|
|
Post by hardly on Dec 18, 2015 6:39:22 GMT
We probably all view games in early access with suspicion after GODUS but I just realised I'm also suspicious of early access games after they get a full release. For me it shatters the illusion of a game being release ready and I wonder how many bugs are still left. I know games are never perfect on release but they pretend to be. Early access games shout "incomplete" and I have a hard time believing they cross a magical line where all the issues were resolved. I also worry they just moved it out of early access to get money and not because they actually fixed it.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Dec 18, 2015 6:57:51 GMT
I would probably let the other lab rats (players) give it a go for a few months first before I even thought about it. Then, I would go ahead and buy it if it had good enough reviews and an available demo I liked.
|
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Dec 19, 2015 12:55:18 GMT
You know what? I know at least two EA games done right. Subnautica and Sky Break. And though both are survival type (which means that the genre doesn't suffer from game expansion in the least, like Minecraft didn't, except the fact saves need to be re-set for compatibility, which is optional even then in Subnautica).
And no, buying them now while they are in EA doesn't make me less interested in the game, in fact, it intrigues me even more to see how the game grows and turns even awesome than the older version as new features and content get implemented. I mean, we finally have something to protect ourselves against Reaper Leviathan.
Then again, it might just be my bias since both games are about the dream - one is about going to the deep sea as opposed to flying in space being more common trope, and the other is about a secret fortress up in the sky, where nothing can reach you. Kind of "safe place", or rather, "dependable base of operations".
|
|
|
|
Post by mindless on Dec 19, 2015 13:41:39 GMT
Planetary Anihilation delivered exactly what it promised, a kickstarter done right.
Not all early access games are tainted in sin, you just need to do your homework first, who are the guys in charge, do they have a good history of delivering, or are they know for overpromising and underdelivering. its your money, so its on you to find out if its worth the risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Dec 19, 2015 15:19:09 GMT
Planetary Anihilation delivered exactly what it promised, a kickstarter done right. More than that, it even had its own well-detailed notes for every single patch for all those versions. Not even to mention that there was a dedicated forum section for ideas to be implemented in-game and a (reasonable) part of those was. |
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Dec 19, 2015 21:39:01 GMT
Planetary Anihilation delivered exactly what it promised, a kickstarter done right. Not all early access games are tainted in sin, you just need to do your homework first, who are the guys in charge, do they have a good history of delivering, or are they know for overpromising and underdelivering. its your money, so its on you to find out if its worth the risk. Except for that weird as hell online requirement they have. Plus the sketchy move to the standalone expansion that neatly covers up the original's mixed reception. I dunno, the whole handling of that title has me put me off from buying it for awhile, especially on that first part. I don't care what reasons they have for it supposedly needing that connection, I want to play without a friggin' life support waving about near me reminding me they can rip it out at any time. ...I mean, sure, you can if you have a powerful enough machine now, but that they even have the nerve to push it in your face...Same reason I'm not sold on Elite: Dangerous. ISPs can't be trusted for consistent service for anything. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Dec 19, 2015 21:46:10 GMT
Planetary Anihilation delivered exactly what it promised, a kickstarter done right. Not all early access games are tainted in sin, you just need to do your homework first, who are the guys in charge, do they have a good history of delivering, or are they know for overpromising and underdelivering. its your money, so its on you to find out if its worth the risk. Except for that weird as hell online requirement they have. Plus the sketchy move to the standalone expansion that neatly covers up the original's mixed reception. I dunno, the whole handling of that title has me put me off from buying it for awhile, especially on that first part. I don't care what reasons they have for it supposedly needing that connection, I want to play without a friggin' life support waving about near me reminding me they can rip it out at any time. ...I mean, sure, you can if you have a powerful enough machine now, but that they even have the nerve to push it in your face...Same reason I'm not sold on Elite: Dangerous. ISPs can't be trusted for consistent service for anything. IIRC, always online was due to client-server model they utilised to increase performance. Then again, it was rectified for single player later. I agree on Elite: Dangerous, though. No meaning in a game that requires more than one purchase to keep playing with mechanics that work better in single player. |
|
