I am 99.99999999% positive the reason it has the 'early access' tag is so that they can charge you for a free to play game, and charge you more than average.
Funny how people complain about Steam Early Access and yet the vast majority of the time the game costs LESS in early access then it does after.
Yeah, the whole thing has gotten nuts.
$60 for a new game + $15 for DLC!!! OMG what a rip off!
$250 for a founder's pack for a F2P game? OMG What an amazing deal, look at all these in-game perks I get!"
Or better yet: $5,000 to support this game on kickstarter? That's so awesome, they'll even let me name an NPC! Can't wait for 5 years to go by!
The further away a game is from completion, the more it's worth lol.
what blows my mind is that I am nearly positive the same people loosing their shit over the 'opportunity' to buy Fortnite 'before its released' are likely the very same people who criticize Steam Early Access games and if a game that didnt get the 'hyper hype hype' seal of approval was on Steam EAG that was to be free to play but charged they would have likely called fucking congress
Considering that this game is a lot better than most early access games o....
stopped right there.
Stopped right there. If you read my post you'd know everything you just wrote was wrong.
your bias and close mindedness is so overwhelmingly it makes my lights flicker.
next time I get into a debate with someone over ethics of Steam Early Access game developers I can assure you I will tell them this story
LOL so because steam has terrible early access games, I have to like all early access games and not the good ones.
I mentioned 2 early access games in my post, and the reason why I back them. I've played plenty of early access games. I have a bias towards good games. Not my fault the vast majority of early access titles... aren't.
LOL so because steam has terrible early access games, I have to like all early access games and not the good ones.
I mentioned 2 early access games in my post, and the reason why I back them. I've played plenty of early access games. I have a bias towards good games. Not my fault the vast majority of early access titles... aren't.
no..
its because people like you consider things UNETHICAL...UNLESS....Epic does it.
the arguements against Steam Early Access developers is not that 'they are bad games' its that their business practices are unethical. If such developers did things like , charge for a title that would be free to play in early access, charge more for the games in early access then standard game price, have casino style loot crates people like yourself would consider that UNETHICAL. but you consider it ETHICAL and fine if Epic does it.
Its not a quesiton of 'good game' vs 'bad game' its 'its unethical only if its not Epic'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
LOL so because steam has terrible early access games, I have to like all early access games and not the good ones.
I mentioned 2 early access games in my post, and the reason why I back them. I've played plenty of early access games. I have a bias towards good games. Not my fault the vast majority of early access titles... aren't.
no..
its because people like you consider things UNETHICAL...UNLESS....Epic does it.
the arguements against Steam Early Access developers is not that 'they are bad games' its that their business practices are unethical. If such developers did things like , charge for a title that would be free to play in early access, charge more for the games in early access then standard game price, have casino style loot crates people like yourself would consider that UNETHICAL. but you consider it ETHICAL and fine if Epic does it.
Its not a quesiton of 'good game' vs 'bad game' its 'its unethical only if its not Epic'
I've only used the term unethical in one instance regarding a game and it was to a development practice regarding loot boxes of an early access game, that's true. But the ethics issue had to do with them changing the loot tables 3 times in a couple weeks, and running a promotion for the loot boxes knowing they were going to change the loot tables in a few days. That's unethical.
What you're talking about... makes no sense and I've never used the word unethical in regards to it.
LOL so because steam has terrible early access games, I have to like all early access games and not the good ones.
I mentioned 2 early access games in my post, and the reason why I back them. I've played plenty of early access games. I have a bias towards good games. Not my fault the vast majority of early access titles... aren't.
no..
its because people like you consider things UNETHICAL...UNLESS....Epic does it.
the arguements against Steam Early Access developers is not that 'they are bad games' its that their business practices are unethical. If such developers did things like , charge for a title that would be free to play in early access, charge more for the games in early access then standard game price, have casino style loot crates people like yourself would consider that UNETHICAL. but you consider it ETHICAL and fine if Epic does it.
Its not a quesiton of 'good game' vs 'bad game' its 'its unethical only if its not Epic'
I've only used the term unethical in one instance regarding a game and it was to a development practice regarding loot boxes of an early access game, that's true. But the ethics issue had to do with them changing the loot tables 3 times in a couple weeks, and running a promotion for the loot boxes knowing they were going to change the loot tables in a few days. That's unethical.
What you're talking about... makes no sense and I've never used the word unethical in regards to it.
what I said isnt about you specifically
I said: 'people who are critical of Steam Early Access...' which i dont know if you are one of those people or not but I assume you are.
NOw:
1. A game that is planned to be Free to Play charging for the game in early access 2. A game that charges more than average for a full retail game and considerably more than an average early access title 3. a game that contains loot crates that are nearly required to move forward
I assure you with EXTREME CONFIDENCE that if The Fun Pimps put out a game with those parameters that the SJW would have gone ape shit complaining about unjust business practices
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
LOL so because steam has terrible early access games, I have to like all early access games and not the good ones.
I mentioned 2 early access games in my post, and the reason why I back them. I've played plenty of early access games. I have a bias towards good games. Not my fault the vast majority of early access titles... aren't.
no..
its because people like you consider things UNETHICAL...UNLESS....Epic does it.
the arguements against Steam Early Access developers is not that 'they are bad games' its that their business practices are unethical. If such developers did things like , charge for a title that would be free to play in early access, charge more for the games in early access then standard game price, have casino style loot crates people like yourself would consider that UNETHICAL. but you consider it ETHICAL and fine if Epic does it.
Its not a quesiton of 'good game' vs 'bad game' its 'its unethical only if its not Epic'
I've only used the term unethical in one instance regarding a game and it was to a development practice regarding loot boxes of an early access game, that's true. But the ethics issue had to do with them changing the loot tables 3 times in a couple weeks, and running a promotion for the loot boxes knowing they were going to change the loot tables in a few days. That's unethical.
What you're talking about... makes no sense and I've never used the word unethical in regards to it.
what I said isnt about you specifically
I said: 'people who are critical of Steam Early Access...' which i dont know if you are one of those people or not but I assume you are.
NOw:
1. A game that is planned to be Free to Play charging for the game in early access 2. A game that charges more than average for a full retail game and considerably more than an average early access title 3. a game that contains loot crates that are nearly required to move forward
I assure you with EXTREME CONFIDENCE that if The Fun Pimps put out a game with those parameters that the SJW would have gone ape shit complaining about unjust business practices
Well "the fun pimps" barely had a playable game when they launched their early access. It only takes a few moments of seeing steam reviews to see the sordid history of their journey into making a somewhat playable game.
Steam has had plenty of free to play titles where you were required to buy in to get early access, there is nothing new there and I don't recall any hoopla about that in the past.
Had you read my other posts you'd also realize you're wrong in assuming anything about me. I back games from companies with good track records. Thats why I backed EPIC. They are a good developer. Larian Studios was another I backed as they are a good developer too.
I don't really see where the issue is here. Good games are good, bad games are bad. Most of the early access games on steam are very much so not good.
I said: 'people who are critical of Steam Early Access...' which i dont know if you are one of those people or not but I assume you are.
NOw:
1. A game that is planned to be Free to Play charging for the game in early access 2. A game that charges more than average for a full retail game and considerably more than an average early access title 3. a game that contains loot crates that are nearly required to move forward
I assure you with EXTREME CONFIDENCE that if The Fun Pimps put out a game with those parameters that the SJW would have gone ape shit complaining about unjust business practices
Well "the fun pimps" barely had a playable game when they launched their early access. ...
you still not getting it.
1. A game that is planned to be Free to Play charging for the game in early access 2. A game that charges more than average for a full retail game and considerably more than an average early access title 3. a game that contains loot crates that are nearly required to move forward
the above would be considered unethical business practices.
you are suggesting because the game is good it makes those business practices now ethical.
that is being ridiculously biased.
something just doesnt magically go from 'uthetical business practice'for you but perfectly ethical for me because my game quality is better.
its doesnt work that way
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I said: 'people who are critical of Steam Early Access...' which i dont know if you are one of those people or not but I assume you are.
NOw:
1. A game that is planned to be Free to Play charging for the game in early access 2. A game that charges more than average for a full retail game and considerably more than an average early access title 3. a game that contains loot crates that are nearly required to move forward
I assure you with EXTREME CONFIDENCE that if The Fun Pimps put out a game with those parameters that the SJW would have gone ape shit complaining about unjust business practices
Well "the fun pimps" barely had a playable game when they launched their early access. ...
you still not getting it.
1. A game that is planned to be Free to Play charging for the game in early access 2. A game that charges more than average for a full retail game and considerably more than an average early access title 3. a game that contains loot crates that are nearly required to move forward
the above would be considered unethical business practices.
you are suggesting because the game is good it makes those business practices now ethical.
that is being ridiculously biased.
something just doesnt magically go from 'uthetical business practice'for you but perfectly ethical for me because my game quality is better.
its doesnt work that way
Why is that unethical? People spend a lot more on kickstarters for games that are supposed to be free to play with no game access for a long time. Today people can buy into a game to play a year in advance. Why is it unethical?
I said: 'people who are critical of Steam Early Access...' which i dont know if you are one of those people or not but I assume you are.
NOw:
1. A game that is planned to be Free to Play charging for the game in early access 2. A game that charges more than average for a full retail game and considerably more than an average early access title 3. a game that contains loot crates that are nearly required to move forward
I assure you with EXTREME CONFIDENCE that if The Fun Pimps put out a game with those parameters that the SJW would have gone ape shit complaining about unjust business practices
Well "the fun pimps" barely had a playable game when they launched their early access. ...
you still not getting it.
1. A game that is planned to be Free to Play charging for the game in early access 2. A game that charges more than average for a full retail game and considerably more than an average early access title 3. a game that contains loot crates that are nearly required to move forward
the above would be considered unethical business practices.
you are suggesting because the game is good it makes those business practices now ethical.
that is being ridiculously biased.
something just doesnt magically go from 'uthetical business practice'for you but perfectly ethical for me because my game quality is better.
its doesnt work that way
Why is that unethical? People spend a lot more on kickstarters for games that are supposed to be free to play with no game access for a long time. Today people can buy into a game to play a year in advance. Why is it unethical?
you are asking me this question:
why is the exact same business practice considered unethical for one company but considered to be ethical for another company because of the quality of the game, even though the subject of the ethics is explictly stated to not be related to quality?
well: 1. because critics would NEVER make that point. 2. countless times I have heard people say quote 'it doesnt matter if the game is good or not its unethical...peroid'
we have to compare the EXACT same business practice that is considered to be unethical, dont add to it in desperation.
its not going to work
and I assure you it would not matter if the KS stated it was going to be free to play or not, the SJW would jump on it like fly to shit...absolutly and they would be loud about it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I said: 'people who are critical of Steam Early Access...' which i dont know if you are one of those people or not but I assume you are.
NOw:
1. A game that is planned to be Free to Play charging for the game in early access 2. A game that charges more than average for a full retail game and considerably more than an average early access title 3. a game that contains loot crates that are nearly required to move forward
I assure you with EXTREME CONFIDENCE that if The Fun Pimps put out a game with those parameters that the SJW would have gone ape shit complaining about unjust business practices
Well "the fun pimps" barely had a playable game when they launched their early access. ...
you still not getting it.
1. A game that is planned to be Free to Play charging for the game in early access 2. A game that charges more than average for a full retail game and considerably more than an average early access title 3. a game that contains loot crates that are nearly required to move forward
the above would be considered unethical business practices.
you are suggesting because the game is good it makes those business practices now ethical.
that is being ridiculously biased.
something just doesnt magically go from 'uthetical business practice'for you but perfectly ethical for me because my game quality is better.
its doesnt work that way
Why is that unethical? People spend a lot more on kickstarters for games that are supposed to be free to play with no game access for a long time. Today people can buy into a game to play a year in advance. Why is it unethical?
you are asking me this question:
why is the exact same business practice considered unethical for one company but considered to be ethical for another company because of the quality of the game, even though the subject of the ethics is explictly stated to not be related to quality?
well: 1. because critics would NEVER make that point. 2. countless times I have heard people say quote 'it doesnt matter if the game is good or not its unethical...peroid'
we have to compare the EXACT same business practice that is considered to be unethical, dont add to it in desperation.
its not going to work
and I assure you it would not matter if the KS stated it was going to be free to play or not, the SJW would jump on it like fly to shit...absolutly and they would be loud about it
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance.
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch.
Do you see the difference in ethics in these two situations?
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance.
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch.
Do you see the difference in ethics in these two situations?
again that screams bias to a point its hysterical.
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance. (SJW would consider this unethical regardless of if the game ever releases or not, regardless of quality regardless of anything. they would consider it unethical on its face full stop)
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch. (this is just fucking funny. you are saying 'all developers other than epic will not release their game despite them saying they plan to but Epic will because they say they will and have a date...lol)
are you just fucking with me now?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I've always had a personal rule not to participate or buy into early access games.. I've done a few beta-tests before, but the idea of early access just seemed like extremely high-risk gambling.. I prefer my games to be done and through the roughest phases of development before I dive in..
But.. For some inexplicable reason.. I saw the Fortnite cinematic and a few Youtuber vids of the gameplay and before I knew it, I had made a decision.. I wanted in.. I wanted to play the game, and throw in feedback to hopefully help it succeed.. I broke my rule about early access, and I am glad I did..
Fortnite is fun as hell to me.. There are some repetitive aspects, sure.. But show me a game without that really.. Of course it won't appeal to everyone.. But for the people who enjoy zombie shooters, creativity in construction, defense, exploration, and collecting characters and weapons, the game is truly awesome..
I never root for a game to fail, but I am overjoyed when one succeeds..
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance.
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch.
Do you see the difference in ethics in these two situations?
again that screams bias to a point its hysterical.
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance. (SJW would consider this unethical regardless of if the game ever releases or not, regardless of quality regardless of anything. they would consider it unethical on its face full stop)
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch. (this is just fucking funny. you are saying 'all developers other than epic will not release their game despite them saying they plan to but Epic will because they say they will and have a date...lol)
are you just fucking with me now?
You're just showing your lack of understanding, that's all. There's no "bias" about it.
Most indie games are from development studios that have no released games. They have no release date. They barely have more than concepts and most are just using engines - including the engine created BY EPIC......
But going back to the payment model, there have been several games I've purchased based on the guarantee they will release. Dungeon Defenders 2, Don't Starve Together, Fortnite, D:OS2. Games from companies that actually put out games before.
Other games in perpetual early access is a different story. That you consider it "bias" is fine with me. I'm biased because I like good games created by known developers that will deliver.
Most crappy indie developers don't. The real bias here is that you want to attack fortnite for its success because its already outsold your indie early access title.
I've always had a personal rule not to participate or buy into early access games.. I've done a few beta-tests before, but the idea of early access just seemed like extremely high-risk gambling.. I prefer my games to be done and through the roughest phases of development before I dive in..
But.. For some inexplicable reason.. I saw the Fortnite cinematic and a few Youtuber vids of the gameplay and before I knew it, I had made a decision.. I wanted in.. I wanted to play the game, and throw in feedback to hopefully help it succeed.. I broke my rule about early access, and I am glad I did..
Fortnite is fun as hell to me.. There are some repetitive aspects, sure.. But show me a game without that really.. Of course it won't appeal to everyone.. But for the people who enjoy zombie shooters, creativity in construction, defense, exploration, and collecting characters and weapons, the game is truly awesome..
I never root for a game to fail, but I am overjoyed when one succeeds..
let me ask you.
A year ago if you heard there was a Steam Early Access title in which the game was going to be free to play when released but while in early access instead of charging around $30 they would be charging $80 and the game had loot crates that were based on real money in which you really needed in order to progress into the game.
what would you have thought? be honest.
as someone (myself) who is viewing this behavior from the outside in I gotta say its bizzare how effective marketing is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance.
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch.
Do you see the difference in ethics in these two situations?
again that screams bias to a point its hysterical.
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance. (SJW would consider this unethical regardless of if the game ever releases or not, regardless of quality regardless of anything. they would consider it unethical on its face full stop)
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch. (this is just fucking funny. you are saying 'all developers other than epic will not release their game despite them saying they plan to but Epic will because they say they will and have a date...lol)
are you just fucking with me now?
You're just showing your lack of understanding, that's all. There's no "bias" about it.
Most indie games are from development studios that have no released games. ....
completely doesnt matter
1. indie says 'we will release this game' 2. Epic says 'we will release this game on X date'
you trust item 2 but not item 1.
but that doesnt even matter, the points I mentioned that would be seen as unethical DO NOT COME WITH EXCEPTIONS. they are considered unethical on their face, peroid end of story, not 'well its ok if Epic does it because they gave a date and thus paying for an early access title that will be F2P is perfectly fine because of a date given'....horse shit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance.
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch.
Do you see the difference in ethics in these two situations?
again that screams bias to a point its hysterical.
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance. (SJW would consider this unethical regardless of if the game ever releases or not, regardless of quality regardless of anything. they would consider it unethical on its face full stop)
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch. (this is just fucking funny. you are saying 'all developers other than epic will not release their game despite them saying they plan to but Epic will because they say they will and have a date...lol)
are you just fucking with me now?
You're just showing your lack of understanding, that's all. There's no "bias" about it.
Most indie games are from development studios that have no released games. ....
completely doesnt matter
1. indie says 'we will release this game' 2. Epic says 'we will release this game on X date'
you trust item 2 but not item 1.
but that doesnt even matter, the points I mentioned that would be seen as unethical DO NOT COME WITH EXCEPTIONS. they are considered unethical on their face, peroid end of story, not 'well its ok if Epic does it because they gave a date and thus paying for an early access title that will be F2P is perfectly fine because of a date given'....horse shit
So basically you're saying that the company doesn't matter. So giving 30 dollars to a company you trust should be the same as giving 30 dollars to a company you've never heard of before and don't trust. This is really your thought process? LOL
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance.
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch.
Do you see the difference in ethics in these two situations?
again that screams bias to a point its hysterical.
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance. (SJW would consider this unethical regardless of if the game ever releases or not, regardless of quality regardless of anything. they would consider it unethical on its face full stop)
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch. (this is just fucking funny. you are saying 'all developers other than epic will not release their game despite them saying they plan to but Epic will because they say they will and have a date...lol)
are you just fucking with me now?
You're just showing your lack of understanding, that's all. There's no "bias" about it.
Most indie games are from development studios that have no released games. ....
completely doesnt matter
1. indie says 'we will release this game' 2. Epic says 'we will release this game on X date'
you trust item 2 but not item 1.
but that doesnt even matter, the points I mentioned that would be seen as unethical DO NOT COME WITH EXCEPTIONS. they are considered unethical on their face, peroid end of story, not 'well its ok if Epic does it because they gave a date and thus paying for an early access title that will be F2P is perfectly fine because of a date given'....horse shit
So basically you're saying that the company doesn't matter. So giving 30 dollars to a company you trust should be the same as giving 30 dollars to a company you've never heard of before and don't trust. This is really your thought process? LOL
I am saying the SJW against Steam Early Access thinks its doesnt matter what company it is UNLESS its a AAA company then all maters of SJW unethics is fine.
The thing about SJW is that its supposed to apply mostly universal and more so when you SAY IT UNIVERSAL but then when someone says 'Epic' its 'oh well in that case they can charge 3x as much, release it as F2P after early access and have as many loot crates as posisble in it.' thats totally fine but others cant do any of that
The SWJ against indies in general are so unbelievably close mind and blind its beyond believe but its true and this thread is good evidence of it,.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance.
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch.
Do you see the difference in ethics in these two situations?
again that screams bias to a point its hysterical.
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance. (SJW would consider this unethical regardless of if the game ever releases or not, regardless of quality regardless of anything. they would consider it unethical on its face full stop)
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch. (this is just fucking funny. you are saying 'all developers other than epic will not release their game despite them saying they plan to but Epic will because they say they will and have a date...lol)
are you just fucking with me now?
You're just showing your lack of understanding, that's all. There's no "bias" about it.
Most indie games are from development studios that have no released games. ....
completely doesnt matter
1. indie says 'we will release this game' 2. Epic says 'we will release this game on X date'
you trust item 2 but not item 1.
but that doesnt even matter, the points I mentioned that would be seen as unethical DO NOT COME WITH EXCEPTIONS. they are considered unethical on their face, peroid end of story, not 'well its ok if Epic does it because they gave a date and thus paying for an early access title that will be F2P is perfectly fine because of a date given'....horse shit
So basically you're saying that the company doesn't matter. So giving 30 dollars to a company you trust should be the same as giving 30 dollars to a company you've never heard of before and don't trust. This is really your thought process? LOL
I am saying the SJW against Steam Early Access thinks its doesnt matter what company it is UNLESS its a AAA company then all maters of SJW unethics is fine.
The thing about SJW is that its supposed to apply mostly universal and more so when you SAY IT UNIVERSAL but then when someone says 'Epic' its 'oh well in that case they can charge 3x as much, release it as F2P after early access and have as many loot crates as posisble in it.' thats totally fine but others cant do any of that
The SWJ against indies in general are so unbelievably close mind and blind its beyond believe but its true and this thread is good evidence of it,.
So now to be clear, you're saying that you're butthurt because people trust a company like EPIC when they release an early access game because it's a AAA company, but you want them to trust the lesser known indie companies that you like because it's "fair" to do so.
You're making a conflicting argument. You're saying SJW against steam early access are okay with big companies doing early access with it's EPIC, but then you go on to say how it's biased against indie companies, meaning the only SJW here is you complaining big companies get preferential treatment.
When in reality people back well known companies because it's a smart decision. Suddenly it becomes a "bias" issue when people buy things from companies they trust rather than companies they've never heard of.... .... this line of logic is ridiculous to the maximum degree allowable on these forums. We've reached the maximum logic ridiculousness.
A year ago if you heard there was a Steam Early Access title in which the game was going to be free to play when released but while in early access instead of charging around $30 they would be charging $80 and the game had loot crates that were based on real money in which you really needed in order to progress into the game.
what would you have thought? be honest.
as someone (myself) who is viewing this behavior from the outside in I gotta say its bizzare how effective marketing is.
A year ago, my answer would be no.. I never bought into early access before this point.. Also, my hatred of RNG loot boxes would have kept me disinterested.. Much less saying they are needed to progress? No way.. So, my honest answer is I would have casually dismissed the game without much thought..
With my history of refusing early access, despising of loot crates, and general disregard for zombie games, it would appear to be a small miracle that it gained my attention at all.. But it did.. I don't fall victim to advertising generally and I am pretty frugal (some would say miserly) with my money.. I dislike hype as well..
I have not yet, nor will I ever purchase loot crates in this game (learned my lesson from Overwatch Halloween event.. Damn you skins-I-still-need!!).. I haven't needed them to progress though.. I get literal @#&;%-tons of them just playing normally..
So far, the game is fun.. That's all I care about really.. If some corporate suit, with no idea that gamers should be treated as honorable consumers, decides to lock advancement behind a pay-wall, then my wrath shall be compared to the white-hot fury of a thousand suns and I shall depart for greener (and less greedy) fields..
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
A year ago if you heard there was a Steam Early Access title in which the game was going to be free to play when released but while in early access instead of charging around $30 they would be charging $80 and the game had loot crates that were based on real money in which you really needed in order to progress into the game.
what would you have thought? be honest.
as someone (myself) who is viewing this behavior from the outside in I gotta say its bizzare how effective marketing is.
A year ago, my answer would be no.. I never bought into early access before this point.. Also, my hatred of RNG loot boxes would have kept me disinterested.. Much less saying they are needed to progress? No way.. So, my honest answer is I would have casually dismissed the game without much thought..
With my history of refusing early access, despising of loot crates, and general disregard for zombie games, it would appear to be a small miracle that it gained my attention at all.. But it did.. I don't fall victim to advertising generally and I am pretty frugal (some would say miserly) with my money.. I dislike hype as well..
I have not yet, nor will I ever purchase loot crates in this game (learned my lesson from Overwatch Halloween event.. Damn you skins-I-still-need!!).. I haven't needed them to progress though.. I get literal @#&;%-tons of them just playing normally..
So far, the game is fun.. That's all I care about really.. If some corporate suit, with no idea that gamers should be treated as honorable consumers, decides to lock advancement behind a pay-wall, then my wrath shall be compared to the fury of a thousand suns and I shall depart for greener (and less greedy) fields..
when I was younger I fed into the idea that the best games are always going to be from brandname companies. I very honestly completely believed that 100%. I felt that an indie company might be able to make as good of as a game but it really was not worth my time to spend days on end searching all the indies to find one that matched up to that ideal i felt was the benchmark found in name brand companies.
I held that believe for years.
But even then one thing I would not do is suggest one business practice is bad because its and indie an the EXACT same business practice is ok if its a brandname. I never took my bias that far.
I think the dialoge would be better served if people would be a little bit more introspective on why they are hesitant to buy a game from an unknown brand and not start talking about business ethics.
Now later in life what I have learned is amazing, these indie games actually are good and now that I have been swiming in that soup for awhile now I see the very business practices of exploitation people are concerned with around indies are actually what the name brands ARE doing and the indies are NOT doing. That is the power of marketing.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
But even then one thing I would not do is suggest one business practice is bad because its and indie an the EXACT same business practice is ok if its a brandname. I never took my bias that far.
I think the dialoge would be better served if people would be a little bit more introspective on why they are hesitant to buy a game from an unknown brand and not start talking about business ethics.
I believe this too, to an extent.. I also have no bias toward either AAAs or Indies.. I hold big companies to the same standard that I hold independent ones to.. The only point I must differ from your statement is on the idea of business ethics, because I think they are vastly important for both types..
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
But even then one thing I would not do is suggest one business practice is bad because its and indie an the EXACT same business practice is ok if its a brandname. I never took my bias that far.
I think the dialoge would be better served if people would be a little bit more introspective on why they are hesitant to buy a game from an unknown brand and not start talking about business ethics.
I believe this too, to an extent.. I also have no bias toward either AAAs or Indies.. I hold big companies to the same standard that I hold independent ones to.. The only point I must differ from your statement is on the idea of business ethics, because I think they are vastly important for both types..
and I agree, what I am saying is I have witness (and currently witnessing) extreeme and painfuly obvious double standard (not by you) but by some. Nearly literally people saying 'oh everything I said that was unethical business practices is fine as long as its a company I like).
but yeah, not u
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
So on a side note, I'm part of the official forums as well. 500K copies is great, it really is, but that's not even really the big news.
On the official forums there are 4 confirmed players that have spent over 1K dollars on the game, with one spending over 3K on loot boxes.
What compels people to spend that much money is beyond me, but they said they haven't even been able to go through them all and sort the inventory.
They also brought up an interesting point in regards to leveling. Apparently the "pay to win" formula actually ends up being detrimental in the end. The one thing you can't buy in this game is skill points.
That means that you end up outleveling your base level for the starting regions and when you do it makes all the commander XP you gain extremely minimal gimping your skill point gain.
I guess in a way it's a cautionary tale for those wanting to solely Pay to Advance. For those thinking it'll be much much faster this way, it ends up taking just as much if not more time to raise your commander level (which is required to upgrade heroes, weapons, survivors, etc).
But even then one thing I would not do is suggest one business practice is bad because its and indie an the EXACT same business practice is ok if its a brandname. I never took my bias that far.
I think the dialoge would be better served if people would be a little bit more introspective on why they are hesitant to buy a game from an unknown brand and not start talking about business ethics.
I believe this too, to an extent.. I also have no bias toward either AAAs or Indies.. I hold big companies to the same standard that I hold independent ones to.. The only point I must differ from your statement is on the idea of business ethics, because I think they are vastly important for both types..
and I agree, what I am saying is I have witness (and currently witnessing) extreeme and painfuly obvious double standard (not by you) but by some. Nearly literally people saying 'oh everything I said that was unethical business practices is fine as long as its a company I like).
but yeah, not u
Providing a shit product and charging for it = Unethical Providing a good product and charging for it= Ethical
Comments
I mentioned 2 early access games in my post, and the reason why I back them. I've played plenty of early access games. I have a bias towards good games. Not my fault the vast majority of early access titles... aren't.
its because people like you consider things UNETHICAL...UNLESS....Epic does it.
the arguements against Steam Early Access developers is not that 'they are bad games' its that their business practices are unethical. If such developers did things like , charge for a title that would be free to play in early access, charge more for the games in early access then standard game price, have casino style loot crates people like yourself would consider that UNETHICAL.
but you consider it ETHICAL and fine if Epic does it.
Its not a quesiton of 'good game' vs 'bad game' its
'its unethical only if its not Epic'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What you're talking about... makes no sense and I've never used the word unethical in regards to it.
I said:
'people who are critical of Steam Early Access...' which i dont know if you are one of those people or not but I assume you are.
NOw:
1. A game that is planned to be Free to Play charging for the game in early access
2. A game that charges more than average for a full retail game and considerably more than an average early access title
3. a game that contains loot crates that are nearly required to move forward
I assure you with EXTREME CONFIDENCE that if The Fun Pimps put out a game with those parameters that the SJW would have gone ape shit complaining about unjust business practices
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Steam has had plenty of free to play titles where you were required to buy in to get early access, there is nothing new there and I don't recall any hoopla about that in the past.
Had you read my other posts you'd also realize you're wrong in assuming anything about me. I back games from companies with good track records. Thats why I backed EPIC. They are a good developer. Larian Studios was another I backed as they are a good developer too.
I don't really see where the issue is here. Good games are good, bad games are bad. Most of the early access games on steam are very much so not good.
1. A game that is planned to be Free to Play charging for the game in early access
2. A game that charges more than average for a full retail game and considerably more than an average early access title
3. a game that contains loot crates that are nearly required to move forward
the above would be considered unethical business practices.
you are suggesting because the game is good it makes those business practices now ethical.
that is being ridiculously biased.
something just doesnt magically go from 'uthetical business practice'for you but perfectly ethical for me because my game quality is better.
its doesnt work that way
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
why is the exact same business practice considered unethical for one company but considered to be ethical for another company because of the quality of the game, even though the subject of the ethics is explictly stated to not be related to quality?
well:
1. because critics would NEVER make that point.
2. countless times I have heard people say quote 'it doesnt matter if the game is good or not its unethical...peroid'
we have to compare the EXACT same business practice that is considered to be unethical, dont add to it in desperation.
its not going to work
and I assure you it would not matter if the KS stated it was going to be free to play or not, the SJW would jump on it like fly to shit...absolutly and they would be loud about it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch.
Do you see the difference in ethics in these two situations?
1) you pay for an early access game that will eventually be free to play to get into the game a year in advance.
(SJW would consider this unethical regardless of if the game ever releases or not, regardless of quality regardless of anything. they would consider it unethical on its face full stop)
2) You pay for an early access game that may never release as it has no real release date to get into the game that may or may not ever launch.
(this is just fucking funny. you are saying 'all developers other than epic will not release their game despite them saying they plan to but Epic will because they say they will and have a date...lol)
are you just fucking with me now?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But.. For some inexplicable reason.. I saw the Fortnite cinematic and a few Youtuber vids of the gameplay and before I knew it, I had made a decision.. I wanted in.. I wanted to play the game, and throw in feedback to hopefully help it succeed.. I broke my rule about early access, and I am glad I did..
Fortnite is fun as hell to me.. There are some repetitive aspects, sure.. But show me a game without that really.. Of course it won't appeal to everyone.. But for the people who enjoy zombie shooters, creativity in construction, defense, exploration, and collecting characters and weapons, the game is truly awesome..
I never root for a game to fail, but I am overjoyed when one succeeds..
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
Most indie games are from development studios that have no released games. They have no release date. They barely have more than concepts and most are just using engines - including the engine created BY EPIC......
But going back to the payment model, there have been several games I've purchased based on the guarantee they will release. Dungeon Defenders 2, Don't Starve Together, Fortnite, D:OS2. Games from companies that actually put out games before.
Other games in perpetual early access is a different story. That you consider it "bias" is fine with me. I'm biased because I like good games created by known developers that will deliver.
Most crappy indie developers don't. The real bias here is that you want to attack fortnite for its success because its already outsold your indie early access title.
A year ago if you heard there was a Steam Early Access title in which the game was going to be free to play when released but while in early access instead of charging around $30 they would be charging $80 and the game had loot crates that were based on real money in which you really needed in order to progress into the game.
what would you have thought? be honest.
as someone (myself) who is viewing this behavior from the outside in I gotta say its bizzare how effective marketing is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1. indie says 'we will release this game'
2. Epic says 'we will release this game on X date'
you trust item 2 but not item 1.
but that doesnt even matter, the points I mentioned that would be seen as unethical DO NOT COME WITH EXCEPTIONS. they are considered unethical on their face, peroid end of story, not 'well its ok if Epic does it because they gave a date and thus paying for an early access title that will be F2P is perfectly fine because of a date given'....horse shit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The thing about SJW is that its supposed to apply mostly universal and more so when you SAY IT UNIVERSAL but then when someone says 'Epic' its 'oh well in that case they can charge 3x as much, release it as F2P after early access and have as many loot crates as posisble in it.' thats totally fine but others cant do any of that
The SWJ against indies in general are so unbelievably close mind and blind its beyond believe but its true and this thread is good evidence of it,.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You're making a conflicting argument. You're saying SJW against steam early access are okay with big companies doing early access with it's EPIC, but then you go on to say how it's biased against indie companies, meaning the only SJW here is you complaining big companies get preferential treatment.
When in reality people back well known companies because it's a smart decision. Suddenly it becomes a "bias" issue when people buy things from companies they trust rather than companies they've never heard of.... .... this line of logic is ridiculous to the maximum degree allowable on these forums. We've reached the maximum logic ridiculousness.
With my history of refusing early access, despising of loot crates, and general disregard for zombie games, it would appear to be a small miracle that it gained my attention at all.. But it did.. I don't fall victim to advertising generally and I am pretty frugal (some would say miserly) with my money.. I dislike hype as well..
I have not yet, nor will I ever purchase loot crates in this game (learned my lesson from Overwatch Halloween event.. Damn you skins-I-still-need!!).. I haven't needed them to progress though.. I get literal @#&;%-tons of them just playing normally..
So far, the game is fun.. That's all I care about really.. If some corporate suit, with no idea that gamers should be treated as honorable consumers, decides to lock advancement behind a pay-wall, then my wrath shall be compared to the white-hot fury of a thousand suns and I shall depart for greener (and less greedy) fields..
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
I held that believe for years.
But even then one thing I would not do is suggest one business practice is bad because its and indie an the EXACT same business practice is ok if its a brandname. I never took my bias that far.
I think the dialoge would be better served if people would be a little bit more introspective on why they are hesitant to buy a game from an unknown brand and not start talking about business ethics.
Now later in life what I have learned is amazing, these indie games actually are good and now that I have been swiming in that soup for awhile now I see the very business practices of exploitation people are concerned with around indies are actually what the name brands ARE doing and the indies are NOT doing. That is the power of marketing.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
but yeah, not u
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
On the official forums there are 4 confirmed players that have spent over 1K dollars on the game, with one spending over 3K on loot boxes.
What compels people to spend that much money is beyond me, but they said they haven't even been able to go through them all and sort the inventory.
They also brought up an interesting point in regards to leveling. Apparently the "pay to win" formula actually ends up being detrimental in the end. The one thing you can't buy in this game is skill points.
That means that you end up outleveling your base level for the starting regions and when you do it makes all the commander XP you gain extremely minimal gimping your skill point gain.
I guess in a way it's a cautionary tale for those wanting to solely Pay to Advance. For those thinking it'll be much much faster this way, it ends up taking just as much if not more time to raise your commander level (which is required to upgrade heroes, weapons, survivors, etc).
Providing a shit product and charging for it = Unethical
Providing a good product and charging for it= Ethical
It's that simple. Good lord you are dense.