From: Cornwall, UK
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
I don't understand your reaction at all. We've already done early access twice before and in each case it was the appropriate decision for the game and resulted in a complete game with full community involvement. As far as I can tell, it was a positive both for customers and developers.
OK, I may have over-reacted, or at least overgeneralized somewhat and apologies for that. Point taken on Buzz Aldrin, although as I recall I bought that direct from yourselves on 'early access', not Steam? I guess you deserve some benefit of the doubt.
Just a couple of general points on why I dislike EA so much, though, based on experience.
Firstly, a large degree of trust and confidence in the developer is required. By getting in so much of the sales revenue before the project is completed, the incentive to complete it is much reduced both by choice and, not infrequently, by economics. Many, many games have been dumped unfinished, usually with a half-arsed alpha/beta masquerading as a full release (for a second entry on the 'new release' list and a final cash grab).
Secondly, and this is a huge problem even when the game is very good and the developers trustworthy, particularly when there is any emphasis on multiplayer, the darned game is 'dead' by the time it's 'finished'. Most folks have moved on to other things, and if I'm honest that usually includes me. So in many cases, the gamer has two choices; either buy early and play an unfinished product, or wait as you suggest only to find nobody is playing any more. So where applicable, no MP opponents, no mods, no reason for expansions, etc, etc.
In the early days, you knew the risks you were taking with EA, just as you do/should with Kickstarter. You took/take them to help a project you were interested in get done, as without that funding it just wouldn't happen. Now, with bigger and bigger players seeing an opportunity, EA is frequently just a marketing choice.
< Message edited by Hertston -- 3/31/2015 8:11:31 PM >