Earth: Year 2066 Removed From Steam For Dishonest Marketing

[Adept Mechanicus]

They will sing songs about this day. Thank god for Jim.

 

[CommanderL]

while I think early accsess is a good idea
for example minecraft,kenshi Overgrowth , and kerbal space program steam should 2 week free money back policy for all early accsess games

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

everyone get your facts straight, valve didnt do this because the game is shitty, they did it because the developer was dishonest


theres a difference

while I think early accsess is a good idea
for example minecraft,kenshi Overgrowth , and kerbal space program steam should 2 week free money back policy for all early accsess games

2 weeks might be a lil too long, but i agree, there should be a refund policy for Early Access games

i mean it even makes perfect sense, unlike normal refunds you dont have to fear people finishing the game and then returning it, the game isnt finsihed, so it cant be finished


of course the refund policy must end before the game is complete

 

[JET1971]

Valve can fix the whole early access mess by simply removing the purchase requirement and instead make a donation system. The early access games would be demos and if it turns out it is shit then theres no money lost. If it looks good there's a way to donate for further development that could net the donators a special version of the finished product or some other incentive.

The developers can use it to find beta testers that give more feedback and give them a link to a more complete version and a private forum access to post feedback on while everyone else gets sections for testing and the public forum. Those who donate can also get access to the more complete version as well.

Doing it that way would eliminate scams because there is no money involved at the very start. If the game is another Earth 2066 then it will not get donations. Right now everyone that tries the alpha/beta game has to pay and that's what the scam works.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Valve can fix the whole early access mess by simply removing the purchase requirement and instead make a donation system. The early access games would be demos and if it turns out it is shit then theres no money lost. If it looks good there's a way to donate for further development that could net the donators a special version of the finished product or some other incentive.

The developers can use it to find beta testers that give more feedback and give them a link to a more complete version and a private forum access to post feedback on while everyone else gets sections for testing and the public forum. Those who donate can also get access to the more complete version as well.

Doing it that way would eliminate scams because there is no money involved at the very start. If the game is another Earth 2066 then it will not get donations. Right now everyone that tries the alpha/beta game has to pay and that's what the scam works.

thats a... bad idea

you might get a lot of people who might not enojoy your game for being too early in development

you might get freeloaders simply trying early access games for free

people who wait until the game is released might complain about the special shit donators get and they dont have access to

people might donate stupidly small amounts of money, so they end up buying the game for like 1 cent or something



theres way too many problems, the main problem with the system itself is lack of developer accountability, besides that is a perfectly fine alternative to standard retail releases

you get to fund a game during its development, hopefully providing useful feedback to make the game better and most of the time, you get the game cheaper than its final release price

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

GOOD. Not only was this game broken and unplayable, the developer was being a COMPLETE asshat.

Then again, as has been said it's hard to tell whether this was removed because it was reported enough times or whether because Valve noticed the amount of media attention it was getting.

Well, guys, if Steam wants the consumer to police the market for them, then if we're gonna complain we better damn well report this crap as well while we're at it.

Hopefully now devs will learn that they can't get away with more barely finished games giving them a quick buck, but then I'm probably just being too optimistic. It's a small victory compared to all the other monstrosities on Steam that need to go.

I think it's worth keeping in mind the actual quality probably had little to do with it's removal, and more of Muxwell's dishonesty and thieving of other people's work. There are still tons of trash-tier games and Early Access stuff that hasn't been updated in months that Valve doesn't seem to care about.

 

[RicoADF]

Any "As Seen On TV" item you buy is 100% complete rubbish. 9/10 they are cheap marketed junk they falsely advertise as a working product, but never really lives up to what you see on the commercial. Granted you can take that back to the store because that's retail. Online digital distribution of games is not the same thing, nowhere close. Also the last I checked you cannot take a game back to any retail and get your money back, so I guess I understand why Steam does not do it. IMO Anything "Early Access" NEEDS to be the exception to Steam return policy no matter how many warnings the developer puts out there.

In most countries if a product or service is faulty or falsely advertised then the law requires the customer receive a refund. The US seems to be the only country that's hasn't caught up to the rest of the western world in regards to consumer rights.

 

[Vault101]

gee I wonder if a certain videogame reviewer had anything to do with this....

 

[epicdwarf]

Is this it? Have are prayers finally been answered?!?!? Steam QUALITY CONTROL?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Frankster]

Exactly. It's like when I go into a Wal-Mart supercenter, I have no idea if the fresh produce they sell is "all-natural" or not, regardless of whatever labels the producer puts on it. Wal-Mart has absolutely no responsibility in the quality of the products they sell. And if customers don't like it, they can get a refund from the farmer and then go shop at Origin K-Mart.

I'm having difficulty processing this: so if you buy food that is labelled organic for example and it isn't, it is NOT the responsibility of the shop to guarantee the labels are what they say?
And that to take steps against it the customer would have to go seek a refund from the farmer?

Maybe it's my french heritage speaking here but if I find that sooo very wrong.

 

[Brennan]

Exactly. It's like when I go into a Wal-Mart supercenter, I have no idea if the fresh produce they sell is "all-natural" or not, regardless of whatever labels the producer puts on it. Wal-Mart has absolutely no responsibility in the quality of the products they sell. And if customers don't like it, they can get a refund from the farmer and then go shop at Origin K-Mart.

I'm having difficulty processing this: so if you buy food that is labelled organic for example and it isn't, it is NOT the responsibility of the shop to guarantee the labels are what they say?
And that to take steps against it the customer would have to go seek a refund from the farmer?

Maybe it's my french heritage speaking here but if I find that sooo very wrong.

None of those things are the case in US food markets. MinionJoe was using sarcasm to highlight the difference between how software sales (as well as all disc media sales in general in the US) and pretty much all other sales are handled ethics-wise.

 

[Frankster]

sarcasm

Doh! Yeh that makes a lot more sense.