Jimquisition: Salt Of The Earth - A Steam Fail Story

[Infernal Lawyer]

I was contrasting the games that were inaccessible. Multiplayer games where the servers had been discontinued. Games that -literally- can not be played.

Funny, because Steam doesn't seem to have an issue with selling those either.
Still, I'd like to point out to you that there's a hell of a lot more more with this whole thing than the game simply being incomplete. The developer has been using copyrighted material, cencoring criticism of his game and blatantly trolling people. I take it you haven't heard about the Earth: 2066 Jim Sterling addition?

 

[softclocks]

Infernal Lawyer: I'm fully aware that Steam has sold a few of those, that's what I pointed out for contrast in the opening post.

I was contrasting the games that were inaccessible. Multiplayer games where the servers had been discontinued. Games that -literally- can not be played.

No one is denying that it's a terrible game, but what little there is, is fully playable.

You totally dodged my explanation of why it isn't fully playable by just sniping what I said.

It lacks the components to be fully playable by video/computer game standards.

You are making up a condition to make your point valid in the terms of fully playable. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. There are degrees of playability. Earth: 2066 is around the lowest rung of playability "Can be played". The rung blow that is that you can't do anything in the program. You can do things in the program, but it isn't fully playable. A game isn't fully playable until it is finished. Is Earth: 2066 finished.....obviously not. A fully playable game is a finished product, with goals and win conditions.

You can't just move the playable bar down, and then say, "Yup, it's fully playable." There are terms to get to fully playable that can't be skipped.

Heck, not even looking at this from an "it's a terrible game" stand point, it isn't fully playable. It's not finished, so it isn't fully playable.

You are using the the dangerous broken stance bad game developers with games in "Early Access" use to try and deflect valid criticism. Just because a game is in Early Access, doesn't mean it is immune to criticism and the qualifications of what makes up the label of a proper fully playable game.

"Making up a condition"?

I'm explaining my choice of words.

I don't care whether or not that explanation satisfies you, nor should it matter to you whether or not my definition is the same as yours.

Once again then. At the moment you can do whatever little the developers intended for you to be able to do at this stage in the game. Regardless of whether that lives up to your own degrees of playability, according to me, when compared to Steam games where the gameplay-part is not accessible, that game is fully playable.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

 

[Strazdas]

1,2,3

1. being early acess does not absolve any game of criticism. Nor does it allow you to lie on store page or "moderate" the forums like the guy does. Not to mention the guy is a known scam artist already.

2. It also states a lot of other things, things are are blatant lies. Not to mention that "EArly alpha" should not even be shown to people, let alone sold. at best you can do is free beta testing.

No. on kickstarter you are funding a game developement. On indiegogo you are funding a game developement. On Steam Early Acess you are buying a game in its alpha stage in hopes the developer will be bothered to ever finnish it.

3. the lies are everything else in the description. even the video itself shows thigns that arent in the game.

The game is bad, but fully playable.

I won't call them liars until the game has been completed.

No research needed, by my own categorization the game is neither unplayable nor lied about.

I guess we use different definitions of playable then. Mine does not end with "Game does not crash on start".

parks and nuclear waste dumps

But we dont want our parks to become cities. In fact, parks are specifically places there so people could get away from the city life and relax in there. Steam is a single park in side the city. the city is called PC gaming. you want steam to open its gates and let everyone set up shop till there is no grass left to sit at.

Youk now what happens when a new person enters a city? confusion. you dont want your paying costumers confused.

No, i cannot get them from such sites, because they still require steam activation.

And you can lay down and relax near a nuclear dump as well, till you eventually die of radiation leaking from it.

Producing the playable product is not the problem. Being required to produce the product before you even know if you will be allowed to sell it is the problem. It is a risk mitigation issue, not a production issue.

good point, but steam is not a be all end all store. You have to provide a product before store agrees to stock it. If steam does not allow you to sell it (store thinks your product is not their style) you can go to another service for selling (go to another store more appropriate to your product).

Who on earth buys this shit?

To elaborate: How did they find this game? Why did they pick it over thousands of other, better, more popular games? Why were they not instantly turned off after seeing the dreadful screen-captures and trailer? In a world where most games on Steam can be found for $5-10 pretty soon once a sale comes, what made anyone say "no, I can't wait for that, I need this game right now and I'm willing to pay a premium price for it"?

I really just don't understand the thought process of anyone who is willing to use their time and money on something like this at all. Do people who do this just buy random apps on their phone too? Or do they go to iTunes and just buy music they've never heard of?

Again, not a rhetorical question, this clearly happens, I just don't understand how.

people who find items at Steam front page and trust steam enough to believe that the decription on store page is not a blatant lie. People who like the idea of the game like this and expect the game to deliver at least the basic of what is in the description.

and yes, people do buy random things, thats how they find greatness. i often watch random movies from as little as ap oster and two line summary. ive found some gems amonth the massive amount of trash. the thing is, most of them were actually watchable. this game is not playable.

"Making up a condition"?

I'm explaining my choice of words.

just because you made up your own definition does not mean its a good argument in discussion. You of course can continue using it and we can continue point out your wrong.

 

[Alterego-X]

But we dont want our parks to become cities. In fact, parks are specifically places there so people could get away from the city life and relax in there. Steam is a single park in side the city. the city is called PC gaming. you want steam to open its gates and let everyone set up shop till there is no grass left to sit at. Youk now what happens when a new person enters a city? confusion. you dont want your paying costumers confused.

But all the park-like, safe areas of the industry are still there on Steam. If you just want famous big games that you have already heard about elsewhere, they are all there, you can just use your map (search function) to find he parks without interacting with the rest. You can find whatever you want, even if it is not literally the only thing sold there and being pushed to your face.

And if you just want to buy random things to "find greatness", Steam is still the only place to go, because it's the only place that sells random things in the first place.

You can't really watch "random movies" in a theatre that has pre-filtered it's lineup for you, that will just be proven and tested movies.

If Steam would do the intuitive thing and lock out any games, they would have nothing to win. Anyone who just wants to visit a safe nice park can already do so inside Steam, by looking for famously praised best-selling games, so their numbers wouldn't increase because Steam has kicked out some other games, yet anyone who is willing to sort through the unfiltered dumps of unproven games to "find greatness", would have to start looking beyond steam, and treat it as one small park that isn't for them.

 

[Strazdas]

But we dont want our parks to become cities. In fact, parks are specifically places there so people could get away from the city life and relax in there. Steam is a single park in side the city. the city is called PC gaming. you want steam to open its gates and let everyone set up shop till there is no grass left to sit at. Youk now what happens when a new person enters a city? confusion. you dont want your paying costumers confused.

But all the park-like, safe areas of the industry are still there on Steam. If you just want famous big games that you have already heard about elsewhere, they are all there, you can just use your map (search function) to find he parks without interacting with the rest. You can find whatever you want, even if it is not literally the only thing sold there and being pushed to your face.

And if you just want to buy random things to "find greatness", Steam is still the only place to go, because it's the only place that sells random things in the first place.

You can't really watch "random movies" in a theatre that has pre-filtered it's lineup for you, that will just be proven and tested movies.

If Steam would do the intuitive thing and lock out any games, they would have nothing to win. Anyone who just wants to visit a safe nice park can already do so inside Steam, by looking for famously praised best-selling games, so their numbers wouldn't increase because Steam has kicked out some other games, yet anyone who is willing to sort through the unfiltered dumps of unproven games to "find greatness", would have to start looking beyond steam, and treat it as one small park that isn't for them.

yes they are, they are just filled with so much nuclear waste that its hard to find a bench that doesnt glow in the dark. by the time you navigate to one you feel like the DVD DRM was came to games (you know, that unskippable FBI warnings shit that only legitiamte costumers see to being with and last so long you no longer want to watch the movie by the end).

When i go to a park i want to see a park, not having to need to navigate around a nuclear waste facility to find a bench that isnt ruined yet.

and you can find random things elsewhere than steam. there is a thing we call "internet".

Valve has a lot to win from steam locking out bad games. for one, getting back the confidence of "if i buy it off steam ill know it at least works". im not saying they should lock it to only AAA titles. merely to have quality control, you know, like demand a playable demo before they are allowed to ask for money. just like we demand the certificate that the nuclear waste is stored properly.

 

[Alterego-X]

yes they are, they are just filled with so much nuclear waste that its hard to find a bench that doesnt glow in the dark. by the time you navigate to one you feel like the DVD DRM was came to games

If you want clean proven games, just use the most basic search heuristics that C14N described above. Or just ask yourself:

Have I heard anything remotely positive about this game before?

Is this game on the best-sellers' list?

Is this being sold as a finished game?

Is this from a developer that I trust based on it's record with earlier games?

If the answer to all four is "no", then you are already ignoring so much common sense guidance, that you are basically the guy wandering around the city without a map, wearing blindfolds, and getting angry at why you found a dump instead of a park.

And that's fine. Like you just said, maybe you wanted to find new places in entire randomness. But if you want to do that, accept that you might in fact find garbage, instead of demanding the whole city be turned into a park to protect your comfort.

and you can find random things elsewhere than steam. there is a thing we call "internet". Valve has a lot to win from steam locking out bad games. for one, getting back the confidence of "if i buy it off steam ill know it at least works".

If your definition of "works" would be "it runs", then I would agree, but if you use it for anything more than that, that's just walled garden mentality selectiveness over games that are working "good enough for our brand", and it WILL eventually involve locking out some games that don't "work" by Steam's standards but work perfectly according to someone else's, and gather a content userbase.

Steam has nothing to win by winning back the people who only want games that "work" by such higher standards, because these people would never randomly browse the "latest released" batch in the first place, they always had their quality standards before buying.

Steam has a lot to win by gathering all the people who only expect games to "run", but willing to risk that they don't "work" as hoped, as long as they can also find some greatness among it. These people could be forced out to the rest of the Internet, but that would mean a lost audience.

 

[Strazdas]

If the answer to all four is "no", then you are already ignoring so much common sense guidance, that you are basically the guy wandering around the city without a map, wearing blindfolds, and getting angry at why you found a dump instead of a park.

and then i would have never found minecraft.

see, you may be listening to people about games, you may know what is on best seller list and you may knowdevelopers. the average buyer does not. the only thing average buyer can check easily is the third question as steam clearly states that.

If your definition of "works" would be "it runs", then I would agree, but if you use it for anything more than that, that's just walled garden mentality selectiveness over games that are working "good enough for our brand", and it WILL eventually involve locking out some games that don't "work" by Steam's standards but work perfectly according to someone else's, and gather a content userbase.

Steam has nothing to win by winning back the people who only want games that "work" by such higher standards, because these people would never randomly browse the "latest released" batch in the first place, they always had their quality standards before buying.

Steam has a lot to win by gathering all the people who only expect games to "run", but willing to risk that they don't "work" as hoped, as long as they can also find some greatness among it. These people could be forced out to the rest of the Internet, but that would mean a lost audience.

It running would be one of the needs, yes. another would be that things in description would actually be in the game and the game would be fully playable (already been defined in this thread). For example big truck racing "runs" but you could ahrdly call it "running".

And locking out some games is fine. you dont serve water-prepared pasta in a restaurant. Especially if that means ensuring that the restaurant does not serve poisoned meat half the time.

the audience that matters here is the users of steam. and far more are being forced out of steam thanks to having to navigate through all the trash than people actually liking games like this.

 

[Zontar]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

 

[Saltychipmunk]

Infernal Lawyer: I'm fully aware that Steam has sold a few of those, that's what I pointed out for contrast in the opening post.

I was contrasting the games that were inaccessible. Multiplayer games where the servers had been discontinued. Games that -literally- can not be played.

No one is denying that it's a terrible game, but what little there is, is fully playable.

You totally dodged my explanation of why it isn't fully playable by just sniping what I said.

It lacks the components to be fully playable by video/computer game standards.

You are making up a condition to make your point valid in the terms of fully playable. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. There are degrees of playability. Earth: 2066 is around the lowest rung of playability "Can be played". The rung blow that is that you can't do anything in the program. You can do things in the program, but it isn't fully playable. A game isn't fully playable until it is finished. Is Earth: 2066 finished.....obviously not. A fully playable game is a finished product, with goals and win conditions.

You can't just move the playable bar down, and then say, "Yup, it's fully playable." There are terms to get to fully playable that can't be skipped.

Heck, not even looking at this from an "it's a terrible game" stand point, it isn't fully playable. It's not finished, so it isn't fully playable.

You are using the the dangerous broken stance bad game developers with games in "Early Access" use to try and deflect valid criticism. Just because a game is in Early Access, doesn't mean it is immune to criticism and the qualifications of what makes up the label of a proper fully playable game.

"Making up a condition"?

I'm explaining my choice of words.

I don't care whether or not that explanation satisfies you, nor should it matter to you whether or not my definition is the same as yours.

Once again then. At the moment you can do whatever little the developers intended for you to be able to do at this stage in the game. Regardless of whether that lives up to your own degrees of playability, according to me, when compared to Steam games where the gameplay-part is not accessible, that game is fully playable.

Sounds to me like you are deliberately trying to play the devils advocate. And you cant compare games that have lost their network infrastructure to this game.

Those games had their heyday and were full experiences during that time. People who played during the time that those games were released got a full packaged release. Most of the time it is not until LONG after the popularity of a game has died that it loses it's play-ability through the loss of infrastructure. Even then if the game in question was worth something then a community of modders would step in.

But they don't, specifically because those games are no longer relevant. And it is still true here , your comparison is irrelevant.

You are seriously comparing games that are well past their prime to a newly released game. the heck? That is completely bonkers .

It is beyond obvious that the developer deliberately made this game to make a few cheap dollars and then let it die. forget a professional developer , forget a video game student . I could make that pile of rubbish game in under a week in my free time at minimal cost to myself.

You dont make fully 3d video games in a week or less for anything other than a cashin. you just dont.

 

[Alterego-X]

see, you may be listening to people about games, you may know what is on best seller list and you may knowdevelopers. the average buyer does not. the only thing average buyer can check easily is the third question as steam clearly states that.

First of all, Steam does have a best seller list on the front page. Currently, it's top 10 includes Dark Souls II, Portal II, DayZ, Portal Bundle, Watch Dogs, CS:GO, Rust, Trials Fusion, Space Engineers, and Skullgirls.

If your new claim about average gamers not checking any metrics such as popularity were true, then it's pretty srange that the bestsellers are still consistently games with particularly good press, rather than an entirely random sample of shoverware.

The very fact that games are able to get hugely popular, proves that the average gamer pays attention to popularity, and thus a positive feedback loop can form.

How else do you explain that Earth 2066 only has a maximum of 3 people playing it at the same time, as charted for it a a record?

It is not "the average gamer" buying Earth 2066, the average gamer is buying Dark Souls and Portal. It is a small fringe of contrarians and hipsters and reviewers and self-appointed greatness-seakers, who are willing to dig into unknown, unproven Early Access games for the sake of sampling random games.

It running would be one of the needs, yes. another would be that things in description would actually be in the game and the game would be fully playable (already been defined in this thread).

With definitions that would also filter out early Minecraft. I'm not doubting that you can produce wider definitions of "playable", I'm just saying that such definitions would end up filtering out games that are playable according to one person and unplayable according to another.

locking out some games is fine.

It's fine, but in Steam's case, it would be a bad business choice.

They are on their way to encompass the essence of PC gaming. Not just a specific high quality brand, but an universal super-brand inside of which you can find many solid groupings such as AAA games, viral games, or the soon to come user stores, that can serve as the inner quality "brands". The next Minecraft is going to happen inside of it, not outside.

When Rust makes a million sales and Earth 2066 makes hundreds, that right there is the difference between average gamers and people who blindly buy games just because they are on Steam.

Worst case scenario for openness: Steam risks losing those few hundred who were naively blind-buying inexperienced users.

Best case scenario for openness: Those blind-buyers were actually core gamers intentionlly looking for unexpected "greatness", and even if they feel cross about stepping into a stinker, Steam is still the only place that collects a wide plethora of unproven obscure games to test, which they prefer over walled gardens. Steam covers the whole PC market.

Worst case scenario for walled Gardens: Steam risks losing the next million buyers with the next Rust, by overtly high definitions of "playable". Some other store does sell it, and out-competes Steam.

Best case scenario for Walled Gardens: Steam becomes one among many trusted online game recommendation lists.

 

[C14N]

people who find items at Steam front page and trust steam enough to believe that the decription on store page is not a blatant lie. People who like the idea of the game like this and expect the game to deliver at least the basic of what is in the description.

and yes, people do buy random things, thats how they find greatness. i often watch random movies from as little as ap oster and two line summary. ive found some gems amonth the massive amount of trash. the thing is, most of them were actually watchable. this game is not playable.

Was this actually featured on the front page? I don't check it every day but I've never seen anything like this shown on the front page. Some things haven't been great but even the alphas are usually only the most ambitious ones (stuff like Prison Architect, Day Z and Rust), not something like this which could scarcely be called a game.

You can "find greatness" but still at least take a look at the trailer before putting money down on something. This game looks like an early PS2 tech demo.

 

[red255]

Spoiler

This is getting towards falling foul of at least UK product description laws. The law is woefully behind the times (otherwise the worst 'free to play' games would probably have fallen foul of this) but there is supposed to be some basic expectation of accurate description and functionality when a product is purchased.

Unfortunately - much like eBay - Steam does not recognise international law when it comes to this sort of thing.

As a quick example, I once spoke to Steam about getting a refund on God Mode (a game which while more playable than Earth: Year 2066 was still bad) and got no dice with it. Even after citing the UK's "Distance Selling Regulations 2000", Steam refused to issue a refund, citing that the law did not cover Digital products.

And yet, this is despite...well...

Boy. If only the US actually cared about consumer rights. One can dream.

Don't they give you a month in america? I remember when diablo III came out and it was NOTHING like the demo and people got their money back if they made digital purchases. Didn't think it mattered where they were from.

But you are asking STEAM to take a hit for your purchase because I don't think they'll get the money back from this guy.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

 

[Zontar]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

They are customers, but they are also customers who are ruining the industry for the rest of us by telling companies they can sell you half a game for over twice the final price and get away with it.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

They are customers, but they are also customers who are ruining the industry for the rest of us by telling companies they can sell you half a game for over twice the final price and get away with it.

hardly, let me ask you something, check the best selling games list on steam, tell me do you see either wasteland 2 or planetary annihilation anywhere near the top 10 best selling games?, top 20? top 40?

if those games arent selling all that well, can we argue these customers are pushing devs towards selling over-expensive betas in the future?

 

[Zontar]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

They are customers, but they are also customers who are ruining the industry for the rest of us by telling companies they can sell you half a game for over twice the final price and get away with it.

hardly, let me ask you something, check the best selling games list on steam, tell me do you see either wasteland 2 or planetary annihilation anywhere near the top 10 best selling games?, top 20? top 40?

if those games arent selling all that well, can we argue these customers are pushing devs towards selling over-expensive betas in the future?

They where for a time when they came out, but by far the worst offender was DayZ, which somehow managed to stay at the top for a month, including threw a whole Winter Sale despite all logic.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

They are customers, but they are also customers who are ruining the industry for the rest of us by telling companies they can sell you half a game for over twice the final price and get away with it.

hardly, let me ask you something, check the best selling games list on steam, tell me do you see either wasteland 2 or planetary annihilation anywhere near the top 10 best selling games?, top 20? top 40?

if those games arent selling all that well, can we argue these customers are pushing devs towards selling over-expensive betas in the future?

They where for a time when they came out, but by far the worst offender was DayZ, which somehow managed to stay at the top for a month, including threw a whole Winter Sale despite all logic.

i had this same discussion like a month ago, are you the same guy i what that discussion with? anyways dayz is going to be more expensive at release, not cheaper

and regarding the other games, sure they were on the best selling list for s short while, but not anymore and they havent been for a loooong while, unless they go on sale

 

[Zontar]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

They are customers, but they are also customers who are ruining the industry for the rest of us by telling companies they can sell you half a game for over twice the final price and get away with it.

hardly, let me ask you something, check the best selling games list on steam, tell me do you see either wasteland 2 or planetary annihilation anywhere near the top 10 best selling games?, top 20? top 40?

if those games arent selling all that well, can we argue these customers are pushing devs towards selling over-expensive betas in the future?

They where for a time when they came out, but by far the worst offender was DayZ, which somehow managed to stay at the top for a month, including threw a whole Winter Sale despite all logic.

i had this same discussion like a month ago, are you the same guy i what that discussion with? anyways dayz is going to be more expensive at release, not cheaper

and regarding the other games, sure they were on the best selling list for s short while, but not anymore and they havent been for a loooong while, unless they go on sale

Yes I was that same guy, I'll even go so far as to state again that DayZ is included on the list because it was stated to originally be priced at 10-15$ at release. I also find it sketchy that the dev things there'll be a market for DayZ above the current price.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

They are customers, but they are also customers who are ruining the industry for the rest of us by telling companies they can sell you half a game for over twice the final price and get away with it.

hardly, let me ask you something, check the best selling games list on steam, tell me do you see either wasteland 2 or planetary annihilation anywhere near the top 10 best selling games?, top 20? top 40?

if those games arent selling all that well, can we argue these customers are pushing devs towards selling over-expensive betas in the future?

They where for a time when they came out, but by far the worst offender was DayZ, which somehow managed to stay at the top for a month, including threw a whole Winter Sale despite all logic.

i had this same discussion like a month ago, are you the same guy i what that discussion with? anyways dayz is going to be more expensive at release, not cheaper

and regarding the other games, sure they were on the best selling list for s short while, but not anymore and they havent been for a loooong while, unless they go on sale

Yes I was that same guy, I'll even go so far as to state again that DayZ is included on the list because it was stated to originally be priced at 10-15$ at release. I also find it sketchy that the dev things there'll be a market for DayZ above the current price.

well then i give up, if all the evidence i showed you the last time wasnt enough i dont think what will take to change your mind, what i will tell you is that theres absolutely no evidene to support the idea that charging more for a beta is going to become a trend, or atleast a successful/profitable one