Isn't the decision to play and see what the game offers completely within your sphere of control. Spoiling the game is entirely up to you. You can decide whether you want to do that or not.
Why is it Larian's responsibility to manage your expectations?
I have never joined a beta either, but had no problem with them because just like EA you don't have to join at that stage. The difference is you did not pay for a beta and it did not effect the concept of launch, reviews and getting a score. Early access does. I do realise that paying for beta in some form has been around for years, EA just codifies that bad practice.
I'm not sure what you're going on about to be honest. You're making a big deal where there isn't one.
What you should be concerned about are how poorly crowd-funded MMOs have done and the poor practices they've put in place.
You go on about the monetization model which is a flat fee B2P, while indie MMO developers have done worse by endlessly milking players for hundred dollar packages with very little to show. If anything sets a bad precedence for players, it is these incompetent MMO studios willing to take money and never deliver and then fold with their sob stories.
Then you raise an alarm about spoiling the game, while MMO developers are doing as much if not more so with their package sales events in the guise of a free weekend. This is all within our own control in either situation so not really an issue.
Did you ever notice that Red and other article writers on this site seemingly have no problem getting in as early as possible to every game before they're actually completely finished? Not once, in all the years of this site, have we heard this issue brought up until now.
The real travesty is how these "indie" MMO studios prey on the hopes of desperate MMO gamers dangling a promise they will never deliver. That is why I say this concern is better directed at them. Even if you made other genres play by another set of rules it won't save those MMO studios. Most are doomed regardless and vanish like smoke, along with all the cash they've sucked out of players for a decade.
I am not "raising the alarm about spoiling the game" those who feel like I do in that regard simply won't get the EA. I agree with you about the issues with CF MMOs but that should not deflect us from EA concerns, in fact having had more time to think about this I regard EA as the more serious long term issue.
My reasoning is that CF in genres outside of MMOs seems to have been far more successful, getting more solid launched game results. Now I could be wrong here, if so do point that out. So the CF problem in the main effects MMOs, where as the EA problem will increasingly effect all of gaming. So for me the greater issue down the line will be the effect of EA on how we play.
As to the reaction of article writers on this site I agree they have been and are slow in bringing up the issues with CF MMOs, though some like Tim have raised concerns. You keep bringing this up when replying about my EA concerns. I am not the editor in chief of MMORPG.com so not sure why you do.
Again, and I don't mean to sound flippant but, "so what?"
What would you like us to do? I'm not going on a "gaming strike" until developers comply with my wishes, and I'm not going to join some movement to make developers change their ways.
I believe that voting with one's wallet steers the ship. Not opening the wallet means you don't have a voice.
I buy the games I'm interested in. I play the games that are intriguing. I'm not a big believer in standing on ceremony: "I won't buy X game from Y developers because Z!" unless they are taking the proceeds and shipping guns over the border.
These are their products and their companies. Sure, if no one bought then they would have to rethink things but in truth, it's not a big deal for most people.
Most people who buy video games don't fret over them the way "enthusiasts" do.
And I'm certainly not going to fret over it. If the time comes when a game is released with or without something that that causes me to "take issue" I just won't buy.
But until that time happens, I really don't care.
While player discontent has rarely given studios pause for thought, it did with loot boxes, it can again. Not opening your wallet is as effective a vote as opening it, don't put in if you think a funding model is problematic. I would say the same for abusive F2P models and "never ending story" CF MMOs, would you also give them a pass and keep paying in? What you do yourself is up to you, but forgive me if I think it is important players realise they are making a choice with EA that is going to be detrimental to gaming.
One final point, I do realise that players are helping to fund a genre dear to my heart, one which has struggled to retain relevance in todays dumbed down gaming market. For me RPG's were my first love in gaming and seeing games like DOS make a splash is a joy. I try not to give things a pass because they are a favourite of mine, just like we all rather gave the CF MMOs a pass when the concept was first mooted because we love MMOs and look how that worked out.
Paying for beta isn't going to change because it is too profitable for them to go back. As for beta and early access players having an influence on the outcome. They would have the same influence they always did because the staff that is reading the reports and feedback haven't exponentially increased. If anything they may have decreased so it is possible much of the feedback goes unread.
As for thinking that the money they are giving is going to sway the developer into developing the game in one direction then that game and developer isn't worth any of our time. It is really bordering on some form paranoia that you imagine all these developers especially Larian are made of these types.
Of course they have always been dodgy developers and there will always be those in the mix. But raising a stink here about Larian is truly unmerited.
' Once again a funding model is changing the nature of what a game is and how we play it.' (Sorry I was unable to quote this on an edit)
I would like to ask how this differs from when developers were being supported by large publishers and were told what features and time table they had to adhere to. Even forcing them to drop features because of time constraints or changing their focus. Funding has always decided this in some ways from long before crowdfunding but every compromise and decision is still within a developers purview. Why is this any different from when big business was funding them? Are you of the opinion that early access by individual players have more influence than a huge publisher? Does that not seem highly unlikely.
Early access games should also be judged as released but also graded on their quality. That will not take away from the fact that the game is still unfinished and this should also be reflected in the assessment of the game. I don't see any problem in grading an early access game and then revisiting it months later when it is released as completed.
Of course early access will have a definite impact on how we play but just as there were many beta players who only got beta to play the game there are a lot of players who join early access just to play the game. There is very little appreciable difference in my opinion in how beta and early access differ in this regard. There were never more conscientious beta players over early access in fact I would argue quite convincingly that having paid for the privilege the early access players would be more diligent in finding bugs but that would be a fallacy too since it has no bearing on the good developers and their vision.
While there are players who have with pride I might add emphatically stated they are never going to fund any game and will avoid early access and its ilk, where the f is the money going to come from for Indie games. However they are perfectly at ease in critiquing the fact that players are in fact funding game development but they wish to put their two feet in without any investment. Even with that investment it is up to each developer to decide how much of an impact that investment allows. Which is fine but don't expect anything to change in the near future and we are never going back to how things were. You can't stuff that fat genie back into the shrinking bottle.
However if I may be allowed to add it has never been more important for us as gamers to support good developers and to call out every bad developer who do the very bad things we have hinted that Larian may try and to equally defend those that are good and have demonstrated their good intentions and practice by actions. Actions do indeed speak louder than words.
Paying for beta isn't going to change because it is too profitable for them to go back. As for beta and early access players having an influence on the outcome. They would have the same influence they always did because the staff that is reading the reports and feedback haven't exponentially increased. If anything they may have decreased so it is possible much of the feedback goes unread.
As for thinking that the money they are giving is going to sway the developer into developing the game in one direction then that game and developer isn't worth any of our time. It is really bordering on some form paranoia that you imagine all these developers especially Larian are made of these types.
Of course they have always been dodgy developers and there will always be those in the mix. But raising a stink here about Larian is truly unmerited.
' Once again a funding model is changing the nature of what a game is and how we play it.' (Sorry I was unable to quote this on an edit)
I would like to ask how this differs from when developers were being supported by large publishers and were told what features and time table they had to adhere to. Even forcing them to drop features because of time constraints or changing their focus. Funding has always decided this in some ways from long before crowdfunding but every compromise and decision is still within a developers purview. Why is this any different from when big business was funding them? Are you of the opinion that early access by individual players have more influence than a huge publisher? Does that not seem highly unlikely.
Early access games should also be judged as released but also graded on their quality. That will not take away from the fact that the game is still unfinished and this should also be reflected in the assessment of the game. I don't see any problem in grading an early access game and then revisiting it months later when it is released as completed.
Of course early access will have a definite impact on how we play but just as there were many beta players who only got beta to play the game there are a lot of players who join early access just to play the game. There is very little appreciable difference in my opinion in how beta and early access differ in this regard. There were never more conscientious beta players over early access in fact I would argue quite convincingly that having paid for the privilege the early access players would be more diligent in finding bugs but that would be a fallacy too since it has no bearing on the good developers and their vision.
While there are players who have with pride I might add emphatically stated they are never going to fund any game and will avoid early access and its ilk, where the f is the money going to come from for Indie games. However they are perfectly at ease in critiquing the fact that players are in fact funding game development but they wish to put their two feet in without any investment. Even with that investment it is up to each developer to decide how much of an impact that investment allows. Which is fine but don't expect anything to change in the near future and we are never going back to how things were. You can't stuff that fat genie back into the shrinking bottle.
However if I may be allowed to add it has never been more important for us as gamers to support good developers and to call out every bad developer who do the very bad things we have hinted that Larian may try and to equally defend those that are good and have demonstrated their good intentions and practice by actions. Actions do indeed speak louder than words.
I must say I just can't see what your getting at in your second paragraph, has anyone on this thread said that developers would be swayed in some way by buying EA? Players put in feedback, I have no issue with that if that's what you were referring to?
"But raising a stink here about Larian is truly unmerited." I am going to have to say now that I now believe some posters are putting fingers to keys without even reading my posts. They have a knee jerk reaction to anything that they think is negative to Larian even though no one thinks badly of the studio. No one who questions EA has been questioning Larian, I can't see how I can be clearer than that.
I can't see why you are bringing up large publishers here, if it is of any help in clarification I think all publishers will eventually adopt EA this is not just about the smaller ones.
Your last two paragraphs do speak to me, as I said in my last post, RPG's are my favourite gaming genre and it was DOS and PoE that got me to accept that isometric RPG's if done well enough were must play games. Personally, the gaming industry has mucked us around too much for me to do pre-orders or whatever. But as you say without putting in such games would not get made (I do query if an EA is needed after Larian's previous successes however).
It is a conundrum, I don't have a solution. All I can say is once BG3 is released and the first years dlc's come out I will snap the whole thing up. I just can't be bothered with re-installing a game a year later just to play a dlc.
While player discontent has rarely given studios pause for thought, it did with loot boxes, it can again. Not opening your wallet is as effective a vote as opening it, don't put in if you think a funding model is problematic. I would say the same for abusive F2P models and "never ending story" CF MMOs, would you also give them a pass and keep paying in? What you do yourself is up to you, but forgive me if I think it is important players realise they are making a choice with EA that is going to be detrimental to gaming.
One final point, I do realise that players are helping to fund a genre dear to my heart, one which has struggled to retain relevance in todays dumbed down gaming market. For me RPG's were my first love in gaming and seeing games like DOS make a splash is a joy. I try not to give things a pass because they are a favourite of mine, just like we all rather gave the CF MMOs a pass when the concept was first mooted because we love MMOs and look how that worked out.
So in summary Vote with your wallet, but only the way Scot want you to, otherwise you are doing it wrong... Give me a break.
Where was your faux outrage with Divinity 1 and 2? What about Mount and Blade 2?
What about the 1400+ other titles with an RPG tag that are in Steam's Early Access category?
This all stinks of a bunch of BG 1+2 Fan boys who are throwing a tantrum because it isn't what you wanted in a BG sequel.
"All I can say is once BG3 is released and the first years dlc's come out I will snap the whole thing up." No doubt you are right.
How can you say you're not questioning Larian when this thread is about BG 3 and Larian. What thread are we having our discussion in? Why deny that, by questioning early access which is what Larian has adopted and chosen as their model for releasing their game early you are not only questioning them but also their motives. Every insinuation this and the one Red Thomas had was about Larian, it had posters in that going as far as to suggest that Larian will no longer be motivated to finish their game because they are already making money on an unfinished one.
Please don't try to now say no aspersion was cast when the discussion is clearly about BG3 and the type of game that BG3 is which is RPG. Don't like it when you get called on it but it is fine to make veiled suggestions about early access and how this will only make companies less inclined to make good games because they can profit with a lot less effort with this model.
See this post in that Red Thomas thread
Giving the full amount to Larian now for 1/3 of a game also shrinks Larian's desire to actually finish the last 2/3rds. At some point, they would have their maximum return, why bother to build more? What if they liked the results of EA so much, they want to do another EA sale on Act 2 (at another $60)? Can we really accept companies charging $180 for a complete game?
Customers get the behavior they reward.
Create a separate thread on early access and its many evils if you do not wish to involve Larian in it. Otherwise do not be surprised when people defend Larian. I also have no wish to separate the early access issue from the company because you handle the behaviour of each company individually and not paint the villain brush on every company because of a business model.
How can you say you're not questioning Larian when this thread is about BG 3 and Larian. What thread are we having our discussion in? Why deny that, by questioning early access which is what Larian has adopted and chosen as their model for releasing their game early you are not only questioning them but also their motives. Every insinuation this and the one Red Thomas had was about Larian, it had posters in that going as far as to suggest that Larian will no longer be motivated to finish their game because they are already making money on an unfinished one.
Please don't try to now say no aspersion was cast when the discussion is clearly about BG3 and the type of game that BG3 is which is RPG. Don't like it when you get called on it but it is fine to make veiled suggestions about early access and how this will only make companies less inclined to make good games because they can profit with a lot less effort with this model.
Create a separate thread on early access and its many evils if you do not wish to involve Larian in it. Otherwise do not be surprised when people defend Larian.
Well funnily enough I was going to do a separate thread about EA as I think we all need to more threads but then I saw Red's and thought that would do for now. From what you are saying it sounds like Larian invented EA, they are not that closely allied, no one is saying EA as a funding method is some how Larian's fault.
For Red (and I think only him), the idea of an RPG doing this went too far, for me all EA is questionable. But as I said in that thread, games which are story heavy are particular bad choices in my eyes for EA. For you this may not be an issue, maybe the story is not spoiled? But then I am the sort of person who avoids articles which talk about a games story so I don't see spoilers.
I went back to Red's thread, I noticed you also on there saying "All the people who feel that Larian is a bad company that is taking advantage of their fans". What people? One poster felt they might be less incentivised to finish as early as they could now they have EA money, I think that's possible but very unlikely. You are seeing all these enemies in the trees who are not there. I may have missed a post or two, if I am wrong do point out who had a go at Larian?
While I can understand fans of Larian indeed roleplaying games coming to their defence, I can only say this is about EA not the studio. Ask yourself this, why would I want to have a go at Larian? As a role-player and RPG gamer I applaud us seeing such games coming out. We even had that other poster thinking I must be a BG1/2 fan appalled at the changes made, when I don't follow games in development closely because of the spoilers; I don't know how they are different.
EA is an issue, forgive me but you and others who keep coming back to Larian are the one who keep making this about Larian, not us. There is no other game I know of that is EA and has a guide and reviews with no score out, maybe I missed the boat and there are many? That's why I did my first post here.
Larian is a business and even if they might not need to use early access as a company working to make profits they are not dolts who would pass up this opportunity.
Right now even in this unfinished, unpolished early access 15,949 positive reviews versus 2503 negatives ones. The last 24 hours on steam charts showed 29,327 playing the game with an all time high of 49,418.
https://steamcharts.com/app/1086940 If anything Larian has shown that early access is a model that works and works very well for their type of game. However one cannot deny that their own reputation has a lot to do with that success.
One cannot discuss Early Access in a vacuum and you cannot discuss this topic without discussing the pitfalls and negative enabling this type of funding can cause. How each company uses this tool in their business should be judged and decided on a case by case basis. I am also aware that this indeed is a slippery slope but as long as this has to do with Larian and with my own experiences with them I am prepared to eat my hat(which I don't use) that they will give us a good game when it is complete and some judging by the numbers and reviews already think they have.
It really does not matter whether some people like Early Access and some people do not like it. It is not going anywhere. We have seen questionable practices and we have seen rousing successes. Opinions mean nothing beyond your personal decision to embrace it or to not embrace it. Like it or not, It is here to stay in all genres.
Outside of the EA/funding debate, I watched about 5 minutes of gameplay outside the tutorial; the usual Larian humor (which I don't find that amusing) appeared to be absent. More likely to get it now.
I'll probably wait til the thing's finished though, as I have tons of other stuff in the meantime.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
This is in response to what Scot said in regards to young people ruining his hobby.
The whole time i was reading your comment I imagined you shaking a cane at the local neighbor kids because they are having too much fun.
Its a slippery slope young grasshopper. Before you know it the big studios will all be following in Larian's footsteps, giving away free definitive editions and making amazing, ground breaking games without lootboxes, cashshops, flurries of paid post-launch DLC, and season passes. It will ruin the game industry!
Remember that the slippery slope is a real threat for all those poor cane wielding old foggies
Also do not forget the slippery slope goes both way, it's not ageist.
Also keep in mind eventually you will get blamed for the ills of the world, that you had absofrackinglutley no control over, by peeps younger than you who will call you boomer ad nauseam.
It's nothing new, like a wheel it goes round and round and the new folks on the wheel always think they will do better, are better and can't believe how "bad" the older foggies and think it will be so very different when they are in charge....lol but eventually, hopefully you get wiser and realize that's all a load of BS that's been happening since man discovered fire.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
This is in response to what Scot said in regards to young people ruining his hobby.
The whole time i was reading your comment I imagined you shaking a cane at the local neighbor kids because they are having too much fun.
Its a slippery slope young grasshopper. Before you know it the big studios will all be following in Larian's footsteps, giving away free definitive editions and making amazing, ground breaking games without lootboxes, cashshops, flurries of paid post-launch DLC, and season passes. It will ruin the game industry!
Remember that the slippery slope is a real threat for all those poor cane wielding old foggies
Also do not forget the slippery slope goes both way, it's not ageist.
Also keep in mind eventually you will get blamed for the ills of the world, that you had absofrackinglutley no control over, by peeps younger than you who will call you boomer ad nauseam.
It's nothing new, like a wheel it goes round and round and the new folks on the wheel always think they will do better, are better and can't believe how "bad" the older foggies and think it will be so very different when they are in charge....lol but eventually, hopefully you get wiser and realize that's all a load of BS that's been happening since man discovered fire.
I completely hear what you are saying about the boomer comments, and I'm Gen X and have still heard it. And I do get to some extent the point that the younger generation can do it better... but I actually never thought that, I was raised to respect my Elders and actually I knew my own parents messed up, but their Parents (My Grandparents on both sides how I miss them) I respected completely and admired them greatly and never felt that their generation messed up, well other than giving birth to my parents, but thank God they did or I wouldn't be here
Larian is easily one of the most trustworthy and "bang-for-buck" studios in the whole gaming genre. Even as currently unemployed, I'll buy Baldur's Gate 3.
I so want to check out this game, but full price for early access I'm hesitant. I pledged a long time ago when I wasted $165 for an early access founder's bundle, for ArcheAge, to never be duped again. I have stuck to that, only pre-ordering a game once (CP2077) that entire time.
I just don't want to do it and then get turned off by bugs or the general un-polished state of the game and then not want to play it when it's release state finally comes out.
Well the "spoiling the game" argument is a fair one, Red talked about that and I would feel the same. I don't think it would put be off anything as good as BG3 though, I would just feel less excitement and sense of wonder than I would after launch.
I remember playing my first dungeon in Rift, the guild had started Rifts early and I was one of a handful of late comers. I was loving it, which must have become apparent because one of the guild said, "Oh yes, you have not done this before!". That sense of surprise, the enjoyment of exploring are very central to what appeals to me in any game. There is an incredible sense of delayed satisfaction when you finally get to play.
I'm having a truly difficult time seeing your point as it seems you expect Larian to somehow personally modify your expectations of their game.
If you over-think games like this now, I bet you aren't even enjoying them.
Outside of the EA/funding debate, I watched about 5 minutes of gameplay outside the tutorial; the usual Larian humor (which I don't find that amusing) appeared to be absent. More likely to get it now.
I'll probably wait til the thing's finished though, as I have tons of other stuff in the meantime.
I didn't mind their DOS humour, quite understated. Too much can make a game seem comic and that's not what most RPG's aim for.
Larian is a business and even if they might not need to use early access as a company working to make profits they are not dolts who would pass up this opportunity.
Right now even in this unfinished, unpolished early access 15,949 positive reviews versus 2503 negatives ones. The last 24 hours on steam charts showed 29,327 playing the game with an all time high of 49,418.
https://steamcharts.com/app/1086940 If anything Larian has shown that early access is a model that works and works very well for their type of game. However one cannot deny that their own reputation has a lot to do with that success.
One cannot discuss Early Access in a vacuum and you cannot discuss this topic without discussing the pitfalls and negative enabling this type of funding can cause. How each company uses this tool in their business should be judged and decided on a case by case basis. I am also aware that this indeed is a slippery slope but as long as this has to do with Larian and with my own experiences with them I am prepared to eat my hat(which I don't use) that they will give us a good game when it is complete and some judging by the numbers and reviews already think they have.
I don't even think we disagree here, you are right it is down to what the company does with EA. But the same can be said of F2P, it entices companies into bad practice. Some funding methods lead the gaming industry down the wrong path, EA is one of them. But I accept Larian has a good record, I don't see this being an issue with them.
Have a think about what players who bought the EA for Marvel Heroes must be thinking right now. EA is already having a detrimental impact, this will only get worse.
It really does not matter whether some people like Early Access and some people do not like it. It is not going anywhere. We have seen questionable practices and we have seen rousing successes. Opinions mean nothing beyond your personal decision to embrace it or to not embrace it. Like it or not, It is here to stay in all genres.
not with this atitude
To illustrate further, you could replace Early Access with Released. Same result. Some good, some bad. Some over charge and under deliver Some under charge and over deliver Label it what you want but the Goldilocks rule is still in effect. Some too this Some too that Some just right
This is true of all titles in all media regardless if it is Early or Release The fact remains that Early Access has it's fans and is not going anywhere. I think all this huffing and puffing about it is silly. Embrace it or walk off. The wheel keeps turning.... I say? Buy the ticket, Take the ride.
there is a reason I say to wait at least a year before buying a game nowadays, first most bugs will be fixed, then we get a discount, plus most DLC are already out, so you don't have to spend extra, plus they also tend to be with discounts.
so a game in total you sucker pay 200, I pay around 30
While player discontent has rarely given studios pause for thought, it did with loot boxes, it can again. Not opening your wallet is as effective a vote as opening it, don't put in if you think a funding model is problematic. I would say the same for abusive F2P models and "never ending story" CF MMOs, would you also give them a pass and keep paying in? What you do yourself is up to you, but forgive me if I think it is important players realise they are making a choice with EA that is going to be detrimental to gaming.
One final point, I do realise that players are helping to fund a genre dear to my heart, one which has struggled to retain relevance in todays dumbed down gaming market. For me RPG's were my first love in gaming and seeing games like DOS make a splash is a joy. I try not to give things a pass because they are a favourite of mine, just like we all rather gave the CF MMOs a pass when the concept was first mooted because we love MMOs and look how that worked out.
I don't think that's the case regarding spending.
"not" opening your wallet means you don't count. Now, if "everyone" was to "not open their wallet" sure that would be more telling. But that doesn't happen because the average player doesn't care and they are spending money.
So they look at where people are spending their money and how people are spending their money.
At least as far as the industry is concerned. I'm sure individual developers have more info on how many people bought x game and how many people bought x.2 game.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
In another thread people are complaining about Borderlands 3 new DLC bundle (season pass). My advice then is for them to wait until there is a DLC rollup edition like most games get, like Borderlands 2. If you bought it 6 years after release, you could get it cheap on sale for $15. The same sort of deal will eventually be offered for Balder's Gate 3 like or NWN "complete edition" and all the other D&D games. But if you want in now then pay release pricing.
For all the forum posters and their capitalist gaslighting on this site you would think there would be a better understanding of supply and demand economics.
What is worse, by not spending many "fans" are making the industry worse. A dollar not spent is a dollar not measured. And when everybody waits for a deep sale those day one sales are getting all the attention from the developers, no need to invest later on, the return is much lower then, might as well get the day one sales and immediately move on.
Money makes the world go round, actively support your hobby.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
In another thread people are complaining about Borderlands 3 new DLC bundle (season pass). My advice then is for them to wait until there is a DLC rollup edition like most games get, like Borderlands 2. If you bought it 6 years after release, you could get it cheap on sale for $15. The same sort of deal will eventually be offered for Balder's Gate 3 like or NWN "complete edition" and all the other D&D games. But if you want in now then pay release pricing.
For all the forum posters and their capitalist gaslighting on this site you would think there would be a better understanding of supply and demand economics.
I see the discussion of different monetization models in gaming as being no less worthy of discussion than any other aspect of gaming and I also see the unreasoned one liners like "cash grab" as the equivalent of "this game sucks" one liners.
Different people will obviously have strong feelings about how a game is monetized just like they do about animation cancelling but if the opinion is put forward clearly with supporting arguments I have zero problems reading opinions different from mine. It's not like there is just one monetization method.
As to gaslighting... I'm not sure how you apply deliberate lying in order to make someone else think they're crazy to this subject
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
In another thread people are complaining about Borderlands 3 new DLC bundle (season pass). My advice then is for them to wait until there is a DLC rollup edition like most games get, like Borderlands 2. If you bought it 6 years after release, you could get it cheap on sale for $15. The same sort of deal will eventually be offered for Balder's Gate 3 like or NWN "complete edition" and all the other D&D games. But if you want in now then pay release pricing.
For all the forum posters and their capitalist gaslighting on this site you would think there would be a better understanding of supply and demand economics.
I see the discussion of different monetization models in gaming as being no less worthy of discussion than any other aspect of gaming and I also see the unreasoned one liners like "cash grab" as the equivalent of "this game sucks" one liners.
Different people will obviously have strong feelings about how a game is monetized just like they do about animation cancelling but if the opinion is put forward clearly with supporting arguments I have zero problems reading opinions different from mine. It's not like there is just one monetization method.
As to gaslighting... I'm not sure how you apply deliberate lying in order to make someone else think they're crazy to this subject
It's the "You're bad or the reason why monetization is bad" argument for people who support an sales model that isn't liked.
In one thread we have posters telling French workers to suck it up because that's the way capitalism works. In other threads we have people complaining about supply and demand economics castigating people who support that system as if it's their fault capitalism works that way. It's two halves of the same coin.
I often wait to buy games until they're rolled up. Sometimes I buy in early and pay the big price. Sometimes I wait for deep sales. Now I'm enjoying Microsoft's Game Pass. I don't feel good or bad about those choice or that I'm engendering a good or bad system in any case. As long as the seller is honest about what they provide for the price, then I can take or leave the deal. It's when the seller makes promises they may or may not (be able to) deliver that I personally feel crosses a line, or if they're misleading about what they provide (gacha / loot crates).
Not sure if that cleared anything up or is more confusing.
I get where you're coming from about personalizing blame for trends we don't like but that's neither specific to gaming nor capitalism. Anyone involved in politics knows about deliberate polarization and demonizing the opposition.
In gaming, for example I detest loot boxes, how lucrative they are and the influence they have had and continue to have on content delivery exclusivity. If I'm being honest I also consider those who buy and support loot boxes as part of what I perceive as a problem.
There are tons of threads on the ESO forums every time a new "Crown Crate Season" (read: monthly) rolls around with many posters going gaga over the (typically over the top garish) new mounts or new costumes, etc. I usually politely stay away from those threads because they're just lost souls circle jerking as far as I'm concerned.
But I do see their "demand" as being a problem and those who demand it as part of it.
I think it's just human nature to see those who adopt and promote trends we don't like as part of the problem.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
I am not "raising the alarm about spoiling the game" those who feel like I do in that regard simply won't get the EA. I agree with you about the issues with CF MMOs but that should not deflect us from EA concerns, in fact having had more time to think about this I regard EA as the more serious long term issue.
My reasoning is that CF in genres outside of MMOs seems to have been far more successful, getting more solid launched game results. Now I could be wrong here, if so do point that out. So the CF problem in the main effects MMOs, where as the EA problem will increasingly effect all of gaming. So for me the greater issue down the line will be the effect of EA on how we play.
As to the reaction of article writers on this site I agree they have been and are slow in bringing up the issues with CF MMOs, though some like Tim have raised concerns. You keep bringing this up when replying about my EA concerns. I am not the editor in chief of MMORPG.com so not sure why you do.
While player discontent has rarely given studios pause for thought, it did with loot boxes, it can again. Not opening your wallet is as effective a vote as opening it, don't put in if you think a funding model is problematic. I would say the same for abusive F2P models and "never ending story" CF MMOs, would you also give them a pass and keep paying in? What you do yourself is up to you, but forgive me if I think it is important players realise they are making a choice with EA that is going to be detrimental to gaming.
One final point, I do realise that players are helping to fund a genre dear to my heart, one which has struggled to retain relevance in todays dumbed down gaming market. For me RPG's were my first love in gaming and seeing games like DOS make a splash is a joy. I try not to give things a pass because they are a favourite of mine, just like we all rather gave the CF MMOs a pass when the concept was first mooted because we love MMOs and look how that worked out.
As for thinking that the money they are giving is going to sway the developer into developing the game in one direction then that game and developer isn't worth any of our time. It is really bordering on some form paranoia that you imagine all these developers especially Larian are made of these types.
Of course they have always been dodgy developers and there will always be those in the mix. But raising a stink here about Larian is truly unmerited.
' Once again a funding model is changing the nature of what a game is and how we play it.' (Sorry I was unable to quote this on an edit)
I would like to ask how this differs from when developers were being supported by large publishers and were told what features and time table they had to adhere to. Even forcing them to drop features because of time constraints or changing their focus. Funding has always decided this in some ways from long before crowdfunding but every compromise and decision is still within a developers purview. Why is this any different from when big business was funding them? Are you of the opinion that early access by individual players have more influence than a huge publisher? Does that not seem highly unlikely.
Early access games should also be judged as released but also graded on their quality. That will not take away from the fact that the game is still unfinished and this should also be reflected in the assessment of the game. I don't see any problem in grading an early access game and then revisiting it months later when it is released as completed.
Of course early access will have a definite impact on how we play but just as there were many beta players who only got beta to play the game there are a lot of players who join early access just to play the game. There is very little appreciable difference in my opinion in how beta and early access differ in this regard. There were never more conscientious beta players over early access in fact I would argue quite convincingly that having paid for the privilege the early access players would be more diligent in finding bugs but that would be a fallacy too since it has no bearing on the good developers and their vision.
While there are players who have with pride I might add emphatically stated they are never going to fund any game and will avoid early access and its ilk, where the f is the money going to come from for Indie games. However they are perfectly at ease in critiquing the fact that players are in fact funding game development but they wish to put their two feet in without any investment. Even with that investment it is up to each developer to decide how much of an impact that investment allows. Which is fine but don't expect anything to change in the near future and we are never going back to how things were. You can't stuff that fat genie back into the shrinking bottle.
However if I may be allowed to add it has never been more important for us as gamers to support good developers and to call out every bad developer who do the very bad things we have hinted that Larian may try and to equally defend those that are good and have demonstrated their good intentions and practice by actions. Actions do indeed speak louder than words.
"But raising a stink here about Larian is truly unmerited." I am going to have to say now that I now believe some posters are putting fingers to keys without even reading my posts. They have a knee jerk reaction to anything that they think is negative to Larian even though no one thinks badly of the studio. No one who questions EA has been questioning Larian, I can't see how I can be clearer than that.
I can't see why you are bringing up large publishers here, if it is of any help in clarification I think all publishers will eventually adopt EA this is not just about the smaller ones.
Your last two paragraphs do speak to me, as I said in my last post, RPG's are my favourite gaming genre and it was DOS and PoE that got me to accept that isometric RPG's if done well enough were must play games. Personally, the gaming industry has mucked us around too much for me to do pre-orders or whatever. But as you say without putting in such games would not get made (I do query if an EA is needed after Larian's previous successes however).
It is a conundrum, I don't have a solution. All I can say is once BG3 is released and the first years dlc's come out I will snap the whole thing up. I just can't be bothered with re-installing a game a year later just to play a dlc.
Please don't try to now say no aspersion was cast when the discussion is clearly about BG3 and the type of game that BG3 is which is RPG. Don't like it when you get called on it but it is fine to make veiled suggestions about early access and how this will only make companies less inclined to make good games because they can profit with a lot less effort with this model.
See this post in that Red Thomas thread
Create a separate thread on early access and its many evils if you do not wish to involve Larian in it. Otherwise do not be surprised when people defend Larian. I also have no wish to separate the early access issue from the company because you handle the behaviour of each company individually and not paint the villain brush on every company because of a business model.
For Red (and I think only him), the idea of an RPG doing this went too far, for me all EA is questionable. But as I said in that thread, games which are story heavy are particular bad choices in my eyes for EA. For you this may not be an issue, maybe the story is not spoiled? But then I am the sort of person who avoids articles which talk about a games story so I don't see spoilers.
I went back to Red's thread, I noticed you also on there saying "All the people who feel that Larian is a bad company that is taking advantage of their fans". What people? One poster felt they might be less incentivised to finish as early as they could now they have EA money, I think that's possible but very unlikely. You are seeing all these enemies in the trees who are not there. I may have missed a post or two, if I am wrong do point out who had a go at Larian?
While I can understand fans of Larian indeed roleplaying games coming to their defence, I can only say this is about EA not the studio. Ask yourself this, why would I want to have a go at Larian? As a role-player and RPG gamer I applaud us seeing such games coming out. We even had that other poster thinking I must be a BG1/2 fan appalled at the changes made, when I don't follow games in development closely because of the spoilers; I don't know how they are different.
EA is an issue, forgive me but you and others who keep coming back to Larian are the one who keep making this about Larian, not us. There is no other game I know of that is EA and has a guide and reviews with no score out, maybe I missed the boat and there are many? That's why I did my first post here.
Right now even in this unfinished, unpolished early access 15,949 positive reviews versus 2503 negatives ones. The last 24 hours on steam charts showed 29,327 playing the game with an all time high of 49,418.
https://steamcharts.com/app/1086940
If anything Larian has shown that early access is a model that works and works very well for their type of game. However one cannot deny that their own reputation has a lot to do with that success.
One cannot discuss Early Access in a vacuum and you cannot discuss this topic without discussing the pitfalls and negative enabling this type of funding can cause. How each company uses this tool in their business should be judged and decided on a case by case basis. I am also aware that this indeed is a slippery slope but as long as this has to do with Larian and with my own experiences with them I am prepared to eat my hat(which I don't use) that they will give us a good game when it is complete and some judging by the numbers and reviews already think they have.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
not with this atitude
I'll probably wait til the thing's finished though, as I have tons of other stuff in the meantime.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
If you over-think games like this now, I bet you aren't even enjoying them.
I didn't mind their DOS humour, quite understated. Too much can make a game seem comic and that's not what most RPG's aim for.
I don't even think we disagree here, you are right it is down to what the company does with EA. But the same can be said of F2P, it entices companies into bad practice. Some funding methods lead the gaming industry down the wrong path, EA is one of them. But I accept Larian has a good record, I don't see this being an issue with them.
Have a think about what players who bought the EA for Marvel Heroes must be thinking right now. EA is already having a detrimental impact, this will only get worse.
"not" opening your wallet means you don't count. Now, if "everyone" was to "not open their wallet" sure that would be more telling. But that doesn't happen because the average player doesn't care and they are spending money.
So they look at where people are spending their money and how people are spending their money.
At least as far as the industry is concerned. I'm sure individual developers have more info on how many people bought x game and how many people bought x.2 game.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Money makes the world go round, actively support your hobby.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Different people will obviously have strong feelings about how a game is monetized just like they do about animation cancelling but if the opinion is put forward clearly with supporting arguments I have zero problems reading opinions different from mine. It's not like there is just one monetization method.
As to gaslighting... I'm not sure how you apply deliberate lying in order to make someone else think they're crazy to this subject
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
In gaming, for example I detest loot boxes, how lucrative they are and the influence they have had and continue to have on content delivery exclusivity. If I'm being honest I also consider those who buy and support loot boxes as part of what I perceive as a problem.
There are tons of threads on the ESO forums every time a new "Crown Crate Season" (read: monthly) rolls around with many posters going gaga over the (typically over the top garish) new mounts or new costumes, etc. I usually politely stay away from those threads because they're just lost souls circle jerking as far as I'm concerned.
But I do see their "demand" as being a problem and those who demand it as part of it.
I think it's just human nature to see those who adopt and promote trends we don't like as part of the problem.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Part of me wants to play the game so bad...
The other side wants me to wait until release so I don't ruin the experience for myself...
There's so many good games out and coming out that I think I'll sit this one out until release. I look forward to it.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee