Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aklyon]

Never heard of Phil Fish.

You don't want to.

Does that make it better or worse?

[kaian-a-coel]

Sure 90$ is a bit much for alpha gaming, but I think it comes with all kinds of goodies (if it's still the same Galactic edition). If it doesnt, there is several reason for them to make the price this high, which have been quoted above.
You have no right to complain about the price of an ALPHA, which will go down, contrary to, say, minecraft, which has its price go up. You also should be banned from the internet forever for complaining about the buggyness of an ALPHA.
Unless said alpha is a blatant ripoff and an excuse for making money while not fixing bugs. Here it's not the case.
I pre ordered the retail version and I'm waiting impatiently, but I didn't get the alpha access because 1) the price is too damn high for me and 2) I don't like to play alphas. Late betas, okay. Alphas, not so much.

[burningpet]

So, you should be banned from the internet for providing essential technological feedback while alpha testing? the game has bugs, you should report them. complaints are some people way of reporting.

[kaian-a-coel]

there's reporting bugs and there's rating a game 0 because of them.

[burningpet]

But they are not reporting because of that, they are reporting because of the pricing.

If a paid alpha is either bugged beyond reason or lack features to the point its not really being sold to play test, but rather to get some early monies, people have every right to complain about it. and yes, also review it in Metacritic or what ever so that other people could have better knowledge of what they are getting for their money worth.

there are common accepted "standards" for finished games, there should also be standards for paid alphas. they cant be the same standards, obviously, but companies shouldn't be free of criticism or reviews of their sold product because it is still unfinished.

[Sean Mirrsen]

StarDrive got its share of those people. "THIS GAME IS UNFINISHED ARGLEFARGLEBHARBLE!!"

This is despite being functionally complete, with only a few outstanding bugs. Can't imagine what a game that's legitimately in alpha might gather.

Also, no, there can be no standards for a paid alpha. An alpha is a game so early in development that it may not represent what the final game is going to be like at all. A "paid" alpha is just a pre-order of the product coupled with an opportunity to play what is already there ahead of time, and contribute to the game's development. The listed cost is for the final product, not the alpha - all Early Access changes is that all participants get, well, early access.

[Neonivek]

Also, no, there can be no standards for a paid alpha

1) Price
2) Update and UI
3) Response from development
4) Bug reporting ability

There are standards we can apply to everything. Also frankly with all this selling a game BEFORE it is ready I think it is pretty much time we created standards for games that sell their games before they are ready. Afterall when you SELL SOMETHING ON THE MARKET you are SELLING SOMETHING ON THE MARKET as in you are asking someone to BUY SOMETHING FROM YOU (Dear goodness... Maybe I should have used parenthesis... those capitals make me look like I am yelling rather then emphasizing).

So yeah judge the HECK out of Planetary Annihilation based on your own standards. Why? Because you paid for it, if they didn't want people to judge they shouldn't sell alpha access.

In fact MORE people should be giving Alpha and Beta reviews so people who want to pay for early access can go "Hmm, So the Beta doesn't function? Why should I get early access?"

As well this isn't donation this is paying for a service.

Soo lets add

5) How fun it is
6) How fulfilling it is
7) How long it will last you

When companies start Beta or Alpha testing and they ask the public to help them, they aren't selling a product. They are asking you to aid them and in recompense they let you get to see the game early. When they sell you Beta or Alpha access, they are selling you a product.

[burningpet]

In my opinion, yes, there should be a standard for a paid product. if a paid early access game consists of just presenting the launch screen, then it should not be acceptable. if it has a launch screen and the option to select "Start a new game" and then the only thing you can do is watch a loading screen, it  should not be acceptable. if there's a launch screen, a loading screen and a game consisting of nothing more than a tech demo showing you can box select units and move them around, it should not be acceptable.

So where does it end? where do you draw the line between a garbage and a legitimate Early Access? the developers can do what ever they want, this is not the question here, the question here is whether and when its acceptable to communicate to others what state the game is in right now and whether its worth their well earned money right now, not sometime in the future, right now, when their money is being taken out of their bank and sent to the developers.

I think you can't draw such a line right now, and because of that, costumers should be able to tell others if the game is worth its value in money, right now, from their own experience and opinion.

And there should be a certain standard to make it absolutely not acceptable for companies to sell games below that standard.
steam has this standard for early access already, but their standards are skewed by financial factors.

I think StarDrive was in the first batch of early access games (?) which like any other platform/model has its birth pains. the problem wasen't people buying the product expecting a bug free alpha, it was people buying the product expecting a bug free finished game.

[Neonivek]

Personally I think that both developers and people will catch onto what a early access deal is and it will generally improve.

[Sean Mirrsen]

You aren't being sold a game before it is ready. Well, technically I guess you are, but you are purchasing the final game. And you aren't paying for early access. This is no different than the concept of a "pre-order", except you get to see the game's development snapshots, and perhaps even partake in the development yourself. As such, like it or not, "early access" has no standards, and can have no standards. As long as the developer is still held responsible for the delivery of the final product, the intermediate stages can be of any quality. Whether or not to participate in the Early Access is merely a question of whether you like the game concept enough, and trust the developers enough, to buy the thing with so much time until it releases, and having only whatever the developers see fit to release as entertainment in the meantime.

[Neonivek]

you aren't paying for early access.

Yes... in this case you are. You are paying more for early access.

like it or not, "early access" has no standards

The Potato chip someone hands me because I say I am hungry has standards. What heavenly celestial body don bequeath this most hallowed commandment?

[Sean Mirrsen]

Yes... in this case you are. You are paying more for early access.

Where exactly does it say that?

The Potato chip someone hands me because I say I am hungry has standards. What heavenly celestial body don bequeath this most hallowed commandment?

The potato chip is a physical object and a consumable product that may be found in a situation where its consumption is mandatory, and represents a potential health hazard if not made to standards.

The early access to a game project in development is a voluntarily acquired, purely virtual service provided for purchase at the customer's own leisure, that allows said customer access to in-development material, assets, and/or builds of the game project in question, before that project is scheduled to officially "go gold", acquiring "Released" status - and while the "Released" product has to conform to given rules, especially in regards to advertised features, an "in-development" version may and is very likely to lack any number of the proposed features, and may likely contain errors that would not be tolerated in the "Released" product, by virtue of being in development.

The in-development materials and builds no more have to conform to any given standards than the developer has to be able to afford to waste time to make them conform to those standards. At its most core, Early Access just gives you access to what exists of the game at the current moment. The "standards" if one could call them that, begin and end with whatever Steam requires of a project's stage of completion before being made available for Early Access.

There are things you can reasonably expect, of course. You can expect the in-dev build of the game to be updated regularly as the devs continue working on the game. You can expect status updates, and can expect some manner or method by which you can provide feedback to the developers. But, while being things you could reasonably expect, none of them actually have to be there, unless it's one of them many rules by which Steam games abide, as long as the final product created by the company is corresponding to the claimed features and descriptions.

And at the end of the day, it's your own call to purchase the game early or leave it for later. Nobody is coaxing you into anything, and you have the right to do research on it. If it really does cost more to purchase the early access game than the full game... well, then that's doubly true, isn't it?

[Neonivek]

Ok then. Let me see your reasons as to why heaven ordained that Early Betas be exempt from all judgment. Also I warn I am being a bit jerkish from sleep exhaustion.

The early access to a game project in development is a voluntarily acquired

Just like an ordinary videogame

purely virtual service provided for purchase at the customer's own leisure

Just like an ordinary videogame.

But... Clearly you have to give a real reason as to the differences between early access material and a "released" game. Let me see.

while the "Released" product has to conform to given rules, especially in regards to advertised features, an "in-development" version may and is very likely to lack any number of the proposed features

I see. So the early access has no standards by the virtue of having no standards applied to them.

The in-development materials and builds no more have to conform to any given standards than the developer has to be able to afford to waste time to make them conform to those standards

Except you forget. It is voluntary to both the developer and the customer.

This purely virtual service provided for purchase at the developer's own leisure.

at the end of the day, it's your own call to purchase the game early or leave it for later.

What? But how will I decide?

If ONLY there was some sort of way I could categorically list positive and negative traits and apply it to a template of averages that can allow me to reach some sort of decision!

If only there were some sort of gauge... or I know Standards... Yes that! That could serve this purpose. But what say you Sean?

Nobody is coaxing you into anything, and you have the right to do research on it.

You are right! I should read reviews about the game as it currently is in Beta and use standards to judge whether or not I buy this COMPLETELY OPTIONAL service for money.

If it really does cost more to purchase the early access game than the full game... well, then that's doubly true, isn't it?

Yeah! We need twice the standards!

... Wait a minute... Did you change your argument to accepting standards or did I just misleadingly quote you?

You can expect

 

[Aklyon]

Nobody is coaxing you into anything, and you have the right to do research on it.

You are right! I should read reviews about the game as it currently is in Beta and use standards to judge whether or not I buy this COMPLETELY OPTIONAL service for money.

Reviews of an unfinished product? Those are almost always either soon outdated (since the next or soon after update changed or fixed anything mentioned in the review) or just slamming it because it ain't finished yet. Not exactly useful information either way.

[Neonivek]

Nobody is coaxing you into anything, and you have the right to do research on it.

You are right! I should read reviews about the game as it currently is in Beta and use standards to judge whether or not I buy this COMPLETELY OPTIONAL service for money.

Reviews of an unfinished product? Those are almost always either soon outdated (since the next or soon after update changed or fixed anything mentioned in the review) or just slamming it because it ain't finished yet. Not exactly useful information either way.

Why don't I just skip the terrible reviews and read the good ones? Apply some sort of standard onto reviews that they actually have some thought or analysis.