If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Softpedia)   Developers of a sequel to the greatest post-nuclear holocaust survival game ever is offering early access to help fund the game's completion. The problem with early access is when they don't raise enough money to finish the game   (news.softpedia.com) divider line 85
    More: Cool, steam, nuclear holocaust, completions, digital formats  
•       •       •

4883 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Dec 2013 at 12:41 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-16 12:25:39 AM
I thought Leisure Suit Larry had a bunch of sequels already.
 
2013-12-16 12:27:45 AM
And here, I thought this was going to be about Fallout 4 and got all excited.
 
2013-12-16 12:36:26 AM

mamoru: And here, I thought this was going to be about Fallout 4 and got all excited.


think of it more like what fallout 3 should have been.

/so far my only real complaint is the camera controls.
 
2013-12-16 12:57:44 AM
It looks like a top down strategy game...
 
2013-12-16 01:03:22 AM

Cpl.D: It looks like a top down strategy game...


Its RPG but the combat is turn based isometric like the original Wasteland, Fallout, Fallout 2, and a great many other RPGs of the 90s.
 
2013-12-16 01:12:39 AM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Cpl.D: It looks like a top down strategy game...

Its RPG but the combat is turn based isometric like the original Wasteland, Fallout, Fallout 2, and a great many other RPGs of the 90s.


Way too burned out on those.  Even all these years later.  I think I chalked up all of an hour on dragon age.
 
2013-12-16 01:18:36 AM
So, they're selling access to their beta...? Yeah, I'll pass, thanks.
 
2013-12-16 01:22:11 AM
Wasteland was one of the greatest games of the 80s. I remember playing through it with a group of me and my nerdy friends in someone's basement when I was 14, and I am extremely excited about this sequel. But I don't want to play an unfinished game. As much as I've been tempted to jump in with it sitting out there on Steam, I'm going to wait.
 
2013-12-16 01:25:40 AM
I'm all for longer development in a game, and the sort of funding this brings about.

My major problem with this is some games ship, not just with some bugs or somewhat lacking, but woefully incomplete. Don't get me wrong, I like some of them - Payday2 and Endless Space being two of the worst offenders I still enjoy.


Both games, for a long time and with the latter, still, have features that are planned but just aren't there.

I kind of get the g2g of amplitude as a philosophy, letting the fans direct the process of a game, but when you shell out money for a completed game you generally want a completed game.

Include in that current current pre-funding (kickstarter style), extended beta access for pay, different levels of game for different pay scales, microtransactions, and then DLC even when the game is done and you're looking at going from developing a game into devoloping the behavior structure of a subscription even if the game isn't something that would normally be subscribed to. If you follow me. People pay subscriptions for games that are generally of a massively multiplayer "we really need money for servers/devs/mods/etc" type of logic. Once a mostly singleplayer or peer server game is released... that's it. Until new content is delivered the game makers can stop (unless they have bugs to fix, which is almost all games now). But patching aside, they're done.

There's good ideas in the mix in the above, definitely so. I just think it hasn't stabilized into a.... consistent(?) sort of product. Some early access games (generally from professional developers) and you're paying to support the development process and to get the game early, even if its not quite done. For some of the more indie games out there, you're paying them a charity for something that is usually barely past proof of concept. At least that's been my experience, but YMMV

I don't know... this is the trend of gaming today and I'm not sure where it's going. It's gotten to the point where if the game has a collection aspect they tout quite proudly that they don't do micro-transactions and that you get stuff in the game by playing it. It's a weird world when a game can crow about being a game and a well skinned psychological exercise in fleecing customers.


Sorry for being somewhat ranty and all over the place, but those are my thoughts
 
2013-12-16 01:26:14 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I thought Leisure Suit Larry had a bunch of sequels already.


AverageAmericanGuy, I'ma let you finish, but clearly Oregon Trail was the video game version of The Chrysalids, making it the greatest post nuclear holocaust survival game of all time.
 
2013-12-16 01:29:18 AM
The first one was great. Finished it, then read through all the numbered journal entry things in the little booklet. All the shiat they wrote to fark with you if you were going after thpoilerth... that was great.
 
2013-12-16 01:32:50 AM

FormlessOne: So, they're selling access to their beta...? Yeah, I'll pass, thanks.


beta AND the full game.
 
2013-12-16 01:45:42 AM
I really have beef with the BS that is "early access". It used to be that games were beta tested at the cost of the game company, now they expect the user to pay for the privilege? Many times I have had great expectations from a game during the previews leading up to release just to have it be a total dud. Now these companies expect me to buy it before ANYONE gets a chance to see it? And Wasteland 2 devs have the balls to ask $60 for an incomplete game?! I bought in to all the hype around Kerbal Space Program and Minecraft, but those are two games that have proven to be an exception. Every other game beyond those two that I have seen in early access has been a unmitigated clusterfark with zero chance of getting out of development hell (see Star Forge, 7 Days to Die, Kinetic Void, etc).
 
2013-12-16 01:49:52 AM

FormlessOne: So, they're selling access to their beta...? Yeah, I'll pass, thanks.


HAY GUYS REMEMBER HOW WE TOLD YOU THAT KICKSTARTER WAS GOING TO BE THE MEANS BY WHICH WE THREW OFF THE SHACKLES OF THE CORPORATE GAME INDUSTRY AND RECLAIMED THE THE BUSINESS PRACTICES THAT YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE BETTER DAYS?  ROFL YOU MORONS BELIEVED US
 
2013-12-16 01:56:59 AM

Mike_LowELL: FormlessOne: So, they're selling access to their beta...? Yeah, I'll pass, thanks.

HAY GUYS REMEMBER HOW WE TOLD YOU THAT KICKSTARTER WAS GOING TO BE THE MEANS BY WHICH WE THREW OFF THE SHACKLES OF THE CORPORATE GAME INDUSTRY AND RECLAIMED THE THE BUSINESS PRACTICES THAT YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE BETTER DAYS?  ROFL YOU MORONS BELIEVED US


I seem to recall pre-orders being a thing in the 90s. And I don't recall too many people flipping out over it. Pre-order, play the beta, is an awesome concept and you can go find a fire to die in if you disagree.
 
2013-12-16 02:06:06 AM
Normally, I'd be all over this, but $60 is a bit too steep for beta access, in my books.
 
2013-12-16 02:11:38 AM

gnosis301: Normally, I'd be all over this, but $60 is a bit too steep for beta access, in my books.



I would be more inclined if they offered something better than artwork and fan fiction or soundtracks.

The consumer is going to be paying to beta test it whether they have early access or buy the launch copy.

Hell some games even go as far as developing sequels and spend years on it without fixing bugs on the launch/gold/goty copy.

Releasing buggy and incomplete games is he new industry standard.
 
2013-12-16 02:23:33 AM

GodComplex: Mike_LowELL: FormlessOne: So, they're selling access to their beta...? Yeah, I'll pass, thanks.

HAY GUYS REMEMBER HOW WE TOLD YOU THAT KICKSTARTER WAS GOING TO BE THE MEANS BY WHICH WE THREW OFF THE SHACKLES OF THE CORPORATE GAME INDUSTRY AND RECLAIMED THE THE BUSINESS PRACTICES THAT YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE BETTER DAYS?  ROFL YOU MORONS BELIEVED US

I seem to recall pre-orders being a thing in the 90s. And I don't recall too many people flipping out over it. Pre-order, play the beta, is an awesome concept and you can go find a fire to die in if you disagree.



According to TFA, you can pay $59.99 and get about 30 percent of the game. That's not a beta. I don't even know what you call it.
 
2013-12-16 02:23:51 AM

Evi1Bo1weevi1: I bought in to all the hype around Kerbal Space Program and Minecraft, but those are two games that have proven to be an exception. Every other game beyond those two that I have seen in early access has been a unmitigated clusterfark with zero chance of getting out of development hell (see Star Forge, 7 Days to Die, Kinetic Void, etc).


Here's my philosophical issue with releasing a game early: It's that it acts as an admission on the part of game developers that they have no spine, and have no trust in judgment in their own ideas.  They want you to collaborate so you can help them make the best game possible--at least that's how they market it--rather than using the feedback as a means to your own understanding of the game.  The entire collaborative process these days is a means to mediocrity, and I'm not supporting that.  There used to be a time when game developers released a game, and there was an expectation on the part of the player base that it was your job to figure out and understand their game.  So long as the game was entertaining, then it wasn't a problem.

GodComplex: I seem to recall pre-orders being a thing in the 90s. And I don't recall too many people flipping out over it. Pre-order, play the beta, is an awesome concept and you can go find a fire to die in if you disagree.


Pre-orders are built on the idea that you have developed a finished game and that you have to release that game before any sale is truly finalized.  There is a world of difference between paying for an unfinished game and a finished game which is rough around the edges.
 
2013-12-16 02:30:55 AM

Researcher: I'm all for longer development in a game, and the sort of funding this brings about.

My major problem with this is some games ship, not just with some bugs or somewhat lacking, but woefully incomplete. Don't get me wrong, I like some of them - Payday2 and Endless Space being two of the worst offenders I still enjoy.


Both games, for a long time and with the latter, still, have features that are planned but just aren't there.

I kind of get the g2g of amplitude as a philosophy, letting the fans direct the process of a game, but when you shell out money for a completed game you generally want a completed game.

Include in that current current pre-funding (kickstarter style), extended beta access for pay, different levels of game for different pay scales, microtransactions, and then DLC even when the game is done and you're looking at going from developing a game into devoloping the behavior structure of a subscription even if the game isn't something that would normally be subscribed to. If you follow me. People pay subscriptions for games that are generally of a massively multiplayer "we really need money for servers/devs/mods/etc" type of logic. Once a mostly singleplayer or peer server game is released... that's it. Until new content is delivered the game makers can stop (unless they have bugs to fix, which is almost all games now). But patching aside, they're done.

There's good ideas in the mix in the above, definitely so. I just think it hasn't stabilized into a.... consistent(?) sort of product. Some early access games (generally from professional developers) and you're paying to support the development process and to get the game early, even if its not quite done. For some of the more indie games out there, you're paying them a charity for something that is usually barely past proof of concept. At least that's been my experience, but YMMV

I don't know... this is the trend of gaming today and I'm not sure where it's going. It's gotten to the point where if t ...


WHOA WHOA WHOA.

Standard practice dictates that you develop your game in quarter increments.  You release when your game is 25% done, and sell the remaining 75% as DLC chunks.
 
2013-12-16 02:31:53 AM

Evi1Bo1weevi1: I really have beef with the BS that is "early access". It used to be that games were beta tested at the cost of the game company, now they expect the user to pay for the privilege? Many times I have had great expectations from a game during the previews leading up to release just to have it be a total dud. Now these companies expect me to buy it before ANYONE gets a chance to see it? And Wasteland 2 devs have the balls to ask $60 for an incomplete game?! I bought in to all the hype around Kerbal Space Program and Minecraft, but those are two games that have proven to be an exception. Every other game beyond those two that I have seen in early access has been a unmitigated clusterfark with zero chance of getting out of development hell (see Star Forge, 7 Days to Die, Kinetic Void, etc).


Looking at my Steam library, the ones that I got in "early access" would be KSP, Don't Starve, and Edge of Space. Each of those have been pretty good, and I feel as if I got my money's worth. Of course, Don't Starve is post-release at this point.

Yeah, I was interested in Star Forge, Kinetic Void, 7 Days to Die, but something about each of those made me pause before buying. Dunno.

Anyway, I'll be picking up Starbound before too long, if only for the Linux support.
 
2013-12-16 02:32:02 AM
$55 to be a beta tester.

img.fark.net
 
2013-12-16 03:19:37 AM
DeathByGeekSquad:

Dude, you forgot about the micro-transactions.
 
2013-12-16 04:00:05 AM
"$60 to beta test" - and then, you know, have a copy of the finished game when it releases.

I don't get the problem.  If you really want to play it badly, get the early release.  If you don't care enough to deal with the bugs and limited content, wait for the full version.  Either way you pay your money and you get the full game, the only damn difference is whether you get to play it now, or go back to Battlefield 4 for another few months.
 
2013-12-16 04:03:24 AM

DemonEater: "$60 to beta test" - and then, you know, have a copy of the finished game when it releases.

I don't get the problem.  If you really want to play it badly, get the early release.  If you don't care enough to deal with the bugs and limited content, wait for the full version.  Either way you pay your money and you get the full game, the only damn difference is whether you get to play it now, or go back to Battlefield 4 for another few months.


because gamers are entitled whiny biatches. That's really all there is to it.
 
2013-12-16 04:30:29 AM
Oh, and to add on to what I was saying earlier, the purpose of the Kickstarter initiative was to effectively act as a means to philanthropy.  It was a means to get the money that you needed to make a finished game, and then make that game.  By getting that money, the developer now theoretically has the full creative freedom to create the game that they see fit.  Perhaps it's more risky for the consumer than the model where the developer has to make a game and then convince people to spend money on it, but if it's developer freedom you want, this is a great idea.  But if you're running around charging people for beta access or downloadable content after you have supposedly secured all of the capital that you need to make the game, and talking about how this crowdsourcing model is a rejection of the corporate hierarchy, then you're no better than what you're rebelling against.  That's the issue here.  It's not like the people working on Wasteland 2 were the first people to ever charge for early access to their game, but if you need people to pitch in so they can beta-test your single-player game--when the history of video games is littered with countless examples of sterling, tightly-polished single-player games--then that game is probably going to be a mess, anyway.  Unless, of course, you're just trying to pocket more money, and being the money-hungry shill that your crowdsourcing was designed to reject.
 
2013-12-16 04:38:30 AM

LiberalWeenie: According to TFA, you can pay $59.99 and get about 30 percent of the game. That's not a beta. I don't even know what you call it.


It's perfectly fine to call it beta if it is feature complete, ie. all of the systems are coded. Feature complete and content complete are not the same thing.
 
2013-12-16 05:00:09 AM

Mike_LowELL: Wasteland 2 were the first people to ever charge for early access to their game, but if you need people to pitch in so they can beta-test your single-player game--when the history of video games is littered with countless examples of sterling, tightly-polished single-player games--then that game is probably going to be a mess, anyway


have you considered the possibility of demand for early access?

basically they let early backers over a certain dollar amount(50 bucks I think) beta access. then once it is released to beta, other people start asking for beta access too, so they offer them the same amount that the early backers got it for. I can't see a reason for them to NOT do what they've done here.
 
2013-12-16 05:02:21 AM

DemonEater: "$60 to beta test" - and then, you know, have a copy of the finished game when it releases.

I don't get the problem.  If you really want to play it badly, get the early release.  If you don't care enough to deal with the bugs and limited content, wait for the full version.  Either way you pay your money and you get the full game, the only damn difference is whether you get to play it now, or go back to Battlefield 4 for another few months.


Yeah, doesn't seem that bad. Especially if more early-release beta players mean a better and more smooth release version. You'd think everyone would see it as a winner. I don't see the problem, no one's forcing anyone to buy it at 30% complete.
 
2013-12-16 05:12:14 AM
The only company to really do prefunding correctly, has been Star Citizen.
 
2013-12-16 05:23:29 AM

log_jammin: basically they let early backers over a certain dollar amount(50 bucks I think) beta access. then once it is released to beta, other people start asking for beta access too, so they offer them the same amount that the early backers got it for. I can't see a reason for them to NOT do what they've done here.


Fair enough, yeah.  I'll back off it a bit.  It's tough for me to blame them for doing this, particularly if it can be seen as a last-minute approach to the crowdfunding effort.  That said, I'm still thoroughly convinced that the modern beta-testing phase is a thoroughly easy way to make your game mediocre, because you inevitably end up catering to everyone in this process.  Games which are catered and balanced to everyone end up being boring games.  And if the purpose of your Kickstarter initiative was to be "part of a bigger trend of bringing control back to the developers", then just do it.  That's the entire purpose of getting the money up front in the first place.  You don't have to cater to your audience.  That doesn't mean you end up with a DotA 2 or a Dwarf Fortress, where the rules of the game are absolutely indecipherable, but you can push some boundaries and take some risks because you have the financial freedom to make the game you want.  Make the game you want, and tell your fans to shove it, rather than allowing them to embrace game development democracy.

k sleep
 
2013-12-16 05:26:33 AM
Gameplay looks dece.
 
2013-12-16 05:35:30 AM

Mike_LowELL: Games which are catered and balanced to everyone end up being boring games.


true, but "everyone" doesn't pony up 50 bucks to play a beta version of a sequel to a game that came out in the 80s.

I'd agree with you completely if this was an open beta.
 
2013-12-16 06:03:09 AM
One of the lessons learned from kickstarter is that devs tend to underestimate their costs and run out of money.

Just look at Spaceventure, Broken Age, and a slew of other highly hyped, high profile games that have been successfully funded and are now in development hell. Others, like Shadowrun Returns and Leisure Suit Larry, shipped in a sorry state because there wasn't enough money to make them at a high level of quality.

So, Steam early access is a viable way for devs to get a direct infusion of cash in exchange for showing off their code. It's better than kickstarter in the respect that you get a game instead of promises, and it provides the early access community with a chance to help make the game better via feedback and mods.

It's a win-win!
 
2013-12-16 06:27:32 AM
As a grizzled veteran of gaming I've been moving in the exact opposite direction - - - with few exceptions I'm not buying anything until the "Gold" or "GOTY" edition comes out with all the DLC's included and typically only on some kind of Steam sale.   I think the "well fark you guys then" moment was day 1 DLC's included in Dragon Age.

I'm quite prepared to pay full price for finished games but putting out a finished (and complete) game has become so exceedingly rare that like a beaten dog my first instinct is to shy away from new releases until I'm 99% certain its safe to come out from behind the sofa and take a sniff.
 
2013-12-16 06:44:49 AM

Fizpez: As a grizzled veteran of gaming I've been moving in the exact opposite direction - - - with few exceptions I'm not buying anything until the "Gold" or "GOTY" edition comes out with all the DLC's included and typically only on some kind of Steam sale. I think the "well fark you guys then" moment was day 1 DLC's included in Dragon Age.


Exactly.  I'm currently playing through games that are 2-3 years old, but that's cool because so's my video card.  I don't care, they're new to me, but I paid $10 for Fallout New Vegas Ultimate, $5 for Dragon Age Origins Ultimate, $5 each for BioShock 1 and 2, like $7.50 for GTA IV plus EfLC, $5-$10 for Borderlands GOTY... I've never been happier as a gamer, considering 20 years ago I used to drop $40 on stuff like TIE Fighter, Starcraft, Diablo II, and Interstate '76.  Great games all, but I'm spending so much less now, and getting the complete experience!

Granted, some games will just be WORTH buying when they come out.  Fallout 4 I will likely snag quickly, even KNOWING that they will do DLC for it.
 
2013-12-16 06:59:11 AM

Fizpez: As a grizzled veteran of gaming I've been moving in the exact opposite direction - - - with few exceptions I'm not buying anything until the "Gold" or "GOTY" edition comes out with all the DLC's included and typically only on some kind of Steam sale.   I think the "well fark you guys then" moment was day 1 DLC's included in Dragon Age.

I'm quite prepared to pay full price for finished games but putting out a finished (and complete) game has become so exceedingly rare that like a beaten dog my first instinct is to shy away from new releases until I'm 99% certain its safe to come out from behind the sofa and take a sniff.


Or has a subscription pass for new/DLC. Borderlands 2 was one of those, and totally worth it. I'll happily buy every DLC they toss down the pike because it's all really good.
 
2013-12-16 07:56:26 AM

Fizpez: As a grizzled veteran of gaming I've been moving in the exact opposite direction - - - with few exceptions I'm not buying anything until the "Gold" or "GOTY" edition comes out with all the DLC's included and typically only on some kind of Steam sale.


I'm even more out there- I only play things with Mac/Linux releases. These platforms pretty much only ever *get* the GOTY edition of games, usually 1 year after the initial release. The exception is Valve's own software, which is great- the only online multiplayer I really like is L4D2's campaign mode.
 
2013-12-16 08:09:51 AM

Lady Indica: Fizpez: As a grizzled veteran of gaming I've been moving in the exact opposite direction - - - with few exceptions I'm not buying anything until the "Gold" or "GOTY" edition comes out with all the DLC's included and typically only on some kind of Steam sale.   I think the "well fark you guys then" moment was day 1 DLC's included in Dragon Age.

I'm quite prepared to pay full price for finished games but putting out a finished (and complete) game has become so exceedingly rare that like a beaten dog my first instinct is to shy away from new releases until I'm 99% certain its safe to come out from behind the sofa and take a sniff.

Or has a subscription pass for new/DLC. Borderlands 2 was one of those, and totally worth it. I'll happily buy every DLC they toss down the pike because it's all really good.



I just bought the vanilla version on Steam for $7.50. Kinda wishing I had dropped the extra $23 and got the GOTY edition, but it's all good. I'm enjoying the base game just fine for now.
 
2013-12-16 08:20:46 AM
The problem with early access for non-sandbox type games is that you end up playing an unfinished game.  With a sandbox style game it's OK because who cares if there isn't a beginning and end of the game then there isn't a feeling of completion anyway.  Minecraft was especially great in this respect.  We didn't care that the game wasn't completed when we bought because every update was an excuse to start a new world and build some more stuff.
 
2013-12-16 08:30:06 AM
Some gaming companies are smart enough not to to tell you that their game is early access. I'm looking at you Egosoft and your x-rebirth release.

/I want my $49.95 back!
 
2013-12-16 08:35:06 AM

Lady Indica: Fizpez: As a grizzled veteran of gaming I've been moving in the exact opposite direction - - - with few exceptions I'm not buying anything until the "Gold" or "GOTY" edition comes out with all the DLC's included and typically only on some kind of Steam sale.   I think the "well fark you guys then" moment was day 1 DLC's included in Dragon Age.

I'm quite prepared to pay full price for finished games but putting out a finished (and complete) game has become so exceedingly rare that like a beaten dog my first instinct is to shy away from new releases until I'm 99% certain its safe to come out from behind the sofa and take a sniff.

Or has a subscription pass for new/DLC. Borderlands 2 was one of those, and totally worth it. I'll happily buy every DLC they toss down the pike because it's all really good.


Except that has already broken down on several games, where you have to buy the season pass for some of the content, and then other DLCs end up coming out alongside or after the season pass has ended. Once you have literally hundreds of unplayed games stacked up, it just becomes way easier to wait at least a year before you buy anything, as then get everything in one package with a lot less messing about.
 
2013-12-16 08:51:33 AM

Mike_LowELL: FormlessOne: So, they're selling access to their beta...? Yeah, I'll pass, thanks.

HAY GUYS REMEMBER HOW WE TOLD YOU THAT KICKSTARTER WAS GOING TO BE THE MEANS BY WHICH WE THREW OFF THE SHACKLES OF THE CORPORATE GAME INDUSTRY AND RECLAIMED THE THE BUSINESS PRACTICES THAT YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THE BETTER DAYS?  ROFL YOU MORONS BELIEVED US


Mike you've been really disappointing lately. Did you get dumped or something? You used to have interesting and insightful discussions. Now you're just a really, really, lame troll. Like, that's not even subtle enough to bite.

Also: this is a preorder that ALSO gives access to the beta. And a copy of wasteland 1. It's not a purchased beta key. It's targeted at hardcore fans who can't get enough, so they get some benefit out of preordering.

Personally I think early access is the scum of steam and is ruining the service, since 90% of the 'top slot' games on the rotating infodial at the top are early access now. It's obnoxious and more invasive than GameStop or best buy stopping you and saying 'we have that used for 9 cents off! And I noticed you bought X, want to preorder Y? Hey, buy a magazine!'.

Seriously, I'm about ready to start shopping in stores again. At least they don't have early access games.
 
2013-12-16 08:51:58 AM

Egoy3k: The problem with early access for non-sandbox type games is that you end up playing an unfinished game.  With a sandbox style game it's OK because who cares if there isn't a beginning and end of the game then there isn't a feeling of completion anyway.  Minecraft was especially great in this respect.  We didn't care that the game wasn't completed when we bought because every update was an excuse to start a new world and build some more stuff.


yeah, there's quite of few of these sandbox early-access games recently... i guess the question is just "is it fun?" but hey, that's a problem no matter if your game is finished or not

star citizen looks good at least, we'll see what they actually do with all that money
 
2013-12-16 09:04:31 AM
They already got my money at the $15 level.... Fargo you aint getting more from me.
 
2013-12-16 09:23:42 AM

AdamK: Egoy3k: The problem with early access for non-sandbox type games is that you end up playing an unfinished game.  With a sandbox style game it's OK because who cares if there isn't a beginning and end of the game then there isn't a feeling of completion anyway.  Minecraft was especially great in this respect.  We didn't care that the game wasn't completed when we bought because every update was an excuse to start a new world and build some more stuff.

yeah, there's quite of few of these sandbox early-access games recently... i guess the question is just "is it fun?" but hey, that's a problem no matter if your game is finished or not

star citizen looks good at least, we'll see what they actually do with all that money


Minecraft and KSP are the only 'early access' games I have bought and both of those games have shown great willingness to incorporate ideas from the community into their game.  In those cases it's great but in a story driven game I just cannot see the point I don't want to play the same story over and over on each iteration.  I don't really care about any games right now anyway though nothing interests me.

I'm holding out for Assassins Creed IV to drop in price as I refuse to pay full price for an AC game after AC3 no matter how good the reviews are.
I'm waiting for Banished and plan to pay full price whatever it turns out to be
Once Starbound is complete I'll pick it up on a sale
Stardew valley is on my list
Star citizen looks awesome but I don't have much time to devote to games and unless the campaign is compelling I don't want to buy a multiplayer focused game where I'll just get annihilated by college kids with enough time and obsessiveness to be flying around in
death stars while I'm in the RV from spaceballs.  I don't blame those guys I used to be one of those guys in WoW when I was in college, and I'm sure I did frustrate the hell out a few people.
 
2013-12-16 09:47:34 AM
This is the trolliest of headlines, and there's a meltdown of whining steam gamers sounding off on the forums there as well, sad that's it's gotten greenlit on Fark.

Bottom line: The game is fully funded, and mostly complete, $60 is the deluxe digital backer-package that kickstarters got which included early access for $55 (so steam buyers paying $5 more, mainly for steam's cut), and if you don;t want to pay $60 for an incomplete game... don't. The game will probably be around $30 when it's done, in a few months,
 
2013-12-16 09:50:46 AM

Giltric: gnosis301: Normally, I'd be all over this, but $60 is a bit too steep for beta access, in my books.


I would be more inclined if they offered something better than artwork and fan fiction or soundtracks.

The consumer is going to be paying to beta test it whether they have early access or buy the launch copy.

Hell some games even go as far as developing sequels and spend years on it without fixing bugs on the launch/gold/goty copy.

Releasing buggy and incomplete games is he new industry standard.


It was standard in the 90s too. People are blinded by nostalgia.
 
2013-12-16 09:54:18 AM
Man, Mike must hate me.  Pretty much all the games I play I dropped founders money on, lol.
 
2013-12-16 10:05:21 AM

albuquerquehalsey: $55 to be a beta tester.

[img.fark.net image 360x413]


It took less time than I expected for that panel to get cropped out of Dr. Mcninja.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report