Devs should not be "forced to run on a treadmill until their mental or physical health breaks", says publisher
www.eurogamer.net
Manor Lords' publisher has hit back at claims the game is an "interesting case study in the pitfalls of early access", …

This really does not sound healthy. The game is released, for a certain amount of money. If people don’t like what they get for their money, they simply should not buy it.

But by now gamers have been so trained to expect to endless content treadmills and all their ilk like mtx and battle passes that publishers/developers get egged on if they don’t work on their game 24/7 and forever.

  • bigmclargehuge@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    5 months ago

    Early access definitely has its place. I’ve bought several EA games I really enjoy, and it’s kind of rewarding seeing something go from basic and threadbare to a more complete picture, and knowing I was a part of that is satisfying. I’ve also been burned by EA too, so it’s a double sided coin.

    • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      5 months ago

      Rogue Legacy 2 was a standout example for me. I was happy to support the developer while they worked on the game, and all progress carried over to the finished product. Granted, roguelikes in particular are really well suited for EA because they’re meant to be played over and over with no real end.

      • bigmclargehuge@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        5 months ago

        Ground Branch for me. Love the old Rainbow Six games, and I find that newer tactical shooters in general just don’t hit the mark for me. GB still has a long way to go but actually has some original R6 devs at the helm and has an excellent core experience so far, and it’s only getting better.