For news, discussions and memes!
This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:
You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.
What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:
If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.
While I understand that negative reviews at launch can kill a game, to me, this reads as
"Our game will be shit at launch and we rather try to launch it ASAP for a few fanboys that will praise us while they give us money from the start than launching on steam a few months later, more polished and without the fear for negative reviews"
Not sure how will it work
I mean... That actually sounds pretty reasonable. If you want to soft launch to your fans to get things ready for a larger launch, go for it
Honestly I'm okay with that. I won't be buying until it's on steam so it's like a closed beta for me. I'll get a more polished product.
To some extent I can understand that tactic depending on how much money they have to continue production. If the choice is to do as you state and potentially get the game in good shape, or just push as far as you can go until the money runs out and release it everywhere I'd say the former is the smarter play.
"Our game will be shit at launch"
In their defense, they've outright told players that this is what they should expect. They're starting out by duck-taping their build from 4+ years ago back together.
That is 100% correct. But your comment is also the shining example why they should do what they‘re doing.
They have openly communicated that the game is going to be wildly unfinished at the start and have warned against buying it if you expect a full game. The fact that you didn‘t know this and had to figure it out yourself shows perfectly why they shouldn‘t put it on steam yet.
I didn't know because I wasn't following the game. I have bought several games on early access that were rough, to say the least, and they turned out fine or even great later. If you sell your game on early access and areclear about what people are getting for the set price, people will understand (most of them at least).
It really sounds like they are going to ask for a controversial price with a lackluster game and they fear people will criticize.
If, for example, you sell me an Early Access game with barely 1h of gameplay at 30€, of course I'm gonna be pissed. But if the game price is set at 10€ and looks nice, I'll probably buy it and either wait for it t be more polished or try it and see if I can give some feedback.
And this is what happens with most EA games
that's all valid, but then why are you mad that they hide it so only informed people can find it and don't make it available to a lot of probably uninformed people?
I'm not really sure where do you see I'm mad. I just exposed my opinion on what they are doing.
It looks to me as if they were wanting to avoid criticism that they know they will recieve and I simply said that it may or may not work.
Doesn't Steam have a closed beta feature?
To me it sounds like they want to avoid Steam's cut of their fanbase.
We want money, but can't actually provide true value for that money yet.
So it's early early access
Demos, people! Demos!