Steam is riddled with Early Access games that were abandoned before ever reaching a final release. If you reach your financial goals before finishing the game, you’ll get a bigger payout by moving on to another project than by keeping your promises. Users are outraged at first, but their memories are short-lived. Lather, rinse, repeat.
There are some notable exceptions, though. Kerbal Space Program comes to mind.
My argument is that companies shouldn’t charge full price for an unfinished game. Your argument is that the funding from early access could help the company develop the game. I believe a compromise would be to lower the price of the unfinished hand. It could be actual price=completion percent * full price. If they can’t do anything as fluid as that then at the very least there should be a significant flat reduction.
What I don’t like is the implication you made that since everyone is doing it, then it’s ok.
Teardown is a great example, can’t remember what I paid but it was cheap when the game only had half a dozen levels - it felt like a full game but s small one, then they added part two and a million mods got made and I think the price went up though it’s still reasonable
I was actually agreeing with you and in no way do I think it’s ok because everyone does it. Rather, I’m very dismayed that everyone does it. Yes, it seems like a good idea on paper to use paid alpha and beta releases to fund development but the system has been shot to hell by the fact that the overwhelming majority of publishers who do this abuse it.
Steam is riddled with Early Access games that were abandoned before ever reaching a final release. If you reach your financial goals before finishing the game, you’ll get a bigger payout by moving on to another project than by keeping your promises. Users are outraged at first, but their memories are short-lived. Lather, rinse, repeat.
There are some notable exceptions, though. Kerbal Space Program comes to mind.
My argument is that companies shouldn’t charge full price for an unfinished game. Your argument is that the funding from early access could help the company develop the game. I believe a compromise would be to lower the price of the unfinished hand. It could be actual price=completion percent * full price. If they can’t do anything as fluid as that then at the very least there should be a significant flat reduction.
What I don’t like is the implication you made that since everyone is doing it, then it’s ok.
Teardown is a great example, can’t remember what I paid but it was cheap when the game only had half a dozen levels - it felt like a full game but s small one, then they added part two and a million mods got made and I think the price went up though it’s still reasonable
I was actually agreeing with you and in no way do I think it’s ok because everyone does it. Rather, I’m very dismayed that everyone does it. Yes, it seems like a good idea on paper to use paid alpha and beta releases to fund development but the system has been shot to hell by the fact that the overwhelming majority of publishers who do this abuse it.