I just checked out that game in the image and it looks pretty slick. The devs seem to have promised a lot but it looks like they are handling it with all the updates since the release.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/279900/

I've already been burned too many times to buy into Early Access anymore. Valve and other developers are going to have to start proving that these problems are resolved before I go back.

That isn't entirely fair to Double Fine. I'll be up front in saying that that some of their behaviour over recent years has left a rather sour taste in my mouth, but Spacebase's 'development costs not being 100% covered by early access purchases' is misrepresenting the situation quite a fair bit - a very common conclusion that seems all too easy to reach as more and more people get stung by Early Access.

DF did (allegedly) throw a good amount of their own money into the development, on top of the sales they were getting (or not getting) through early access. They hoped for sales that would offset their own costs and make it do-able. It was only when it became more apparent that Spacebase was hemorrhaging all around that it was canned.

While that doesn't really change what ended up happening, I think it's important that the distinction is made, though it wouldn't absolve them of other issues that the project was guilty of.

@tehpickle said:

At a certain point they had to start spending their own money, which they absolutely did not want to do. They gave one last attempt of stirring up sales with controversial humble bundles and deep sales hopping to spur something. When this failed largely due to the pathetic state of the game and they realized they'd have to fund it themselves they pulled the plug.

You could also argue based on how much time was actually spent developing the game, how many people, and how often they took time off to do non-DF9 related things that they never actually did end up digging into their own pockets. Overall they treated it like we hired them as contractors, and once the money ran out they said "well, I guess we're done here".

I believe my original description is more than fair to DF.

I'm glad they are addressing this, but I still think Early Access is a bad concept. When are games "finished"? I've yet to see an Early Access game I bought become finished, despite good sales. Kerbal Space Program and Prison Architect have been up there for years, and while they update consistently, at a certain point the game should be finished. I don't see developers actually finishing games. I still see Early Access as a way for devs to sell their game "as-is", and then update it over time but never become actually "finished" because what's the point? A ton of people already bought it on Early Access, so why re-release?

This is great to see.

Games like KSP and Prison Architect are perfect examples of EA done right, I have no idea what you're talking about there. A game being constantly updated with new content is awesome and is something enough newer games don't do after release. Both games could be "released" into the steam store and would be well received, I see no issue continuing to update them with loads of new content until the developers feel its time to move on and release it then only promise things like compatibility patches etc. moving forward. I see no issue with this business practice in particular and both the consumer and developer profit from it.

This update would be a lot more respectable if STEAM didn't let utter trash into the actual store without having to be greenlit or Early'd. See The Slaughtering Grounds, a game I had to take into my own hands because the game stole artwork (Badass Troll Fairytale ) from a very cool freelancer by the name of Pekka, I highly recommend you check his stuff out @ Pekuska.

That being said, I have to do Steam's dirty work and report stolen artwork to freelance artists myself? It's ridiculous the game was even allowed because not only is it objectively worse in terms of quality to most Early Access games it features stolen artwork which I KNOW is stolen because I called the artist up myself to let him be aware of what has happened. Mutliple people have filed copyright flags against the game and it is still on the steam store potentially making sales off of stolen work.

That whole situation makes me far more cynical towards anything STEAM says regarding it's ecosystem being improved.

Early Access has been so abused, I don't know if a few little rules are enough to salvage the system, might be ok just to let it die then start a new one with more solidified parameters.

@7x_: Yeah, Steam completely fucked up a few months ago when they loosened the rules to get on the store and to get through Greenlight. Now the new release list is full of Android port garbage and like you said, PC only games made on the cheap with stolen artwork. Valve should've kept the submission process the same and just hired more people to curate what gets on the store. There's a reason that Jeff makes fun of Desura, and it's because you can get anything on there unless it is explicitly a virus. Steam is rapidly approaching that point, and instead of improving the curation process, Valve simply redesigned the Store page to just not feature the hundreds of shit games they let through, and instead highlight the 10% or so of actually honest, good games that should be the only games getting on the store in the first place.

At least it's something.

Glad they're starting to take more steps.

Having the option to remove Early Access games from the front page was the best first step.

Some of those rules regarding sales are the exact rules Microsoft has consistently taken harsh criticism for. Of course, this is Valve who we already know are viewed as infallible.

I'll always remember that one podcast where Patrick was like "open the flood gates," concerning Early Access, and Brad was like, "I think this will be bad in the long term."

I think holding up Kerbal Space Program and a few other games as an argument for keeping Early Access as is, actually makes a better argument against it. If so few quality titles have come about because of the system, it's kinda not worth for me, as a Steam user, to have to sift through all the garbage to find what I'm looking for. I think Kerbal Space probably would have succeeded anyway no matter what it was labeled as.

This implies that the majority of games on Steam are good. This implies that the majority of games on ANY gaming platform in existence are good. Going by the logic on display here, you'd have to come to the conclusion that gaming as a whole isn't worth it because there's so much garbage out there.

Most video games are terrible, boring things. The few we all get excited for? That keep us coming back? They're a drop in the bucket of produced games every year. That's not the point, though.

The point is that you having the mildly inconvenient experience of sifting through a few extra games per day does not outweigh the benefits of early access. There's plenty of good stuff out there, Necrodancer, Nuclear Throne, Endless Legend, Rust (Currently mid-rebuild, but still good), Day Z, Gang Beasts, Planet Explorers (I love this one), Project Zomboid, Wreckfest, Prison Architect, Massive Chalice and plenty more.

Maybe you disagree with something I listed. Good, because that brings up my next point: You're not the arbiter of quality.

I like lots of games other people don't like, I like lots of games other people do like, if we start weeding out "bad" games, then we lose out on games only some people think are bad. The same goes for Early Access. I don't give two shits what you think is good, I don't come to you for review information, like you don't come to me for review information. Allow me to make my own decisions, and present me with as many games as you reasonably can. I, SOMEHOW, will manage to survive and pick out the ones that seem most interesting to me.

It's like people forget that Steam has always had crap not everyone wants to play, Bad Rats hit before early access, folks. Steam doesn't vet by "quality," as that's totally subjective, nor should they ever try. Leave that to specialty (digital or physical) retailers, not mega-storefronts.

Early access is easily one of my favorite parts of Steam. Watching a game go through development, whether I participate in early access or not, is completely fascinating to me. Seeing the huge changes that go through is incredible, and opening up a game that recently got a patch that changed almost everything is something I've been wanting to experience since I was a kid. Dungeon Defenders 2 just got a patch where they overhauled the entire gear system -- and I couldn't be more excited!

I say open the flood gates even wider. Maybe add an extra filter for those who seem to literally get physically injured from having a few extra items on a list per day.

In the end, whether a game is in early access or not, a lot of it comes down to the consumer. Any game purchased can be a complete hunk of crap, the consumer should do some research and not just purchase based on hype and promises. Personally I've only bought one early access game (The Long Dark), and I did quite a bit of research before doing so. It turned out to be a valuable purchase I think. Also won a copy of Endless Legend, another great game. However there are some like DayZ, which plenty love, but I refuse to buy into it because I already have the mod, and the progress made with the SA just doesn't seem worth it imo. I've also seen constant hate from those who did buy into it just because they loved the mod, but as much as they hate on the devs for bugs, lack of content, hackers and so on... They bought into promises based off fun they had on a mod, which hundreds of players/modders made what it is with extra additions. People should be less trusting and take a bit of time to learn about what they're buying. In addition to that, perhaps Steam should work a process with early access releases, and complete releases alike to provide demos for people to try before buying.

@xbob42: Way to be an asshole, dude. I really don't understand why people get seriously emotionally charged over video games, but whatever.

I don't see how you can ignore that there's pretty much a consensus on the internet that Early Access has, more or less, not been a great thing for Steam. Why else do you think Valve is doing anything about it? It's not a loud minority. I would even go far as to say that people who really care about Early Access are the minority. I think most of the first Early Access successes were able to secure funding from places besides Steam.

I don't see why you're trying to divert the point of this into a subjective argument, other than to throw in that bit about me having shit taste in video games. That's a really weird thing to do. My point is that the sheer volume of Early Access titles, has kind of taken over most of Steam with games that never see a full release, because they are not able to bring the game into a state that would meet most people's standards, usually just in terms of a game functioning properly. The system has been abused, and everyone realizes it, except for a few free-market vigilantes.

If you want to argue about this subjectively, you should realize that you're also saying you think it's great that we're getting ports of mobile and facebook games. Do you really not want any kind of consumer protection on steam? In almost any business the onus is almost never on the customer to make an informed decision. I hate to be the one to break that to you, but that's how it is. Feel free to consider yourself more intelligent by the apparent fact that you research every purchase for weeks on end, but commerce out in the wild does not work that way.

Isn't it weird that when Steam still had Greenlight, a lot of the "quality" games you threw out in your examples passed inspection?

@tpoppapuff: Sorry Poppa, but if hypocrisy bothers you, you are in the wrong place.

While all this is great. I don't see any outlines for punishment for breaking the rules. What if the game sells well but they don't meet any of their promised goals? I mean you see this happening with spacebase. Tons of features promised, they got a good chunk of money but was allocating money away from that game to different projects. No clause saying they have to pay back customers and allow the customers to keep the end result product if they don't "release" a game according to their promised feature set. The way Valve is pitching it actually sounds like you put money into a studio and get a game that you think you might like. Instead of putting money into a game you are fairly sure you will like in a studio you think might possibly finish it... Maybe, if you are lucky.

@fisk0: Being sure you can finish a game is the craziest thing I ever heard!! :P

Hahaha ok not seriously but in my experience if you can actually make that call you are :

a) among the 1%

b) have no need of early access

Valve's policy spells this out clearly and all gamers *need* to come to terms with this - the vast majority of all game projects are never completed. NEVER (lady with arms crossed).

When you Kickstart or Early Access you should 100% of the time be ok with

a) the game never coming out

b) not getting your money back

Sounds like a raw deal? Nature of the beast! Keep in mind that these services are designed to circumvent publishers. Publishing is about risk. What I find hilarious/fascinating about all this stuff is people being angry about the risk involved in these services. Publishers are wary with their money for the same reason you are. Now you have some firsthand experience at least!

"If you are trying to test out a concept and haven't yet figured out what players are going to do in your game that makes it fun, then it's probably too early." I hope the grass Grass Simulator devs are reading this