The game started as a very limited proof of concept and morphed gradually into what it is now. What did hurt KSP in its development were factors that are in hindsight easy to attack, but hindsight is 20/20: There’s also games that were not early access but used different ways of financing development (No Mans Sky), proving that early access alone is not a guarantee for success or failure. There’s quite a few early access games that worked out well. And that’s where innovative games come from, as big studios tend to stick to what is known to make money (which makes sense with the investments being made, but doesn’t generate fresh new games). And “getting paid before releasing a reasonably finished product” is a big deal as it’s a very big challenge for indie developers. The early access prices were heavily discounted, to the point of being free at one point. Using them as a baseline or bar to surpass, to me, seems underwhelming.įactorio is still in "early access" and I believe they have a fair reputation for standing by their product I see it as a fair warning to the community.Īlso, keep in mind SQUAD is a marketing company first, not a game developer. At the same time, it seems to have the effect of removing developers' worry about stuff being broken or unfinished or unpolished in their product, or their urgency at fixing it. They will still ask for a full-product price, and "there will be bugs".Įarly access as a concept has proven to be little more than a way of getting paid before delivering a reasonably finished product. Whether it's a formal early access period with the actual (hash)tag on the product, or an 'early-access-pretending-to-be-release' that tries to hide the fact, it's effectively the same thing. How did that work out for KSP1? How 'bugless' is it today, after how many years of the 'mass of the community' looking for them in the 'final stages'?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |