Valve Tightens Its Early Access Rules
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, but if a great game comes out, and I have been burned in the past by what looked like a legitimate game, I am not going to invest in the actual good game BECAUSE I have been burned in the past. If you allow your potential customers to get screwed and laugh it off as "They should have known better," they won't support you when you release something because they won't trust YOU, either.BigTuk said:
I would certainly never buy a game from someone who talked the way you have in this thread, because I would assume you are one of those people trying to run a scam.
Rozalia1 said:
Valve wants it released on Origin or something similar, IN ADDITION to on Steam. Not Xbox one, PS4, and Wii U. Just other digital sales sites. That should be seen as a good thing.archiebawled said:When Microsoft said it, they were trying to force devs to put a higher priority on the Xbone than the developer might want to (with an explicit 'talk to us if this is not feasible').
Now that Valve are saying it, they are just trying to enforce fair play (without any kind of 'talk to us if this is not feasible').
Microsoft = bad, Valve = good. Easy to see the difference when you take that as your starting point
I'm not really disagreeing with you, but if everyone did that, then EA would be a failure. The point of EA is to get games funded while in production to help indie devs get off the ground easier. I have no problem with that concept in theory, but as we've seen, EA just gets a ton of scam artist to throw together a weekend's worth of work and charge $7 for the effort. Zero gameplay features required.BigTuk said:Well for starters.. the ration of decent games to Bulls**t games is roughly 1:10. No seriously. Go to any platforms library of games and pick one at random and it will be a crappy game in most cases. Secondly. There are ways to easily tell a good game from a bad game, just from the material the devs put up about it.Spade Lead said:
It's actually painfully easy to tell them appart. Is the promo material showing mostly prerendered cinmatics and cutscenes? CHances are the game play is crappy. In short the less actual game play that is shown... the less likely the game is to be good.
How to tell if an EA game will likely fail? Look at what the devs want to add, the feature list. Does it sound like something Pete Molyneux would say? Then it will never work out. However a small, but focused feature list usually implies that the devs have some idea of what they can actually achieve and thusly are more likely to succeed.
See.. easy enough... or better to say this: \
(No. Of features)/[(no. of games the developer has successfully brought to market)-(no of games rated poorly)]
See how that works? The result will be a number. The lower the number... the better the odds that the dev team can pull it off. A dev with 1 or less games brought to market that puts up a list of 10 or so features...is going to score very badly.
Also while I would mourn the loss of your Early Access purchase I'd sleep well knowing you'll probably wind up buying it anyway when it score a 78 on metacritic after release
See that is the trump[ card of the consumer.. it needn't be a risk. You can simply WAIT until the gamne is finished (like I do) then buy it after you've checked the feed back and a maybe a let's play vid. Then you can make your purchase...yeah I know, it's a lot of work but hey if you can't be bothered to practice a little patience or due diligence... well.. maybe you're not ready for financial independence.
That's basically what Jim Sterling says about Early Access on his YouTube channel.Steven Bogos said:
Well, maybe these "guidelines" will result in more frequent not-shit games from his Early Access Squirt series.
I mean, they shouldn't be much worse than... (ugh, forgive me for saying this) Grass Simulator, right?
I think a lot of people don't really realize how terrible the state of Early Access is right now. Pick any of Jim's Squirty Plays at random and you're probably going to end up with a piece of trash cobbled together in one week in Unity engine.Mydnyght said:
How about the recent video on "Dragon," for instance? A game that promises to be an open world action RPG, but currently has... no sound, no NPCs, no evident gameplay concept, and no features.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDp6ydo4ipo&list=PLlRceUcRZcK246t3-pSiAausEcNxrCsLx
Anyone remember all the hullabaloo about The Slaughtering Grounds? That was fun, wasn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT0GSPxf0vw&list=PLlRceUcRZcK0zAt8sV33ZsMCVlOgWjVoy
Pick literally any Early Access game with the word "Simulator" in the title, and you'll find an ugly, broken mess nonetheless asking you for your money:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WImXoC9wBY&list=PLlRceUcRZcK0zAt8sV33ZsMCVlOgWjVoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Rx6Sa2kWU&list=PLlRceUcRZcK0zAt8sV33ZsMCVlOgWjVoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q2MeqPvEXU&list=PLlRceUcRZcK0zAt8sV33ZsMCVlOgWjVoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxNqXwGBjMs&list=UUWCw2Sd7RlYJ2yuNVHDWNOA
Why the hell are these people allowed to charge money for this? It's an embarrassment that such "games" are even allowed to exist on Steam. I see no problem with the rule of "your game must be worth money," because right now there are so many games that are clearly NOT.
