Why Games Need to Stop Launching Early.

Title: Games Need to Stop launching in Early Access.
➡️ Follow me on Twitter for updates: / dittozkul
➡️ Join Our Discord Community: / discord
The Forest: Why Games Need to Stop Launching Early.
================================================
Nickname: Dittoz
Known as: Dittoz, Dittozkul, Valorant Curios & more
Produced & Managed by dittoz.ca
================================================

[@kingobertron4313]

Also i think the consumer is in the wrong a game in early access is a game u are given early insight into before it is fully complete this therefore means u are there to help the developers create their finished goals by full launch. this means that people shouldn't complain if the fundamentals are not complete as u are playing a game that isn't in full release therefore it's not a problem. The only problem comes when a game is fully released and is not what was advertised then that is the company not meeting its promises

[@MayorZach]

You're thinking of testers. Testers get paid, they don't pay to play. We're not testers, we're supporters giving money to the devs so they can finish the game, but if they release a broken mess that can't even be played as intended, even testers have to take a step back and tell them what needs to be fixed before anyone can play. Rust is a perfect example of the right way to release a game early, whilst adding things. The base game is playable, with small amounts of well-crafted content, like small maps, lootable objects, placeables, and combat related things. Rust focused on making the game stable, which at one point required an entire rewrite. As soon as Unity started screwing around with pricing and whatnot, can you guess who it was within the Rust community that had to be the first to address it? Not the players. Facepunch (rust dev company) literally trucked it head-on and faced the issue whole-heartedly. It's not about an 'opportunity' we as players are 'granted' by developers to 'get' to test unfinished games. It's THEIR opportunity to be able to release an unfinished game, still generate revenue, and produce a quality product. There is no opportunity here other than for the developers to show what their studio can do. Rust did fannnnnnnntastic with it, and I'm pretty sure it's up there with DayZ in the amount of support it's garnered. Just because the devs actually care and do the damn work. I'm not a tester. I'm a customer. Provide me with a game I can actually play, I'll provide you with feedback. That's the entire intended point of releasing in alpha.

[@TheTuttle99]

God what a terrible take. Holy shit

[@leorice2663]

the thing about this game specifically, is that the first time they did it, they were trying a lot of new things, the forest was a survival game like no other, so seeing its development was fun, because it was new, the problem is they tried that again with this one, and the problem is that nobody cares for more than a day now, this game has systems and AIs that most players will never know exits, just because of how vast it is, the cannibals are basically the sims on crack, they developed a game the only way they knew how, and the thing is, the dev team is absolutely tiny, I know they got new members for the game but its so small, if you look in the credits most sections are done by 1-4 people, and what they have managed to do with such a small team is amazing, personally I think, one more delay, to when patch 5 released, is when they should have released it in early access, because we were getting to much content in those first patches, things they were exited to add but weren't cleaned up quit enough, I think all game studios when deciding on releasing in early access need to think, how original is there game, and think when they want to release it they should wait 3-5 updates worth beforehand.

[@crusader-j4126]

What needs to happen is game companies / publishers need to stop launching games in a broken, buggy mess with half the content that's promised and performance that rivals running Starfield on a GTX 1060. IE: running a top of the line system and still only getting 30-50fps in some cases and horrible frame drops I'm tired of game companies promising this is "exactly what the playerbase wants!" but in reality its what the suits want in the office. I'm tired of corpo scum that thinks sucking the player base dry is best for business with microtransactions, infecting every game out there now. I'm tired of the unoptimized messes we are being given and then them expecting us to be happy. Just stop releasing games 45% through development and calling it good. Alpha's and Beta's are there for a reason instead of this "live service" they call a "early access" I own tons of Early access games and its ended up pretty much the same except for a couple that are really successful (example: Subnautica), being forgotten and abandoned by the companies that invited into them and then laid to rest in the mountain of abandon ware only to be found by some junkie abandonware collector to be either put in a website full of malware and viruses or selling it for a price so over the top that it doesn't make any sense. I stopped pre-ordering, stopped buying early access and stopped trusting companies that say a "game is ready" when its only been in development for a year. Let games bake longer so they come out as a masterpiece... not a mediocre failed promise that dies out with a dull whimper after the execs get their pockets lined.

[@kingobertron4313]

my take on this is that no they don't need to stop early access just handle it better games such as Cyberpunk (i know wasnt early access but has the same concept) launched lacking but then quickly transferred into a Hall of Fame game with insane new waves of players smashing gaming records and proving that no matter how bad the game is at launch with great dedication and listening comes great results.

[@xc5tnc148]

Still a shit game though

[@martel8936]

The fuck you on?cyberpunk at lauch was unplayable full if buts couldnt finish the main quest ai was dead and it took 3YEARS of constent patch AND a anime on Netflix to bring player back and even now days theres à lot of things missing

[@kingobertron4313]

ok@@martel8936 if this game cyberpunk was so lack luster for 3 years explain how the game at launch has most positive reviews on steam and now has very positive 92/100 this game was just like early access games launch with heaps of bugs yet all it takes is a passionate loving team like CD project red this is coming from someone who has done 3 playthroughs of the game and the dlc one at launch on the xbox, one at patch 1.6 and another at 2.0 this was also with me playing between. Cyberpunk 2077 is now considered one of the best open world games made.

[@howshafern420]

Only in the game world, If they sold you a Microwave but some times it cooks food some times it freezes it and some times it just makes your food fall through the world. and then if it sells enough units they keep working on it. or even worse let the community of modders fix the issues for free. its a sick system that needs to stop in gaming and should be illegal to release games in a broken and unfinished state.

[@Cypress_Stoned]

They had a lot of this content done, they're just piecemealing it out with these biweekly updates.I don't know why they decided to do that, but its what they did.

[@OctorokSushi]

early access means nothing at this point because nearly every game is early access now. It makes a bit more sense for indies but AAA studios saw people were cool with it and were elated to learn they didn't even have to bake the bread anymore (despite having the resources to), just sell them the dough and give a little "we'll bake it for you later! ...probably" and it's all good now. People will even buy the super ultra deluxe gold diamond game of the year edition of the dough before there's much of anything to make it super ultra deluxe gold diamond (insert more here) in the first place. We _promise_ the bread will be *_soooooooo_* fucking good guys, just eat the dough for now, mmm isn't that yummy dough? and unfortunately there's too many people with dough in their mouths just nodding along, happy for the opportunity to pre-order an early access experience

[@TheTuttle99]

Sounds like it's a good thing I haven't picked this up yet. Will grab when it's on sale. Also it's *in*complete not *un*complete just so you know capn

[@Dittozz]

Full release in February! It's one of my favorite games, its worth playing imo

[@rrael]

I don't think this is the right game to use as an example. I played it on day one and it was sparse but surprisingly polished and fun. Then they released updates every 2-3 weeks like clockwork. Every update was substantial. They were upfront about their plans and have followed thru. This game was early access done right. Unlike all the buggy unfinished games that have been in perpetual hell. 7 Days to Die anyone? Those devs should be tarred and feathered. 10 years of "alpha" early access. I've always had above average to enthusiast PCs, and that game ran like dog shit. I refuse to try it again.

[@TheTuttle99]

What exactly does "surprisingly polished" mean to you?

[@rrael]

@@TheTuttle99 If I buy an early access game I expect more issues, or for it to be lacking content. Likely both. I don't remember any bugs beyond tiny stuff, and it ran smooth as butter (for me) on launch day. I finished it in 20 hours without running into any issues that hampered my enjoyment. My biggest annoyance was rivers / creeks had a crazy loud SFX volume for the 1st cpl weeks until they patched it. I've played so many early access games that were a joke, or they spend 2-5 plus years with sporadic patching and a failure to fix glaring imbalances and bugs. I just don't understand why anyone would us SoTF as an example of bad early access.

[@MyEmkill]

Oh, I even forgot I have this game in my library

[@Dittozz]

good time to get back in, or in Feb! Full release comes then

[@X_CommanderOfThe3rdReich_X]

@@Dittozz That's not a good thing, this pile of dogshit needed at least 2-3 more years in early access, the game needs A LOT more work.

[@itz_spitz1907]

the only reasdon sons of the forest released in early access was beacuse they werent done but still wanted to release it on time

[@TheTuttle99]

Excellent observation. Do you think they charged money for it because they wanted to make money too?

[@nightwhisper4115]

we that have played it all the way help them making the game so no i dont agreed.

[@TheTuttle99]

That mentality will get you scammed out of a lot of money.

[@nightwhisper4115]

@@TheTuttle99 not payd a dime mate :)

[@3rdaxis649]

Loving this game:)

[@Defooriginal]

I'd Rather Developers take their time and do it right? You prefer they rush the whole process and launch glitchy games like cyberpunk?

[@TheTuttle99]

Did you watch the video? Even without watching how could you take that from it? Nobody wants that. Obviously the idea is games are released as a finished product. Nowhere was it said for games to be rushed out the door

[@Defooriginal]

@@TheTuttle99 you're saying you want the game finished quickly. That's why the demo sucks.