Yeah idk how I feel about that. Its kind-of on the developer for offering early access. Its not like they aren’t getting data from people playing early access.
Maybe early access just shouldn’t be a thing or needs to be free. Or they could just pay people to test their games?
2 hours isn’t shit. Especially not if something is in early access and isn’t even close to a finished product.
Ehhh, I’m actually (surprisingly) gonna disagree here. Obviously there are special cases, where the game worked in EA and had some game-breaking crash on release, but those are the exception and not the norm.
If you paid for EA, that’s 100% on you and I don’t think a refund should be available at all (after the initial time limit, of course). You paid for an unfinished game and that’s exactly what you got. It literally doesn’t matter what the game releases as.
If you played a game with free EA, you know more-or-less what you were getting on release. You know the developer’s communication style and their release cadence, and you’ve literally played the game. I would like to see this time limit extended back to maybe 30m/1hr (it may be different in ways you don’t like), but I don’t see a problem with reducing it if you’ve already experienced parts of the game.
If you paid for EA, that’s 100% on you and I don’t think a refund should be available at all (after the initial time limit, of course). You paid for an unfinished game and that’s exactly what you got. It literally doesn’t matter what the game releases as.
Yeah I mean I agree with that, but its also on the developer too to… to just maybe finish the game before release? Like if a half finished product is what you made and what you release and you and your customers are cool with that, great. But thats not what EA is.
Idk yeah. Yeah I think that maybe you shouldn’t be able to charge for early access. That would simplify the whole thing. I don’t think gating it makes more sense.
Smaller devs can use EA to secure funding to complete the game. I’m not against it. Hell, some of my favorite games I played in EA and they were absolutely worth the money even unfinished. Most notably rust, 7 days to die, Valheim(!!!), rimworld… OK I like survival games.
Then we have whale milking factories like star citizen, but that’s where due diligence comes in. Read reviews, watch gameplay, enter with realistic expectations and you won’t be disappointed.
I completely disagree. A dev conceding to release in early access = a dev committing to later release a finished product which the early accessor will also receive a license to play. Without the latter part, early access becomes a moot system in principle, just a pathway provided by platforms to monetise unfinished games, which may never be finished.
And the value proposition for that finished product shouldn’t be affected at all by its pre-launch state. Early access isn’t for the benefit of consumers. That many games remain in “early access” for an extended period of time (such that sufficient gameplay value can be extracted prior to actual launch) isn’t really anything to do with the concept of early access itself. It certainly shouldn’t negate your right as a consumer to say “this isn’t fit for purpose” once the final product arrives in your hands. After all if it’s not fit for purpose during the early access period, that isn’t necessarily representative of whether it will be post-launch.
Yeah idk how I feel about that. Its kind-of on the developer for offering early access. Its not like they aren’t getting data from people playing early access.
Maybe early access just shouldn’t be a thing or needs to be free. Or they could just pay people to test their games?
2 hours isn’t shit. Especially not if something is in early access and isn’t even close to a finished product.
Ehhh, I’m actually (surprisingly) gonna disagree here. Obviously there are special cases, where the game worked in EA and had some game-breaking crash on release, but those are the exception and not the norm.
If you paid for EA, that’s 100% on you and I don’t think a refund should be available at all (after the initial time limit, of course). You paid for an unfinished game and that’s exactly what you got. It literally doesn’t matter what the game releases as.
If you played a game with free EA, you know more-or-less what you were getting on release. You know the developer’s communication style and their release cadence, and you’ve literally played the game. I would like to see this time limit extended back to maybe 30m/1hr (it may be different in ways you don’t like), but I don’t see a problem with reducing it if you’ve already experienced parts of the game.
Yeah I mean I agree with that, but its also on the developer too to… to just maybe finish the game before release? Like if a half finished product is what you made and what you release and you and your customers are cool with that, great. But thats not what EA is.
Idk yeah. Yeah I think that maybe you shouldn’t be able to charge for early access. That would simplify the whole thing. I don’t think gating it makes more sense.
Smaller devs can use EA to secure funding to complete the game. I’m not against it. Hell, some of my favorite games I played in EA and they were absolutely worth the money even unfinished. Most notably rust, 7 days to die, Valheim(!!!), rimworld… OK I like survival games.
Then we have whale milking factories like star citizen, but that’s where due diligence comes in. Read reviews, watch gameplay, enter with realistic expectations and you won’t be disappointed.
I completely agree with it in principal for supporting the smaller development teams.
I completely disagree. A dev conceding to release in early access = a dev committing to later release a finished product which the early accessor will also receive a license to play. Without the latter part, early access becomes a moot system in principle, just a pathway provided by platforms to monetise unfinished games, which may never be finished.
And the value proposition for that finished product shouldn’t be affected at all by its pre-launch state. Early access isn’t for the benefit of consumers. That many games remain in “early access” for an extended period of time (such that sufficient gameplay value can be extracted prior to actual launch) isn’t really anything to do with the concept of early access itself. It certainly shouldn’t negate your right as a consumer to say “this isn’t fit for purpose” once the final product arrives in your hands. After all if it’s not fit for purpose during the early access period, that isn’t necessarily representative of whether it will be post-launch.