I propose 2024 is the year of early access games boycott.

Bring back completed games only.

  • Icalasari@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    151
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Eh, early access isn’t the problem. Palworld has been wrecking Pokemon despite being Early Access

    Can 2024 instead be the year of bad game boycott? When an early access game is better than most AAA completed games, then there’s a serious problem

      • aard@kyu.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        51
        ·
        9 months ago

        Preordering made sense when games came in nice boxes, and you wanted to be sure to play it on the day of release instead of waiting for restocking. With digital downloads now which are not limited in quantity it is just stupid.

        • pixelscript@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          This, 100%. The only value of preordering is guaranteeing stock of a physical item that threatens to be out of stock if you were to buy it walk-in. In the modern digital age where downloading tens of gigabytes that take up no space, ship near-instantly on demand, and have theoretically infinite supply, preordering is pointless if the actual game itself is all you care about.

      • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        9 months ago

        i never preorder, and i don’t think i could justify jt even if i did. buying a game for 70 bucks when you don’t even know if it’s any good just sounds stupid to me.

      • M500@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        9 months ago

        May it’s my age, but I feel like d3 was significantly more popular that d4 is.

        Since it’s required to be online I’m 100% skipping it.

        I’m also Skipping it because they took overwatch 1 away from me. So no more blizzard games until overwatch 1 comes back.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      Early Access is a problem when big publishers try to do it. It makes sense that indies do it so they have cash flow at all. Big outlets have funding on hand, but are trying to leverage it, anyway.

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Using us as test dummies is still better than releasing an unfinished piece of shit for full price.

  • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I mean, just do a little due diligence, Jesus. I’ve bought PalWorld, Planet Crafter, Traveler’s Rest, and more in early access and had a blast with all of them. In fact, I’d say it’s some of the best bang for my buck in the last ten years of gaming. I’ve also not bought early access games because the five minutes of due diligence suggested that it was a garbage game.

    I particularly think it’s fine with small, indie studios that don’t have a lot of devs or resources. No way in fuck am I buying an early access AAA release.

    • rockerface 🇺🇦@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Couldn’t agree more.

      Games like Valheim or Satisfactory have also been great, despite technically still being in early Access. And, looking back, Risk of Rain 2, Hades and Dead Cells developers have all done excellent job at using early access to develop their games and listen to the community.

      Early access, just like any other development model, is a tool. All depends on how it is used.

    • MasterNerd@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Pocketpair releasing Palworld into Early Access when Craftopia is still in Early Access leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth

      • Xyloph@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Same, I looked at craftopia and thought “palworld is an obvious cash grab”, which it might end up being. I’m glad people are having fun now, but I’m not buying into its future :)

        I’ve read they also have a HollowKnight look-alike in the works as well.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        Same. I love both, but when I purchased craftopia I was funding the development of craftopia, not palworld. They’re a small company so I kinda get it, but it still has me concerned that they’re not going to properly finish craftopia.

        • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think it unfortunately just comes down to money. Craftopia wasn’t popular enough to pay the bills to finish it.

          We’ll see what happens with palworld. If they abandon it too then we’ll know they’re just scumbags. But if they finish it then we’ll know abandoning craftopia was a financial need.

          • osprior@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I can’t say I’ve ever played Craftopia, but after hearing about this I went to the steam page to see for myself. They have released consistent large updates in the last 6 months and even since the launch of Palworld.

            Most of the reviews from people who’ve played it mention it’s getting review bombed because of this mis-information and is actually quite good.

            Seems to me if they can pull off making two games with multiple teams both which continue to have development, I say more power to them. I’m enjoying Palworld and will at some point check out Craftopia now because of it.

            • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I also saw those updates. I never played it so I usually just cede that they abandoned it for the sake of argument.

              I agree with you though

    • 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      Right? People need to take a little responsibility. If you want early access, expect issues. If you don’t want to see issues, wait. Easy. What’s the point complaining about a company providing early access or other gamers purchasing it? You don’t need to make it your business, just don’t buy the game yet if it bothers you.

    • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yep. The indie boom that PC gaming experienced would not have been possible without early access funding, full stop.

      Not every early access title has gone perfectly and there are some studios that have gamed the system.

      Still, the stuff that managed to make it through the process and become successful has been some of the only stuff saving us from a live service hellscape

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      Satisfactory I bought for 30 dollars 4 years ago and it’s sitting at 1,600 hours for me. I think sweeping general statements are really the bad guy here

      • starchylemming@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        the journey of this game is wild.

        it was super fun from the get go years ago, but somehow every single update made it better and better.

        i haven’t seen a game with such a focus on quality of life updates before. that team is glorious

    • CatLikeLemming@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’d be nice, if those AAA games were at least marked as early access instead of just being released and sold as something finished. But yes, you’re correct.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      My rule is that it has to be an enjoyable experience in the game’s current state. Factorio was fantastic years before it left early access. I bought Space Engineers practically as soon as it hit, before there was even proper weapons in the game, and I had a blast building space ships.

      I’m holding off on Palworld. I’m sure what’s there is enjoyable for many people, but I’d like to see the endgame fleshed out a bit first.

    • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Eh, I bought Grounded in Early Access. Maye by Obsidian and backed by Microsoft. I think this should count as AAA. Also I think you don’t mean that “small, indie studio” cause those are few and far between. Sons of the Forest? They have a Publisher (literally the opposite of being independent). I think there are lots of games which you have put into that category that are not actually indie devs at all. Anyway, my point is just that it’s not a black and white issue.

  • SacralPlexus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    9 months ago

    I bought Deep Rock Galactic, Subnautica, annd Satisfactory in early access and have no regrets. These are great games and I would rather pay to be a beta tester on them than play many AAA finished pieces of junk. I think in general it’s not a bad thing to be wary about early access but I’m not sure it warrants an all or nothing approach.

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    9 months ago

    The thing is, early access games aren’t necessary unplayable.

    If they are good enough in their current form to warrant the price, then that is a good time to buy them. The updates are only a bonus at that point.

    But don’t buy early access for the promised features, since they may never arrive.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yup. Palworld needs a lot of polish, but I don’t feel bad spending 25 bucks on it as it is.

      As I mentioned elsewhere, valheim, 7 days to die, rust (now released!) are all worth.

      • Chriswild@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        2023’s darling, BG3 was in early access for years and feedback during early access made it better.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes, I love Larians Early Access.

          You can basically play the first map all the way through, and it is so big it feels like a full game.

          But then the full game releases and you’re like “holy fuck there is so much more content”.

      • daellat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Valheim was an absolutely soul sucking addiction for me and a couple of friends holy shit I hadn’t gamed like that in a decade.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          I like soloing most survival crafters but valheim really is more fun with friends. Going sailing with the whole crew and just talking about stuff and vibing to the music is great.

  • jkozaka@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I like early access games because at least you know the game is unfinished.

    And the game is making money while still being in development, so the devs can take their time without having to worry about deadlines.

    Early access games can also change fundamental gameplay aspects since it’s in development, so if a feature sucks, they can just remove it.

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yup. The alternatives are pre-orders and broken games that are unplayable until the first couple of patches.

      • jkozaka@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Fair, but it’s an early access game, and still in development.

        Also, I didn’t know about that GOG thing. I wish that was more common.

      • MufinMcFlufin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Iirc there’s ways in steam to do the same thing, though I believe it’s a bit more involved of a process.

        I used to play a ton of this game Magicite before the developer destroyed the game with its final update which came out conveniently around the release of their next game. Which they did again for that next title, and again for the one after that.

        And by destroy I mean now you have a chance to soft lock in every level, picking up specific auto loot items can cause shops to permanently close up, crafting certain items cause glitchy behavior, co-op went from “minimum one person must survive each level” to “the first death causes everyone to instantly fail”, and the game crashes on the final boss fight before counting it as completed.

        Every recommendation I’ve seen for this game also comes with an explanation on how to revert to the second latest version of the game.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      You can figure this out by playing the finished game years later. Why is everyone trying to keep up with the Joneses over video games??? Lol

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Because they can still be great games. Rust was in early access for years but it was always playable and fun. 7 days to die is on alpha build 21 and has been in alpha for I don’t know how long but it’s amazing. Valheim was basically perfect from the start even if it was missing the whole end half of the game.

        Palworld is a very good start. There’s a bunch of QOL changes and bug fixes that would improve it, but the core gameplay loop is established and the parameters are all selectable so you can tailor the difficulty as you please. Evidently the “goal” of the game is blocked off, but aside from that it’s a full game. No man’s sky and starfield were honestly less finished on release.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        If the devs are good, those early access players make the game better for the people who buy when it’s fully released.

  • Mannimarco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    9 months ago

    RimWorld, Subnautica, darkest dungeon, streets of rogue, project zomboid, oxygen not included, starsector, skull the hero slayer, dead cells, caves of qud quasimorph and universim are games i bought in early access that I do not regret in the slightest.

    I’d say the biggest problem is these big companies who release “finished” games that are clearly not finished and the people who keep pre-ordering them

  • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m very anti-pre-order, but early access I’m okay with. It comes with the same decision process as buying anything else, is what I’m getting right now worth the money I’m paying? If yes, then buy it, if no then don’t. I don’t buy promises, I buy products.

    Baldurs gate 3 is a good example of early access done right. I knew going in I was getting the first 4 levels and roughly 1/4 - 1/3 of the planned final game, but what was there already was worth the price I paid, even if they never finished or released it, I got my money’s worth imo. I put like 200+ hours into it before it released, i can’t be mad at that for 30 bucks.

  • MammyWhammy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    There’s nothing wrong with buying early access games. You as a buyer just need to be happy with the current state of the game at the time of purchase.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      And the price should reflect the game’s current state/value, not some hypothetical roadmap.

      So more like Kerbal Space Program, less like Kerbal Space Program 2.

    • MufinMcFlufin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Exactly this. I tell my friends not to get their hopes up too high about Palworlds eventually being completed because the studio has a history of abandoning titles in early access. I’m not telling them not to buy it or that it’s not worth purchasing, but to weigh if where it’s currently at is worth the price they’re charging.

      The studio may use the funding they got from its spike in popularity to actually complete a title just as well as they might sell out to a bigger studio (I’d imagine The Pokemon Company would love to buy then bury it), or abandon it entirely. We don’t know what the future holds and we do know the studio has a history, so keep that in mind when you’re purchasing or when you’re asking yourself if it was worth the buy.

  • Haha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    9 months ago

    The biggest hypocrisy are games in early access that release a DLC before v1

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    9 months ago

    Where does “buying it 10 years later so that it can run on whatever the modern equivalent of a teacup is” fit in?

    Playing witcher 3 on steamdeck for the first time.

      • leave_it_blank@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        This is exactly what I’m doing. Games still look great, they run great, and chances are there are a bunch of quality of life mod improvements.

        Days gone released on gog not long ago, the first thing I got was the mod for silencers, what a bullshit idea to only use it for five shots and then it’s gone.

        And I forgot: I never buy a GaaS! They will shut down The Crew soon, a game I play on a regular basis and one of the most relaxing titles ever made. I don’t care how great a game might be, you won’t get any money out of me ever again dear companies.

        • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s how (many) suppressors work in real life though. Each shot erodes the baffles, and after no more than a dozen it’s just a flash hider.

    • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      I did witcher 3 like 3 years ago. What a great time I had. My previous PC was barely mid tier in 2012. When I built a new one in 2019 it was a piece of cake to run in an ultra wide monitor with cranked settings.

      • Macros@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I upgraded my PC in Oktober with a RX 7600, enough for older games, silent and efficient. I really looked forward to enjoy Witcher 3 at highest settings. A few days later rumors about Witcher 3 Next Gen. How dare they! Now I can’t push every single slider to max and enjoy 120fps!

        In all seriousness: The update is great of course and I applaud CD Project Red for releasing it free. Besides the better graphics (Which even the 7600 can handle at Full HD without high RT settings) they also included tons of fixes and quality of live improvements the community made over the time. I can really recommend it.

        I even bought it at full price years before I played it because I enjoyed Witcher 2 so much and was certain they will make a good game.

        • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          What’s hilarious about this is I was previously using a community mod that did all this already. The official update fucked my performance so hard I rolled it back. I couldn’t really tell a difference. They later fixed it but it does run worse still than the mod version.

      • PhreakyByNature@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I ran it on a mid range business machine from 2014 with mostly mild upgrades and a 1060 6GB. I’ve since upgraded everything but the GPU, need to have another stab but I keep playing CS2 instead. When I’m not playing that it’s TOTK on the Switch.

    • TheEmpireStrikesDak@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ve only just got a computer that can play games from 2005 onwards (no kidding my netbook could handle sims 2 at the most). I’ve also started playing Witcher 3 (got the complete collection for £8) and just bought a controller the other day. I don’t care about fancy cutting edge graphics; good storyline and gaming experience is what matters.

  • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Enjoying palworld quite a bit despite bugs, and the input (and money) will probably make the end product a better game. BG3 is another example of a game that was wildly successful due to EA.

    I’ll judge these on a case by case basis. But I think the issue is less EA titles and more titles that are released not as EA but obviously broken.

    • knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      And even those are a mixed bag, like Cities Skylines 2 should be in EA, but as an informed gamer i still knew what i’m going to get on day 1 and despite all the downsides it’s enjoyable and i wouldn’t choose to play C:S 1 instead

  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    9 months ago

    My rule is that I only buy an Early Access game if I’d still be happy with it even if the devs never made another update (because sometimes they don’t).

    • FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      This is my thoughts exactly early access tells me there’s gonna be bugs probably and the game will likely be incomplete. If that doesn’t stop me from having fun I’ll buy the game

    • JustAnotherRando@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s one of two scenarios where I’m happy to buy early access. Valheim and Palworld both fall in that category. The other category I’m happy to buy early access is for a project I am particularly interested in seeing succeed (and willing to give some feedback on to help). So far I think I’ve only done that with BG3 and that turned out pretty well for me.