4 ms·

Valve/Steam should really have some policies around unfinished or unpolished games so that they are forced to be marked as "early access" It is absolutely ridi

Valve/Steam should really have some policies around unfinished or unpolished games so that they are forced to be marked as "early access" It is absolutely ridiculous that these developers can get away with releasing a beta (essentially what it is) and setting the full release price without the end user knowing they're a guinea pig.

chc 3y ago
They let you return the game no questions asked if you haven't played it for two hours.
- hypeatei 3y ago
  True. Marking it early access would just save more peoples time and be more explicit about the current state of the game.
athorax 3y ago
Valve/steam should absolutely not be doing that
- hypeatei 3y ago
  Why not? They're still able to list the game and sell it. I don't see the issue with making it more clear to end users that they're beta testing a game.
- rychco 3y ago
  Why not? There's already a hardware survey & they could easily have an opt-in system that reports the user's average framerate while playing games. If the average hardware specs can't run that game >=60fps >=90% of the time on any graphical setting then it's beyond fair to give it a "Hardware reports indicate that this game performs poorly" label.
  - solardev 3y ago
    I like that!
  - dgunay 3y ago
    It's high time telemetry served users tbh. I would 100% opt-in to telemetry if it would tattle on badly made or misbehaving software.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    Morally, because valve is aleaady too big an influencer on the pc space. Financially, because valve doesn't have the the time nor care to performance benchmark every game. Valve isn't much better than Google when it comes to seeking a human review as is. And user reported benchmarks are the worst metric I can imagine. There is so much work on profiling and inaccuracies among frame counters, I don't want to trust that to some random person on the internet. >If the average hardware specs can't run that game >=60fps >=90% of the time on any graphical setting then it's beyond fair to give it a "Hardware reports indicate that this game performs poorly" label. Not really. Framerate isn't everything and I don't think it's a good thing to further enforce. The best selling games still choose to run 30fps and most games running max specs will "perform poorly" by design. That's why most games only give "recommended specs", not specs for every settings.
solardev 3y ago
I think their reviews are punishment enough. "Very Positive" for CS:1 and "Mixed" for CS:2. And if it improves over time, the reviews improve with them! Cyberpunk was a good example of that. And the graphs make it really easy to see how it's changed over time: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1091500/Cyberpunk_2077/#app_reviews_hash https://store.steampowered.com/app/1091500/Cyberpunk_2077/#a...
- dvaletin 3y ago
  Which only incentivize companies to publish unfinished products with “will fix it later” ideology.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Is that a big deal? That's easy to avoid if you don't pre-order games and just wait for the day 1 reviews. Even if you did end up with a shitty situation, Steam lets you refund the games with minimal hassle. On the other hand, there are players who'd rather have the game earlier (like me) than a few months later, despite its launch issues. The alternative approach -- Baldur's Gate 3 being in Early Access forever -- is fine too, but damned if that wasn't a long wait. Maybe the compromise is bigger companies being willing to release in Early Access more often. That shouldn't be limited to just indie companies, but any publisher that wants early and broad public feedback. Especially for a city-builder game (where there isn't really a campaign or spoilers), I don't see why not...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      large companies don't have much incentive to use EA. The usual incentive for EA is to make a game cheaper for early users and to get important playtesting done.a big game with a big ad budget, QA testing studio, and internal playteting doesn't need to worry about that.
jrajav 3y ago
Read the reviews and don't buy it. This works fantastically as a punishment already without ham-handed, opaque moderation.
- hypeatei 3y ago
  Early access is not a "punishment" though. It's a system that already exists on Steam.
  - joe_guy 3y ago
    But when used in the way you're describing, valve forcing it in a developer instead of a developer opting in, it becomes a form of punishment.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      Early Access is a "punishment" purely because game devs and publishers use it as an excuse to sell incomplete, broken products. The terrible reputation is self-inflicted and deserved.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  If this works fantastically, then why is it at the top sellers list? https://store.steampowered.com/search/?supportedlang=english&hidef2p=1&filter=topsellers&ndl=1 https://store.steampowered.com/search/?supportedlang=english...
  - FranksTV 3y ago
    Because the problems are vastly overstated. I've been playing fine since launch without any issues.
worldsayshi 3y ago
I wonder if releasing a widely anticipated game unfinished is sometimes actually strategically beneficial marketing wise. Perhaps it's a marketing dark pattern? It makes the game stay in people's minds longer because people keep coming back to it asking "is it good yet, have they fixed it yet?". It kind of feels it has worked like that for Cyberpunk. If it's a finished game on launch day people will quickly make up their minds if it's for them and then move on. Personally I would be on the fence about buying it even if it was good on launch and I would probably not buy it straight away. But I might just change my mind if I get reminded of it enough times. Then again I felt like that about Cyberpunk as well and I still haven't bought it.
- davedx 3y ago
  But it’s not “half finished”! It has some performance issues. Not the same thing.
  - worldsayshi 3y ago
    Sure, I should've picked a better word there.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      I think half-finished is a good way to describe the state of day-1 releases of games these days. Look back on other games (and non-game software) and measure A. the amount of time between when the developer started and the first release, and then B. the total amount of time it took to get to the final patch. I bet for many, MANY games, A ≤ B/2: They were literally "half-finished" in terms of time, on first release.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        Sure, but that's not how consumers measure "finished". By that logic, Binding of Issac wasn't even in Alpha state when it launched in 2011. Since it got its latest update this year. Meanwhile, Sonic 2006 launched once, never got updates, and was buried for 15 years before Sega loosened up. It was by all accounts "finished", in the worst way. unpolished =/= unfinished.
MagicMoonlight 3y ago
Yeah they need to start moderating quality.
davedx 3y ago
This old chestnut again. Software is not “essentially a beta” because it doesn’t meet a bunch of entitled users’ arbitrary definitions of “finished”. A game having some performance issues doesn’t mean you’re a beta tester. Did you even buy this game? I suspect not.
- hypeatei 3y ago
  No, I didn't buy it because it's $50 and you have to follow guides and tricks to get it running optimally. That's not what I expect from a game released at full price.
  - FranksTV 3y ago
    You have a lot of opinions about a game you've never played.
    - hypeatei 3y ago
      Enlighten me.
geraldhh 3y ago
market forces ... but yea, source2 engine could have used some more love before going live

chc 3y ago

They let you return the game no questions asked if you haven't played it for two hours.

hypeatei 3y ago
True. Marking it early access would just save more peoples time and be more explicit about the current state of the game.

athorax 3y ago

Valve/steam should absolutely not be doing that

hypeatei 3y ago
Why not? They're still able to list the game and sell it. I don't see the issue with making it more clear to end users that they're beta testing a game.
rychco 3y ago
Why not? There's already a hardware survey & they could easily have an opt-in system that reports the user's average framerate while playing games. If the average hardware specs can't run that game >=60fps >=90% of the time on any graphical setting then it's beyond fair to give it a "Hardware reports indicate that this game performs poorly" label.
- solardev 3y ago
  I like that!
- dgunay 3y ago
  It's high time telemetry served users tbh. I would 100% opt-in to telemetry if it would tattle on badly made or misbehaving software.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Morally, because valve is aleaady too big an influencer on the pc space. Financially, because valve doesn't have the the time nor care to performance benchmark every game. Valve isn't much better than Google when it comes to seeking a human review as is. And user reported benchmarks are the worst metric I can imagine. There is so much work on profiling and inaccuracies among frame counters, I don't want to trust that to some random person on the internet. >If the average hardware specs can't run that game >=60fps >=90% of the time on any graphical setting then it's beyond fair to give it a "Hardware reports indicate that this game performs poorly" label. Not really. Framerate isn't everything and I don't think it's a good thing to further enforce. The best selling games still choose to run 30fps and most games running max specs will "perform poorly" by design. That's why most games only give "recommended specs", not specs for every settings.

solardev 3y ago

I think their reviews are punishment enough. "Very Positive" for CS:1 and "Mixed" for CS:2. And if it improves over time, the reviews improve with them! Cyberpunk was a good example of that. And the graphs make it really easy to see how it's changed over time: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1091500/Cyberpunk_2077/#app_reviews_hash https://store.steampowered.com/app/1091500/Cyberpunk_2077/#a...

dvaletin 3y ago
Which only incentivize companies to publish unfinished products with “will fix it later” ideology.
- solardev 3y ago
  Is that a big deal? That's easy to avoid if you don't pre-order games and just wait for the day 1 reviews. Even if you did end up with a shitty situation, Steam lets you refund the games with minimal hassle. On the other hand, there are players who'd rather have the game earlier (like me) than a few months later, despite its launch issues. The alternative approach -- Baldur's Gate 3 being in Early Access forever -- is fine too, but damned if that wasn't a long wait. Maybe the compromise is bigger companies being willing to release in Early Access more often. That shouldn't be limited to just indie companies, but any publisher that wants early and broad public feedback. Especially for a city-builder game (where there isn't really a campaign or spoilers), I don't see why not...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    large companies don't have much incentive to use EA. The usual incentive for EA is to make a game cheaper for early users and to get important playtesting done.a big game with a big ad budget, QA testing studio, and internal playteting doesn't need to worry about that.

jrajav 3y ago

Read the reviews and don't buy it. This works fantastically as a punishment already without ham-handed, opaque moderation.

hypeatei 3y ago
Early access is not a "punishment" though. It's a system that already exists on Steam.
- joe_guy 3y ago
  But when used in the way you're describing, valve forcing it in a developer instead of a developer opting in, it becomes a form of punishment.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Early Access is a "punishment" purely because game devs and publishers use it as an excuse to sell incomplete, broken products. The terrible reputation is self-inflicted and deserved.
Dah00n 3y ago
If this works fantastically, then why is it at the top sellers list? https://store.steampowered.com/search/?supportedlang=english&hidef2p=1&filter=topsellers&ndl=1 https://store.steampowered.com/search/?supportedlang=english...
- FranksTV 3y ago
  Because the problems are vastly overstated. I've been playing fine since launch without any issues.

worldsayshi 3y ago

I wonder if releasing a widely anticipated game unfinished is sometimes actually strategically beneficial marketing wise. Perhaps it's a marketing dark pattern? It makes the game stay in people's minds longer because people keep coming back to it asking "is it good yet, have they fixed it yet?". It kind of feels it has worked like that for Cyberpunk. If it's a finished game on launch day people will quickly make up their minds if it's for them and then move on. Personally I would be on the fence about buying it even if it was good on launch and I would probably not buy it straight away. But I might just change my mind if I get reminded of it enough times. Then again I felt like that about Cyberpunk as well and I still haven't bought it.

davedx 3y ago
But it’s not “half finished”! It has some performance issues. Not the same thing.
- worldsayshi 3y ago
  Sure, I should've picked a better word there.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    I think half-finished is a good way to describe the state of day-1 releases of games these days. Look back on other games (and non-game software) and measure A. the amount of time between when the developer started and the first release, and then B. the total amount of time it took to get to the final patch. I bet for many, MANY games, A ≤ B/2: They were literally "half-finished" in terms of time, on first release.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Sure, but that's not how consumers measure "finished". By that logic, Binding of Issac wasn't even in Alpha state when it launched in 2011. Since it got its latest update this year. Meanwhile, Sonic 2006 launched once, never got updates, and was buried for 15 years before Sega loosened up. It was by all accounts "finished", in the worst way. unpolished =/= unfinished.

MagicMoonlight 3y ago

Yeah they need to start moderating quality.

davedx 3y ago

This old chestnut again. Software is not “essentially a beta” because it doesn’t meet a bunch of entitled users’ arbitrary definitions of “finished”. A game having some performance issues doesn’t mean you’re a beta tester. Did you even buy this game? I suspect not.

hypeatei 3y ago
No, I didn't buy it because it's $50 and you have to follow guides and tricks to get it running optimally. That's not what I expect from a game released at full price.
- FranksTV 3y ago
  You have a lot of opinions about a game you've never played.
  - hypeatei 3y ago
    Enlighten me.

geraldhh 3y ago

market forces ... but yea, source2 engine could have used some more love before going live