Interesting thoughts about how to define success for video games in today’s market, particularly for those using early access. Lots of respect for Hooded Horse’s CEO, Tim Bender, he says all the right things and seems genuine.

He describes van Lierop’s post as “exactly the kind of distorted endless growth/burden of expectations/line must go up perspective that causes so much trouble in the games industry”. He’s also unconcerned by Manor Lords falling behind its initial vast popularity, poking fun at “the apparently dark reality that some people, after enjoying their purchase of a premium, single-player title, might decide to go on and play another game (The horror! The horror!).”

Headline is a little melodramatic though.

  • deegeese
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 months ago

    My attitude around early access games is to buy them only if I would be satisfied with the game in its current state, at the price offered.

    If you pay full price and go into it expecting improvements that may never come, you’ll be disappointed.

    If you buy an incomplete game for cheap and they later expand it and raise the price, it’s a pleasant surprise.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Same for me, and I have had better luck with enjoying early access games than most full release games. Valheim is the stand out example for me, but there arena couple others with hundreds of hours of fun! It also helps that indie early access games tend to be less expensive.

      Then there is the case of Multiversus, which was way more fun to play in prerelease than it is now. On top of that they cranked up the intrusive monetization, so getting to the less fun gameplay is a slog.

      Then there is Tekken 8, which launched ok and then added a shitty shop and annoying seasons shortly after release. It also seems like the networking has gottenn worse.

      But every early access game where I was clear on expectations has been fun and always feels worth the money.

      • memfree@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        See? That’s the thing. I don’t want to support future in-app purchases that get tacked on after they got me to PAY THEM for the ‘privilege’ of doing their beta testing for them. That seems like a special kind of evil that must not be encouraged.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          Tekken 8 didn’t have an early access that I am aware of, and I have given a Not Recommended review on steam because of the shop being added post release. The Tekken situation is not an early access problem, just a greed problem so I might have caused some confusion as an example of games having sketchy behavior even without early access.

          Multiversus is free to play with predatory monitization. The beta was free, but you actually got stuff by playing a somewhat reasonable amount of time. During the beta they increased the amount of time and people complained, so it was kind of surprising that they did the opposite of the early access feedback on release.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, Rimworld was in early access for 5 years and was worth the price the entire time IMO. Project Zomboid has been in early access for over a decade! If you just blanket ignore early access games you’re cutting yourself off from some excellent games.

    • Concetta@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      One of my favourite examples of this is still Rust. Sure, it’s not a perfect game, I don’t always like the updates, but do I feel like I got my money’s worth, from a purely online game I bought in 2013 and can still hop on with thousands of other people? I do.