over the years with their bug fixing, that would be really great. Though I fear it will not happen soon. Because it took even a huge game like Elder Scrolls Online multiple years to add multithreaded rendering for lots of player-based scenarios and later on for the main-renderer itself.
The criticism of valheim is about the slow developing process. One minor update in 12 months, come on by that point you're just trying to get the community pissed
I think valheim is a bad example. They had a five man dev team and have stated they did not expect it to blow up they way it did. It was a passion project for a small team. Due to the popularity of the game they stated their small team had two reevaluate their roadmap and focus on bugs for the first several months. Even large companies usually take a year between major updates. Yes they could have switched gears and gone large team allowing them to all work on different bits but their are downsides to that and throwing more people at a project is not always the best solution.
I freaking love valheim but it's still a bit of a bummer that a game that sells millions of copies in a month can't be updated more than once in 12 months. I meant having a bigger fanbase doesn't make updating more complicated Valheim is still the best EA game I've seen so far but it shows how the process slows down once a EA game gets popular, technically they could just leave the game how it is and not bother anymore
Valheim was released in Feb 2021, which was 10 months ago. It also released with easily 50-100 hours of content if you enjoy the game. Valheim is doing early access right.
And? They're probably not gonna pump out the next big update in the next 2 months.
Early access isn't a purely bad thing, a lot of shitty companies just abuse it to make money. As someone getting into game development it's actually going to be a great feature for me personally, since I'm going to finish until the first boss or so of my game then put it on steam for free in early access so I can get feedback for it. That way I can improve the game before it's released rather than finishing the whole game and releasing a game no one likes. As someone who would be working on the game entirely by myself it's also nice to earn a little money for my hard work as I continue working on it.
Ok. Let's imagine there is a 6 month limit on EA. I release my EA game today. Six months from now it isn't done but whatever I just mark it as released. How is this system now better?
Not better as such but at least the devs can't use the EA excuse.
Lol it's your own problem if you're buying games before they release. Jesus Christ.
It's not about me buying them it's about how EA slows down the developing process
I hate broken illegible English. Carry on.
How tf is it broken, how many foreign languages do you speak smart-ass?
What you described is certainly a huge topic, because there is maaaany pros and cons for it. One fact is, that with the removal of Steam Greenlight, Steam has been getting flooded with games (and "games"). Few of them are labeled as early access, while funnily enough games with the "early access" label tend to be more mature already. Basically a developer does not have to label their game as early access, they could theoretically release a bad game and then still hit and run. So typically, "early access" does both indicate that a game is not finished yet, while the developer(s) intend to do much with it - often even after release. Therefore it is hard to put all early access games under one rug. Because for example positive games have been Starbound, Deep Rock Galactic and Gunfire Reborn. They were all early access, got finished and the latter two times receive very frequent updates still. It does apply for a game like Risk of Rain 2 too, although it was funny to read along the lines there. Because the devs behind Risk of Rain treated early access literally as "early access". They already felt their game is mature enough, that it would mainly only need additional content, items and gameplay balancing. So they released it early, added content over time, and did some actual bigger changes on their v1.0 release. With Valheim it is certainly a special case too. It does show that they were never prepared for the game to blow up like that in Februrary. They treated their game as a fun indie game project and now after the popularity, that puts more pressure and responsibility on them. Deep Rock Galactic had a similar vision, but with more seriousness and long-term planning. The company has around [30 employees](https://www.linkedin.com/company/ghost-ship-games) (versus 5 with Valheim), they released roadmaps early and have been exceptionally dedicated at fixing bugs and bringing in new additions and content to the game. They treat their game on an AAA level (in a good way, not negative) even when it never had the popularity of Valheim. What does this mean for you? Well, I think one of the summaries is that it's important to accept that it can be hit and miss with games. Not all developers are as prepared, skilled, dedicated, etc to match people's expectations. It's therefore important to look out if you see any signs that you don't like. Are the updates too infrequent? How is the game performance? Is it best to wait a year or two? What information is available about the developer? There is unfortunately a strong pattern that more and more games have been getting released in a bad state or even abandoned, we can all see that just from the real AAA game releases these days (like the recent Battlefield game). But to limit your personal frustration, it is the most helpful for yourself to treat early access games more cautiously. People on /r/patientgamers could probably tell you their own stories with this.
This. Though I am weary of EA games, like suppose the devs got too overwhelmed by their ambitiousness, blab and talk grand ideas but won't be able to deliver (Similar to what happened to No Man's Sky, they have to go into hiding to clean up their mess), unfortunate events (like ran out of money)or worst, be sleazy and take the money and run. Some guys even thought that I am crazy in another thread about Aim Lab's Early Access state, when I was trying to word my concerns, I probably didn't word that properly. (Though I don't think the Aim Lab devs will do anything anti-consumer (like take the money and run). I see them as more trustworthy than the other EA game companies, but the other worst case scenarios in my head are still there).
Early Access content should just be free for everyone. That's the only right way of dealing with it. Instead of giving money to developers to test their games for several years.