Valve helped bring PC gaming out of the "dark ages" says Wasteland 2 dev

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Yeah, you're right, that was cluster what happened with WarZ.

<< LINK REMOVED >> But some also undergo false advertising, like when he listed WarZ as an example. That alone is proof you don't always know what you're getting yourself into.

<< LINK REMOVED >> Good video, but I did chuckle a little when he gave BF4 as an example of a finished game. I get his point, BF4 is advertised as a complete product so consumers have a right to a refund...but Early Access games are advertised as incomplete, so the consumer knows what they are getting themselves into when they purchase EA.

I'm just going to leave this here: h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyGbbIB5eaM

<< LINK REMOVED >> Same reason people pay for overpriced stuff that should have been included with the main game.

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >>That's what I do. I saw that Divinity: Original Sin will be released, i.e. properly released, June 20 and thought to myself "Great, now it won't be long until it's out of Early Access. It'll be finished in June". The only irritating thing with Early Access is that you don't know when it'll become complete. I'm still waiting for Grim Dawn to become complete.

@bradypp But it's just ripping gamers off! How can people agree with losing more money!? Initially with early access and beta's and the like, people would go in, test the game for free, and in return they would offer feedback to help make the final game better, and in turn allow for the devs to make more sales. But now you have to pay to help them and that's insane. Why are people so content with saying 'yeah, I'll pay to do something that should be free'!?

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> But if you don't want to play unfinished games, just wait until they are finished. Let the other fans pay for beta and wait...

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> You are not paying to help them. You are paying for the full game. You can buy an early access game and don´t touch it until it´s released, if you want. It's a great way to help developers to make a game without the pressure of the big companies. I do not see where the problem is.

<< LINK REMOVED >> Point of the matter is, early access testing was once free, people will now pay to do it, and that's fucking stupid. If you agree with the idea of paying for something THAT SHOULD BE FREE, you are the retarded moron here, not me.

@DamnILoveGames @soccerpzn except it was released as a finished product which it wasn't. So your example doesnt work in this situation either. You need to freaking look up the stupid shit you say on google because then you might not spread your retarded and ignorant comments all over the place.

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> jesus you need to stop using your retarded and ignorant comments because guess what all jobs don't operate the same way.

<< LINK REMOVED >> I've already bought this up twice on this page, but I don't know if I did with you. What about things like War Z, then? That was falsely advertised yet people thought they were getting a product far better than what they did. I could go on but I know for a fact that I'm not going to get anywhere with you. I wish you luck in the future, wasting your money on unfinished products, with the whole thing being based around trusting people you don't even know.

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> because the boss isn't paying money to work at his job.

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> except for the fact that the idiot is basing his entire argument on AAA games which are paid so they can allow for free beta and alpha access and released as finished products so they are criticized on a finished product. Indie games aren't paid and have no defined release dates because there is no guarantee they have the money to even finish it. So they put the products on Early Access which is by definition a warning that the games aren't finished. The problem isn't the tool the problem is dumbass gamers that can't seem to understand simple concepts.

<< LINK REMOVED >> It's like on those cooking shows where they get judges in to give feedback on meals made by aspiring chefs. The people tasting the food don't pay money for it, they get it for free and pay with feedback. You wouldn't walk into an office job, tell your boss 'thanks for having me' and then pay them, so why do some people think it applies to games?

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >>Testers get paid for quality assurance of a software. Its not the other way around. Seems like people doesn't want to understand this simple fact.

<< LINK REMOVED >> Like I've said, the Totalbiscuit video goes into more detail than I can probably remember, and it will probably provide a lot of answers representative of how I feel for you. If you don't want to watch the video that's fine, but by doing so you are refusing to listen to what I say and in that sense this conversation is going nowhere. I'm not saying they can't pay to make it better, I'm saying they shouldn't because it sends a bad message of 'I'll gladly pay a lot of money for a product which isn't, and may never be finished'. That mentality right there is terrible.

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> who says the consumer can't pay to make a game better? stop acting like you know how people should spend money or how things should be made. If people want to support a game that isn't being published then they have every right to do so and doesn't make it wrong.

<< LINK REMOVED >> Well technically all games rely on gamer support, because if gamers don't buy the product then there is obviously a lack of support being prevalent. Unfortunately early access is risky because it boils down to this 'trust us' mentality, where the devs want you to trust them with your money and they promise to make a good, polished product when you have no idea who the devs are. Steam pages can end up oversaturated with early access releases, pushing finished ones further down. Some can rely on false advertising, and it's hard to find accurate info because glitches and bugs that may be listed in a review one day may be completely fixed by the next. The concept is good in theory, but it can be misused in many ways. War Z being a prime example of how so many got duped that Steam ended up having to give refunds to everyone.

<< LINK REMOVED >> - Yes, I agree that proper research on the part of the consumer is a necessity. I also agree that Valve should have a more hands on approach to weed out the bad apples.

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Well the question is, would any of these games have a shot at getting developed if they didn't have gamer support. It's not ideal but the alternative is worse I think.

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> I've been involved with very few Early Access games but so far I've been lucky I guess, nothing like what you're talking about. I guess the key is to do more research before buying...and Valve should do a better job of going after those that do this.

<< LINK REMOVED >> It's not the consumer's job to pay to make the game better. It's as simple as that.

<< LINK REMOVED >> do you pay a good amount of money to even start your job and to continue it? are you entirely dependent on unknown consumer base because you have no idea if people will actually buy the game. Your simplistic idea " Essentially, you pay them to do their job" is incredibly ignorant and shows how little you know about jobs in general.

<< LINK REMOVED >> - There are a few problems with Early Access, and the way it has been implemented:

- it is open to abuse by unscrupulous developers who just want to make money from an unfinished or broken game
- there is no guarantee to purchasers that the game will ever be 'finished', and often no time-scale indicating when a target release date for the final version
- there is no guarantee that valid feedback (bug reports, feature imbalances, etc.) will be addressed by the developers.

It is dressed up as alpha/beta access to assist development, but this used to be carried out by proper testers who focused on play-testing particular elements of a game, then issued feedback in a structured format. While some developers under Early Access may indeed conduct business in this way, many don't.

As you say, paying for any game in Early Access is a risk, but that risk is not always made crystal clear to the purchaser.

<< LINK REMOVED >> Yeah, but that's the nutty thing. You 'pay them to help them'. Essentially, you pay them to do their job, and that's the problem. And it doesn't matter if they're not forcing me to do it. They don't force me to so I don't, but that doesn't mean its not wrong, and there are people who still support the process. I'm not forced to shoot people, so I don't do it. It doesn't mean that it rids us all of the problem that people get shot.

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >>We're the Internet, that's what we do best.

<< LINK REMOVED >> Well where's the problem with them being indie gamers?

<< LINK REMOVED >>

So why "Too bad," then?

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Never said their was.

<< LINK REMOVED >> Sure you can look it up, but you shouldn't have to.

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >>As much as I don't like Steam showcasing incorrect info, it's easy to look up if it's old or not. I agree that Steam should put the original release in their store page, but until they do simply look it up if the graphics are oddly outdated for such a "new" game.

<< LINK REMOVED >> Not to mention it makes newer releases harder to find. It's 2014 and we're getting games from 2007 and 2008 claiming they're new. I feel sorry for whoever buys one of those games under the belief that it has, indeed, been released recently.

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> yeah like jagged alliance 1 for nearly £8 is a joke

Plus aren't they adding the user reporting system soon?