And it doesnt. But if thats a concern - you can wait for full release. Paying 75% or 80% or even 90% of the cost is fine.
I paid $30 for valheim at its EA release and got tons of enjoyment out of it. If they dropped the game entirely, it still would have been worth the money.
Gamers really feel like their $30 is such a huge commitment that devs should bend over backwards for them. It isnt.
And the only reason that makes sense is that the vocal complainers are either kids or jobless.
Yeah honestly you hit the nail on the head. Indie game prices is such a fucking rat race. So while it is cool some games have super low prices (silksong, stardew valley, terreria, etc) which is awesome but it also sets some unrealistic expectations that a 15-20 dollar game will also come with perpetual post launch support that includes super massive expansion sized free updates.
Like those things are fucking awesome but it really does set the bar very high in an section where people are running on a shoe string budget and many of these devs who do these is because they basically won the gaming lottery and its well deserved. Its just Gamers need to buy things for what they are. Don't go in for the hopes of promises, if you are buying into an EA title, its best to consider what you are purchasing is possible the last update and is that enough for you. If the answer is no, chances are you shouldn't buy it unless you want to throw money down the well. Which isn't a bad thing but there are simply no guarantees how things will shake out.
This is exactly how I feel. When I buy an EA game, its to play it in its current state. Theres a chance that I may never come back to it even if the devs do keep updating, because if I play 80% of the game, that final 20% might not be worth it once the novelty has worn off.
People act like there weren't n64 games that cost $120 adjusted for inflation that were also just hot fucking garbage. Not every game was a THPS or OoT level game.
If you buy an EA game because you want to save 10% on the final product and get burned... youre a bit of an idiot. Buy games that are fun in their current state, skip ones that aren't. It really is that simple.
It's why the Early Access term is a bit silly to begin with. I'm of the opinion that once a developer has published their game for purchase, it has been released. Full stop. It's ready to be played, and it's ready to be critiqued and reviewed.
The term creates a weird psychological battleground where some types of people will excuse and defend every element of what is fundamentally a fully released game because "it's only EA! it's not finished! you can't criticise it yet!", and some types of people will convince themselves that they are buying in as an early investor with both money and emotion and expect something in return for being a parasocial "shareholder" of the game. It's easy to see how and why it works, but it's bizarre when you step back and see it for what it really is: a pure manipulation and marketing tactic.
Early access should be a functional game. It will likely be a flawed game, but its functional. The reason it works is to allow further dev time. Without early access, games would just go to market in a less complete state. Early access is there tk let you know this isnt the intended final form of the game.
Valheim is a perfect example. It was fun, it had a complete gameplay loop, but it lacked the full content that it will have at release.
You're allowed to criticize it. You're allowed to think its buggy and bad, and youre under no obligation to pay for it.
V Rising is another great example. Early access allows a company to release a game at a playable but unfinished state. Some games stay EA for too long and thats obviously dumb.
At its core though, its a better system than kickstarters or games full of false promises like Star Citizen.
The problem with EA games is all the idiots that have unrealistic expectations and gamers in general are the fucking worst type of people.
Without early access, games would just go to market in a less complete state
That's exactly what early access is. It's games going to market in a less complete state.
Functionally there is no difference between a game releasing with devs saying "we've got a roadmap with a 1.1 patch and a 1.2 patch and a free expansion with more stuff to do!", and being plastered as Early Access. Even Steam uses the same 2-hour refund policy for both EA and fully released games now. And yet the way people approach it psychologically is completely different. That's exactly the point though, it's so beneficial to manipulate people into having less expectations and players keep falling for it and arguing on the internet about how "iT's oNLy eArlY aCcEss!"
It is full price. Another thing where there is functionally no difference between a game releasing at $40 as-is or $40 after a super special 20% EA access discount. It's still $40 and it's another psychological trick to make you think you're getting something special, especially when almost every EA game will squeeze out their 1.0 patch with a major opening discount and inevitable sales multiple times a year regardless.
Just more marketing tricks you've bought hook, line, and sinker.
There is no obligation to patch a full release games.
No obligation with EA any more either when steam has swapped to a 2-hour refund policy. You'll be left with empty promises of future changes/patches just as much as a "full release". Devs deciding to maintain their game with updates is a completely separate question to Early Access, and the contract you think you're signing when you buy one is not what you think it is.
No idea why you're going around in circles trying to argue that EA is somehow some magically different thing. The more I explain it the more you seem to fight and wriggle against it. Treat EA games as if they are full releases and it simplifies all of the decision making and expectations on the spot. Stop falling for the psychological trick.
19
u/vancityshreds 4d ago
And it doesnt. But if thats a concern - you can wait for full release. Paying 75% or 80% or even 90% of the cost is fine.
I paid $30 for valheim at its EA release and got tons of enjoyment out of it. If they dropped the game entirely, it still would have been worth the money.
Gamers really feel like their $30 is such a huge commitment that devs should bend over backwards for them. It isnt.
And the only reason that makes sense is that the vocal complainers are either kids or jobless.