It seems Steam is selling more and more so called early releases, some of which aren't even at the Beta stage, with some selling for new full release prices.
I also find it odd, games like Panzer Corp can't get greenlighted but, Rip-off crap like Day One: Garry's Incident can. It seems if some one gives away enough Steam keys anything can get greenlighted. Is the greenlight open to manipulation or is the process fixed?
Steam is still a great way to get and manage games and there is nothing easier than getting your steam games installed on a new rig. Yet the whole Early Release and Greenlight process is starting to smell and it's not good!
The only game I've purchased as early access was Kerbel Space Program and that thing was ridiculously well done. IT's still considered early release and the game is very very polished, original, and addicting as hell. If you want to look at a early release done right KSP is it. imho of course.
I don't see any issues with the offering of Alpha and Beta games. It does seem to be more of a trend, paying for "early access" to incomplete games. However, this is clearly advertised and I don't have any problem in principle of offering folks the opportunity to pay to play early, eg. ARMA 3. As a consumer, it pays to do your due diligence before you buy to determine if a game is worth an early pay-to-play and there is so much information out there that there's no reason to feel misled into buying a clunker. For example, there is almost no game on Steam's forums that doesn't have a "Is this game worth it?" thread on the first page, and since the Steam forums almost always attract folks with an axe to grind, getting access to negative opinions has never been easier.
I don't have any opinion as to Greenlight or how it works.
I don't think it's a rip-off, nobody is making us buy early and there is usually enough info to sorta make an informed choice. I've only bought one early access[doorkickers] and i feel is was in good enough shape to buy and play and it turned out it was. I generally have enough of a backlog of games where i don't feel like i have to buy something early, I do look though.
Buyer beware.
Quote from: Toonces on October 21, 2013, 09:30:06 PM
I don't see any issues with the offering of Alpha and Beta games. It does seem to be more of a trend, paying for "early access" to incomplete games. However, this is clearly advertised and I don't have any problem in principle of offering folks the opportunity to pay to play early, eg. ARMA 3. As a consumer, it pays to do your due diligence before you buy to determine if a game is worth an early pay-to-play and there is so much information out there that there's no reason to feel misled into buying a clunker. For example, there is almost no game on Steam's forums that doesn't have a "Is this game worth it?" thread on the first page, and since the Steam forums almost always attract folks with an axe to grind, getting access to negative opinions has never been easier.
I don't have any opinion as to Greenlight or how it works.
Try reading the Steam Forums for some of these early releases, some thought they were buying a playable game and not some unfinished unplayable mess of a failed kickstarter. There is also no guarantee that the per-released (unfinished) game you just bought will ever be released, finished, or even become playable. There are even some developer comments like "Wow we got more money on Steam, then we got from our kickstarter". I would hate to think Steam is becoming the place to fund developer's failed kickstarter!
Steam needs to offer something if a so called early release is never finished or not released in a playable state!
not a rip off but I click on a lot of games that look interesting and I find out that it was an android or ipad app first and they are porting it over. i wish it would state that on the info page somewhere. i have to read the forums to find that out most of the time.
Steam doesn't need to offer anything, they are a distributor. If anyone needs to offer anything it's the developers, and even then it's the consumer's responsibility to educate himself on what he's buying.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I get what you're saying. However, as a consumer you really need to do your own homework before you buy a game. It's not Steam's job to ensure you know what you're buying. You have to read, research, figure it out.
For example, there was some zombie shooter game I saw on there a few months back that looked really good. I can't remember the name, but the store page looked pretty awesome. I'm ready to buy, but I want to browse for a few previews/reviews before I commit so I go to the forums and it is just plastered with folks bitching about how unfinished the game is, etc. Yes, somebody had to be that first guy that bought and got burned. But after he got burned and pasted all over the forum about it, what excuse is there for the next 100? Or 500? After seeing 20 threads of "this game is shit" I had no problem NOT buying the game.
There's an argument to be made that the first buyer really had no appropriate intel to not buy the game. But, then there are review sites, etc.
For the vast majority of us, there's just no excuse to be surprised by a game purchase anymore.
Quote from: CptHowdy on October 21, 2013, 09:50:55 PM
not a rip off but I click on a lot of games that look interesting and I find out that it was an android or ipad app first and they are porting it over. i wish it would state that on the info page somewhere. i have to read the forums to find that out most of the time.
There is a filter for platforms (Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc.) on Steam!
Quote from: SgtRock on October 21, 2013, 09:58:04 PM
Quote from: CptHowdy on October 21, 2013, 09:50:55 PM
not a rip off but I click on a lot of games that look interesting and I find out that it was an android or ipad app first and they are porting it over. i wish it would state that on the info page somewhere. i have to read the forums to find that out most of the time.
There is a filter for platforms (Windows, Mac OS, Linux, etc.) on Steam!
That doesn't filter out the Tablet-to-PC ports since those are technically Windows-based since they'd been ported to it.
I can understand his frustration, as most of the tablet games are just too thin for my enjoyment. However, I can usually tell if it's tablet port after looking at some screenshots. I'm also now in the habit of checking the Steam forum to see if it's a port of some kind - either from tablet or console.
Quote from: Toonces on October 21, 2013, 09:57:31 PM
I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I get what you're saying. However, as a consumer you really need to do your own homework before you buy a game. It's not Steam's job to ensure you know what you're buying. You have to read, research, figure it out.
For example, there was some zombie shooter game I saw on there a few months back that looked really good. I can't remember the name, but the store page looked pretty awesome. I'm ready to buy, but I want to browse for a few previews/reviews before I commit so I go to the forums and it is just plastered with folks bitching about how unfinished the game is, etc. Yes, somebody had to be that first guy that bought and got burned. But after he got burned and pasted all over the forum about it, what excuse is there for the next 100? Or 500? After seeing 20 threads of "this game is shit" I had no problem NOT buying the game.
There's an argument to be made that the first buyer really had no appropriate intel to not buy the game. But, then there are review sites, etc.
For the vast majority of us, there's just no excuse to be surprised by a game purchase anymore.
Steam never used to be like this, you always got a finished/released game, it may have bugs and/or total crap but it was a released title.
Early release can mean anything from a real almost complete title to some half baked idea that's no where near completion. Most gamers don't know the difference between a Alpha and Beta release, hell some developers don't even have clear difference on what's an Alpha or Beta release.
Quote from: SgtRock on October 21, 2013, 10:05:47 PM
Quote from: Toonces on October 21, 2013, 09:57:31 PM
I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I get what you're saying. However, as a consumer you really need to do your own homework before you buy a game. It's not Steam's job to ensure you know what you're buying. You have to read, research, figure it out.
For example, there was some zombie shooter game I saw on there a few months back that looked really good. I can't remember the name, but the store page looked pretty awesome. I'm ready to buy, but I want to browse for a few previews/reviews before I commit so I go to the forums and it is just plastered with folks bitching about how unfinished the game is, etc. Yes, somebody had to be that first guy that bought and got burned. But after he got burned and pasted all over the forum about it, what excuse is there for the next 100? Or 500? After seeing 20 threads of "this game is shit" I had no problem NOT buying the game.
There's an argument to be made that the first buyer really had no appropriate intel to not buy the game. But, then there are review sites, etc.
For the vast majority of us, there's just no excuse to be surprised by a game purchase anymore.
Steam never used to be like this, you always got a finished/released game, it may have bugs and/or total crap but it was a released title.
Early release can mean anything from a real almost complete title to some half baked idea that's no where near completion. Most gamers don't know the difference between a Alpha and Beta release, hell some developers don't even have clear difference on what's an Alpha or Beta release.
i agree. i wish they would be a little more discerning and not offer everything under the sun. a lot of crap to filter through.
Steam Rip Off - Here's an example:
On Steam Now
Day One: Garry's Incident Review - $19.95
the game as a metric score of 0.5
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/day-one-garrys-incident
How does something like that even get Greenlighted and released by Steam, huh?
It will only be a rip off if you allow yourself to be ripped off
Quote from: SgtRock on October 21, 2013, 09:49:52 PM
Quote from: Toonces on October 21, 2013, 09:30:06 PM
I don't see any issues with the offering of Alpha and Beta games. It does seem to be more of a trend, paying for "early access" to incomplete games. However, this is clearly advertised and I don't have any problem in principle of offering folks the opportunity to pay to play early, eg. ARMA 3. As a consumer, it pays to do your due diligence before you buy to determine if a game is worth an early pay-to-play and there is so much information out there that there's no reason to feel misled into buying a clunker. For example, there is almost no game on Steam's forums that doesn't have a "Is this game worth it?" thread on the first page, and since the Steam forums almost always attract folks with an axe to grind, getting access to negative opinions has never been easier.
I don't have any opinion as to Greenlight or how it works.
Try reading the Steam Forums for some of these early releases, some thought they were buying a playable game and not some unfinished unplayable mess of a failed kickstarter. There is also no guarantee that the per-released (unfinished) game you just bought will ever be released, finished, or even become playable. There are even some developer comments like "Wow we got more money on Steam, then we got from our kickstarter". I would hate to think Steam is becoming the place to fund developer's failed kickstarter!
Steam needs to offer something if a so called early release is never finished or not released in a playable state!
They all have a banner on the store page that says it is an early access game, and it has a link to a page describing Early Access if they can't figure it out from the banner. What should they do, make them watch a video describing early access every time they try to purchase an early access game?
Want to pay full price for an unfinished game? Check out this video about
Dark Matter:
GamersGate (http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-DM/dark-matter), GOG.com (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=700177), and Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/251410/) (and probably many other digital distributors) offered
Dark Matter for sale, although Steam has apparently taken down its buy link.
It was not stated in the game's description that it was an unfinished game, and that sounds like false advertising to me. Buyer beware it might be, but I think it's very unscrupulous for a developer to try to pass off an unfinished product as a finished one. Perhaps we need more releases like this and
Sword of the Stars II to get enough gamers riled up to put an end to such foolishness.
QuoteThey all have a banner on the store page that says it is an early access game, and it has a link to a page describing Early Access if they can't figure it out from the banner. What should they do, make them watch a video describing early access every time they try to purchase an early access game?
And where does it say the game may not be playable? There's a big difference between Early Release and Not playable or maybe never finished!
Selling unfinished software is like selling snake oil!
Just send me $685,000,000.00 USD and I'll give the last game you'll ever desire and/or a health care system that's works every 3rd Thursday of the month! ;D
I have no issue whatsoever as long as sold with an early access/beta warning....if it is known that sometimes they are not fully playable or will never get complete that is a risk the buyer can assume if they want. Simple answer is don't buy Into any of them if your not comfortable with it and wait to official release.
There are also titles being officially released that are full of bugs or barely playable and I would worry more about those.
I see the limited installs for games as a much bigger problem than the availability of alpha/beta releases, provided those are accurately described as such on their store page.
All kinds of unfinished, broken releases made it to the stores when internet access was still slow and not very common. Today, you can at least check various forums before buying a game. Sure, there might be all kind of angry teenagers in many of them, but their lack of nuance does give you a clear idea of whether the game is worth something. "Th!s game is br0ken!" is a more direct and less literate way to say that the game includes some (serious) bugs. "Some features are not fully developed" would be the euphemistic way to put it, but it's also less honest.
There are truckloads of indie games and various early releases, and I haven't bought any of those titles through Steam recently.
Paying to be beta testers is in my opinion not an excellent business practice, but I'd say you're not literally ripping anyone off as long as you make it clear they're paying for a beta with no guarantee of the project ever being released in good shape.
Quote from: ComradeP on October 22, 2013, 04:34:14 AM
Paying to be beta testers is in my opinion not an excellent business practice, but I'd say you're not literally ripping anyone off as long as you make it clear they're paying for a beta with no guarantee of the project ever being released in good shape.
Agreed. I think the current trend of charging for beta access is insane. If it's a proper beta the developer should be paying the testers, not charging them!
That said, SgtRock does kind of have a point. There have been a few controversies on Steam this year, leading to two or three titles (that I know of) being pulled due to their broken state, and I can't say I'm 100% comfortable with that. I never buy a game without checking the forums any more. That never used to happen. I wish the early access games were segregated in a completely different part of the store, just like Greenlight titles.
Well, Greenlight seems to be mostly based on what the people want, so if enough people want rubbish, it will be released. It's democracy in motion: sometimes elections have really bad results, most of the time they're about average and in some cases they are good. The people running Steam can't play every game, and I'm willing to bet they are influenced significantly by what might make money or what at the least can be offered for a low price (still with a decent margin for Steam). Before Unity of Command arrived on Steam, the team leader had to jump through a lot of hoops. Some obscure indie game will be released almost immediately after the application is received.
To me, 2-3 games being sold through Steam even though they were really buggy is a drop in a pond compared to how many games there are on Steam. As long as I'm not forced in some way to buy those games, I can accept that it will happen. It's inevitable in a way. Something like the Colonial Marines fiasco bothers me a lot more than an obscure indie game not being worth the money. However, some of the early access games (or their equally popular variant for more well-known titles: "pre-purchase to take part in the beta") cost quite a bit. That's also a recent trend: some indie developers must be making some pretty serious money with their small team/low development cost games, riding the retro wave where graphics are seen as being less important for some titles.
It would be a different story if Steam would be like a TV channel where you'd get an X amount of content for a certain monthly fee, and if a big chunk of that content would be rubbish. Steam isn't forcing me to buy any of the Greenlit or early access games that might never even make it to beta stage, and it makes it perfectly clear if I'm buying for a full game or a part of it in the shape of an alpha/beta release.
Quote from: ComradeP on October 22, 2013, 05:24:59 AM
Well, Greenlight seems to be mostly based on what the people want, so if enough people want rubbish, it will be released.
Hence the glut of shitty 'indie' platformer games coming out lately.
There seems to be one released every other day. ::)
Where the hell did all these 8-bit platformer addicts come from?
the one thing i think a lot of early access purchasers need to learn is early access doesnt mean 'get game early'
i think an awful lot of people get in thinking they can play the full/nearly completed game without any issues and go to the forum to complain when it doesnt work - its not supposed to work, youre testing it
Quote from: Huw the Poo on October 22, 2013, 04:44:56 AM
Quote from: ComradeP on October 22, 2013, 04:34:14 AM
Paying to be beta testers is in my opinion not an excellent business practice, but I'd say you're not literally ripping anyone off as long as you make it clear they're paying for a beta with no guarantee of the project ever being released in good shape.
Agreed. I think the current trend of charging for beta access is insane.
I don't think there is much of a problem on Steam. Having all kinds of games available (even if most of them are crappy for one reason or another) is a good thing.
So far I've been very satisfied with my alpha-level game purchases: I got ARMAIII for very cheap and it might have been more fun as an Alpha on the little Island anyway -- I got Sir, You are being Hunted -- a very well-built alpha and I got Take on Mars -- which is a really weird game whether it is in Alpha or not.
I will say that from a purely commercial standpoint it's hard to argue with the notion that people will give you money for an incomplete product, and perhaps even brag about how much more incomplete theirs was than yours when they got it, just so they can be "first!"
Quote from: Greybriar on October 21, 2013, 10:28:35 PM
Want to pay full price for an unfinished game? Check out this video about Dark Matter:
GamersGate (http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-DM/dark-matter), GOG.com (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=700177), and Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/251410/) (and probably many other digital distributors) offered Dark Matter for sale, although Steam has apparently taken down its buy link.
It was not stated in the game's description that it was an unfinished game, and that sounds like false advertising to me. Buyer beware it might be, but I think it's very unscrupulous for a developer to try to pass off an unfinished product as a finished one. Perhaps we need more releases like this and Sword of the Stars II to get enough gamers riled up to put an end to such foolishness.
GOG steps upto the plate! - offers Dark Matter Refunds
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/release_dark_matter/post121
If you bought Dark Matter before 21 October 2013 at 15:00 GMT (when we updated the description to where we feel it adequately reflects the game) and you feel that the game wasn't as promised to you, please contact Support and they'll be happy to offer you full refund to your card or, if you''d prefer, games of equal or lesser value to the sale price of Dark Matter (which is $13.49).
I'd like to see Steam do the same for players who bought early releases that won't even work on their system!
As someone who Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Steam, even I scratch my head a bit at some of the Alpha releases. I don't think they're a 'rip off,' but it does seem a little ill considered to me. I've come around on Beta offerings: if you're interested enough in a game to pay for the Beta, why not give customers the opportunity to do that? Anyone who's thinking clearly should know the risks that come with a Beta, and if you're buying a Beta and expecting it to be 'mostly' flawless, you're deluding yourself.
But the case for releasing Alphas seems a little more tenuous to me -- it does seem a bit like a money-grab. But when push comes to shove, hey, if you want to buy the Alpha, that's your call. As a business model, it must have some pay off -- didn't Steam release Planetary Annihlation as an Alpha at the $90 price point? That almost seemed like a sociological experiment: let's see if there's a customer population who will pay *this* much even at *this* early a stage in game development? I guess it worked.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on October 22, 2013, 07:52:14 AM
I will say that from a purely commercial standpoint it's hard to argue with the notion that people will give you money for an incomplete product, and perhaps even brag about how much more incomplete theirs was than yours when they got it, just so they can be "first!"
This.
I guess it also evens out the cash flow of game development. The downside could be that enough vocal, non-understanding buyers shouting about a buggy, incomplete game could generate a dangerous amount of bad publicity when you get to full release time.
Well to me - from a steam point of view - its all about income generation.
I think they are filling their inventory with everything they can to keep the cash flowing in.
I mean how many AAA games have release in the last six months ?
I think one nuance of the original post is kinda interesting. How aggressively does Steam filter their product selection based on how much money they're receiving? If popular, highly promising, seeming quality games in late development struggle for Greenlighting, while other crap Alpha titles walk in the front door without a Greenlight vote, that would indicate that Steam might be more interested in pocketing your money than delivering good value for the money you pay them.
Buyers should always beware, but that doesn't mean that you can't prefer vendors who have an established practice of trying to do right by their customers (e.g., the way Stardock did with Fallen Enchantress). I have no idea how Steam decides those things, and they have a right to try maximizing their short-term revenue if they want to, but I also have a right to channel my business towards vendors who are more committed to maximizing their long-term revenue by offering quality products.
It's just something to keep an eye on as you evaluate what you buy and from whom, I think...
Quote from: SgtRock on October 21, 2013, 09:15:56 PM
It seems Steam is selling more and more so called early releases, some of which aren't even at the Beta stage, with some selling for new full release prices.
I also find it odd, games like Panzer Corp can't get greenlighted but, Rip-off crap like Day One: Garry's Incident can. It seems if some one gives away enough Steam keys anything can get greenlighted. Is the greenlight open to manipulation or is the process fixed?
Steam is still a great way to get and manage games and there is nothing easier than getting your steam games installed on a new rig. Yet the whole Early Release and Greenlight process is starting to smell and it's not good!
I think the problem is that the gaming industry is contracting year after year. Steam has to fill their "shelves" with something, so I think they are doing it by "greenlighting" alphas and betas.
It is really sad when you look at the games on Steam these days: it is like the 90s all over again with tons of side scrollers and platformers. Not that in and of itself that is a bad thing, but it certainly shows how gaming is stuck in neutral and/or going backwards.
Edit: I just saw Zulu1966's comment. Spot on. +1
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on October 22, 2013, 03:22:28 PM
I have no idea how Steam decides those things, and they have a right to try maximizing their short-term revenue if they want to, but I also have a right to channel my business towards vendors who are more committed to maximizing their long-term revenue by offering quality products.
Maximising revenue short-term is what Valve has always been about. That's why their customer support is so shit.
If Steam tells us what we are buying...then there is really no issue for me either.
But I do wonder about how the PC game market has changed. It wasn't long ago when a buggy, incomplete release from a low budget indie developer brought a very harsh reaction. I remember folks calling the Histwar release a criminal act for example: the side-story of course was that the dev stuck around and supported his product for years after release.
Now developers just sell whatever they have in their source safe as an "alpha" or "beta" release, and everybody is happy.
I also wonder what this will do to the dev business itself. Having worked in a software company myself, there was nothing like a payday at the end to keep the project on track. Under today's rules I guess that that pressure to complete the project is gone or at least lessened. What is the incentive to ever get out of beta?
Quote from: Toonces on October 21, 2013, 09:30:06 PM
I don't see any issues with the offering of Alpha and Beta games. It does seem to be more of a trend, paying for "early access" to incomplete games. However, this is clearly advertised and I don't have any problem in principle of offering folks the opportunity to pay to play early, eg. ARMA 3. As a consumer, it pays to do your due diligence before you buy to determine if a game is worth an early pay-to-play and there is so much information out there that there's no reason to feel misled into buying a clunker. For example, there is almost no game on Steam's forums that doesn't have a "Is this game worth it?" thread on the first page, and since the Steam forums almost always attract folks with an axe to grind, getting access to negative opinions has never been easier.
I don't have any opinion as to Greenlight or how it works.
Pretty much agree with the entire paragraph.
As for Greenlight, games getting through is based on user votes and wants. So if something crap made it through, blame the voters.
Yeah, recently I've purchased 7 Days to Die and Legends of Eisenwald on Steam, both Alpha's. I'm playing the hell out of 7 Days and think Eisenwald is a dog. This can happen with any game, Alpha or not. I'll take the chance if the price is right and I'm intrigued, but there's not a lot of Alpha's I can say that about.
It might still be preferable to pay for an alpha compared to contributing to Kickstarter for a game that may or may not actually be worth something when it's released. At least you get to play something. Sure, you roll the dice a bit, but you can often at least get some sort of informed opinion on whether it's going to be terrible or not (there's always a sucker before you who bought the poor quality game you're looking at, and in this era he'll post about it somewhere).
The trend towards less patience/greater simplification has been going on for years, people want content now and don't want to wait a while. As a sales strategy, it clearly seems to work for some people. There are so many indie developers around that the competition for attention (not for the quality of the release, purely for the attention) of the customer must be pretty fierce, so they will try to release something that could be described as being partially playable as soon as possible.
Maybe the reason that there's no outcry over this is because they're not AAA titles. It's a paradox of sorts, but that does seem to be how the market works: people expect quality from AAA titles, even though I'm pretty sure in-house beta's of CoD games are more stable than some of the alpha releases on Steam, it just won't do if those are released. On the other hand, indie games are slowly moving towards premium prices, which makes the business practice a bit more debatable. Game prices have increased notably in recent years in any case (don't refer to how AAA games were cheap before compared to their rising development costs, I know that story, I'm talking about all these indie games with minimal development costs). Something that you would expect to pick up for your phone for less than 10 bucks can cost you 30 on Steam.
I guess that's also why I don't play nearly as many mainstream titles as before: there are a lot more releases per month of some sort now than there were before the digital download and indie era, but most of them only seem to offer a limited amount of content and may or may not be all that different from their competitors. It's fast-paced high adrenaline gaming in many cases, something I'm not a big fan of, and sadly that's par for the course in the gaming market today, so I buy mostly older games or wargames. In a way, buying a game that gives you a few hours of content could be considered being ripped off, but opinions clearly differ. I guess the tipping point for me was Dragon Age: Origins, which was more simplified than I had hoped it would be, after that the streamlining/simplification/instant gratification craze ruined a lot of games for me. Even something like Rome 2 is streamlined and simplified compared to its predecessors according to reviews, yet for reasons not entirely clear to me many fans of the original series still like it. For me, it would be too difficult to adapt.
I believe it was the reboot of "Pool of Radiance" that not only was buggy as blazes at release, but included as an uninstall "feature" the zerging of some users' system registries causing hard crashes. People were charged full price for which they received a lovely paper map, game media, a printed user manual, and, eventually, a borked computer. The emptor has always had to caveat.
As PC gaming becomes more and more niche, I can foresee a world in which only console games get beta teams.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: ComradeP on October 23, 2013, 04:41:41 AM
Even something like Rome 2 is streamlined and simplified compared to its predecessors according to reviews, yet for reasons not entirely clear to me many fans of the original series still like it. For me, it would be too difficult to adapt.
The reviews of Rome are pretty confusing and so completely distant from the actual game that you need sophisticated diagnostic methods to figure out why people seem to have reviewed the game without coming to grips with what game is. First of all, there's nothing simplified about the game; the apparent simplicity is the result of the game working so well that everything feels completely natural: stuff happens, years pass, armies and fleets move (note that Rome I had no tactical sea battles at all and Rome II does and the sea battles in Rome II work so well that no one has anything to say about them -- they work fine therefore they are invisible to reviewers) battles are fought etc. Most of the game works so well that it enters a kind of uncanny valley in which whatever works appears natural and therefore not gamey and therefore not visible to reviewers. Many fans of the Original like Rome II because it is a game that has improved so much and works so well and has so much more depth than the original that most everything about the game that works (and that is most of the game) is perceived as "simplified" (ie actually functional) by people who haven't engaged with the game.
This inability of reviewers to come to grips with good games is a symptom of what is happening to games: they are spliting not just into niches but into completely different modes of perception -- reviewers who do nothing but catalog the usual bugs and what not and fail to note that the graphics are not just excellent but actually tell you what is going on show that a lot of things about games are simply becoming hard to see because they are deceptively familar and another set of steps is needed to see what is there in what there is to be seen, ie, there are games where you have to play the game quite a bit to see what the dynamics really are and how well all the components come together. This is relatively easy for some types of games where the focus of the game is on something limited like sports or platforms or killing zombies or racing cars, but not so easy for games offering a lot of complex options in a complex version of the ancient world.
Quote from: Cyrano on October 23, 2013, 12:27:16 PM
I believe it was the reboot of "Pool of Radiance" that not only was buggy as blazes at release, but included as an uninstall "feature" the zerging of some users' system registries causing hard crashes. People were charged full price for which they received a lovely paper map, game media, a printed user manual, and, eventually, a borked computer. The emptor has always had to caveat.
As PC gaming becomes more and more niche, I can foresee a world in which only console games get beta teams.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Yes, it was
Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor (http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/pool-of-radiance-ruins-of-myth-drannor) that was released with the "buggy" (to use the term loosely) uninstall feature. The way I understand it, if someone uninstalled the unpatched version of the game, it would wipe the computer's system files (http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/01q4/pool_of_radiance/pool-1.html).
Quote from: Cyrano on October 23, 2013, 12:27:16 PM
As PC gaming becomes more and more niche, I can foresee a world in which only console games get beta teams.
PC Gaming is surviving just fine. I'd even say it's thriving due to the bustling indie market of late.
I dunno why some of you guys keep insisting that it's dying. Same 'ole misconceptions we've seen for decades. ::)
I owned POR:RoMD and never had an uninstall issue with it back in the day. I actually got some enjoyment out of it, despite the odd bug. Of course Neverwinter Nights came along a little time afterwards and blew it away in all categories.
Thats not true at all. The gaming industry is continuing to expand dramatically so year after year. There is a pretty big shift or at least a disturbance in the market where Mobile Games are growing far more rapidly than anyone else but the market isn't shrinking, it's growing, and so is revenue. The reason many developers are struggling is because as the slice of the pie has grown so too have the number of developers. Further while industry revenue's are increasing costs for developing software are dramatically increasing as well, at the high end costs are often outstripping realistic sales figures. Tomb Raider broke all sorts of sales records and yet still wasn't enough of a success for it's developer to consider it a success they had wholly unrealistic expectations due to dramatic cost overruns of it and other games they have been developing.
The increase in "retro" or platform games is more of a indie trend because a few companies have done very very well with it and others are trying to replicate their success. Companies are not developing games like that because they have to but rather because it seems to the smaller companies that's where the chance of success is. Lower costs for developing older style games while higher than average revenues means tons of companies are flooding that part of the market at an unsustainable high mark, its a fad in other-words. Retro gaming is in and a small development team is more likely to try their hand at that than something more expensive. Lower risk higher reward. At least that's their assumption.
Quote from: RooksBailey on October 22, 2013, 03:59:49 PM
Quote from: SgtRock on October 21, 2013, 09:15:56 PM
It seems Steam is selling more and more so called early releases, some of which aren't even at the Beta stage, with some selling for new full release prices.
I also find it odd, games like Panzer Corp can't get greenlighted but, Rip-off crap like Day One: Garry's Incident can. It seems if some one gives away enough Steam keys anything can get greenlighted. Is the greenlight open to manipulation or is the process fixed?
Steam is still a great way to get and manage games and there is nothing easier than getting your steam games installed on a new rig. Yet the whole Early Release and Greenlight process is starting to smell and it's not good!
I think the problem is that the gaming industry is contracting year after year. Steam has to fill their "shelves" with something, so I think they are doing it by "greenlighting" alphas and betas.
It is really sad when you look at the games on Steam these days: it is like the 90s all over again with tons of side scrollers and platformers. Not that in and of itself that is a bad thing, but it certainly shows how gaming is stuck in neutral and/or going backwards.
Edit: I just saw Zulu1966's comment. Spot on. +1
Quote from: Nefaro on October 23, 2013, 02:55:53 PM
PC Gaming is surviving just fine. I'd even say it's thriving due to the bustling indie market of late.
I dunno why some of you guys keep insisting that it's dying. Same 'ole misconceptions we've seen for decades. ::)
I don't want to derail this thread, but would jump into the discussion with gusto in another thread. I think PC gaming as we know it is having it's last "hurrah."
Quote from: ArizonaTank on October 28, 2013, 08:51:25 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on October 23, 2013, 02:55:53 PM
PC Gaming is surviving just fine. I'd even say it's thriving due to the bustling indie market of late.
I dunno why some of you guys keep insisting that it's dying. Same 'ole misconceptions we've seen for decades. ::)
I don't want to derail this thread, but would jump into the discussion with gusto in another thread. I think PC gaming as we know it is having it's last "hurrah."
It's quite possible that there will be a new model for what used to be the AAA games. For example, you would buy into the gaming system at some stage and then buy into expansions and so on (sort of sounds like things are now), but for at least twice as much money.
Other games might go more the way of user-created content., so you might buy in, buy the editor and get some financial return for your work. So the AAA titles would essentially just start to cost a lot more and the other types would become something like the ARMAs -- but again for more money -- you would buy the editor and hope to make back some of your outlay by selling your scenarios.
Another model could be one that is less locked into a particular game and more a matter of collaborative work on an evolving game. You would pay to work on the game. Sounds bad, but it might be interesting.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on October 28, 2013, 08:51:25 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on October 23, 2013, 02:55:53 PM
PC Gaming is surviving just fine. I'd even say it's thriving due to the bustling indie market of late.
I dunno why some of you guys keep insisting that it's dying. Same 'ole misconceptions we've seen for decades. ::)
I don't want to derail this thread, but would jump into the discussion with gusto in another thread. I think PC gaming as we know it is having it's last "hurrah."
PC gaming isn't so much dying as it is mutating. It's going to survive in one form or another until such time as PCs' and laptops no longer remain in the marketplace.
Steam now has 75 games selling as early releases, this can't be good for the industry. The problem is how many really know what they are getting with they buy an early release, 50%, 60% 70%?
Does Steam offer refunds for early releases that won't even run, no!
Quote from: SgtRock on October 30, 2013, 11:26:53 AM
Steam now has 75 games selling as early releases, this can't be good for the industry. The problem is how many really know what they are getting with they buy an early release, 50%, 60% 70%?
Does Steam offer refunds for early releases that won't even run, no!
This isn't good for the industry...why? Are you planning to actually lay down some context to go with this claim? All that I see are small indie outfits selling a product advertised as early release and getting the money to continue development on a real time basis.
It's not like your choice to pay into a pre-order, alpha, or beta game is taken away from you. You can choose to this method of support/payment for a game or not. Just not seeing the issue here as long as the games are appropriately marked on the sale page.
As much as anything else, I suspect it's a damning indictment of American consumers' inability to delay gratification. And Steam's willingness to cater to that tendency, like any competitive for-profit business...
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on October 31, 2013, 11:53:05 AM
As much as anything else, I suspect it's a damning indictment of American consumers' inability to delay gratification. And Steam's willingness to cater to that tendency, like any competitive for-profit business...
I wonder how many of the gamers buying these things used to run around and flame a buggy release in the "old" days.
Personally I will stay away from them unless they come from an established dev shop....why? It takes discipline to finish a piece of software (I know from personal experience). Under the pay early system, new devs who don't know how to finish and support their product get their money early and then have little incentive to get it right. Just take the "coming soon and in development" forum at Matrix as proof. Plenty of games have dropped off the forum over the years...never to see the light of day. Black Powder Wars comes immediately to mind. Then there is Battlefields that has been on the forum since at least 2004 (the Operation Epsom AAR is dated June 2004)...coming up on its 10 year "in development." Glad I didn't pay for "early access" to that.
Quote from: Arctic Blast on October 30, 2013, 08:49:56 PM
Quote from: SgtRock on October 30, 2013, 11:26:53 AM
Steam now has 75 games selling as early releases, this can't be good for the industry. The problem is how many really know what they are getting with they buy an early release, 50%, 60% 70%?
Does Steam offer refunds for early releases that won't even run, no!
This isn't good for the industry...why? Are you planning to actually lay down some context to go with this claim? All that I see are small indie outfits selling a product advertised as early release and getting the money to continue development on a real time basis.
I don't dabble in pre-purchases much, but I did buy Sir, You Are Being Hunted. Yes, it's in alpha. Other than it being quite difficult and that I'd hope they make an easier play mode, I like everything about it. It *could* be released in its current state and would be a pretty darn good game. I can't wait to see the final product.
Do I feel bad/abused/exploited/whatever about getting it? No. I knew it was a pre-release purchase. If I so chose I could contribute my thoughts to the development. I probably won't. I like what I have now, knew what I was getting into, and think there's nothing wrong with this. I won't do it with every game, but I see nothing wrong with offering it as both a means to obtain early access and a means to partial fund a partially completed project.
Quote from: LongBlade on October 31, 2013, 05:36:10 PM
I...knew what I was getting into....
That is the key. If a game is being sold that is incomplete or a work in progess but makes it clear to potential customers what stage of development the game is in, then no one has room to complain about the game's unfinished state.
So I had an experience that illustrates my point that it is pretty hard to be "fooled" into buying a game without knowing what you're getting into.
I was reading a story on another site about survival games that led me to a game called State of Decay. I quick search showed it was available on Steam for $20 and what do you know- it was even released today!
I watched the trailer...so far so good, looks awesome and $20 isn't too much money. I head to the forums to do a quick sanity check...and there are 3-4 pages of threads all started within the last 4 hours about the game. After a few threads, whine threads, bug threads, and praise threads, I have a pretty good idea of what the game is about, and what the state of the game is with respect to playability.
It wasn't that hard to figure out that this is one to wait out a bit. But that's the whole point. A little research goes a long way.