H1Z1 Debacle or Thanks, Squad.

[Randazzo]

Don't know if anyone else plays or follows, but there has recently been a kerfluffle over the H1Z1 development path as it increasingly appears as if Daybreak Games is simply making a cash grab and breaking promises. The outpouring of hate on reddit (which is mostly censored and subdued now) has been described as "a garbage fire burning with the heat of a thousand suns". Now, I have no leaning as to whether they're making a cash grab or just incompetent, but I did gain a new appreciation for KSP and it's dev cycles.

Thanks for not sucking, Squad (and friends)!

Edited November 6, 2015 by Randazzo

[r4pt0r]

Yeah KSP has been my only positive early access experience, and unfortunately my negative experiences far outweigh the lone good one, so I will not opt in to any future early access titles. which is awful because no one knows who the next big thing will be.

[Noname117]

Yeah KSP has been my only positive early access experience, and unfortunately my negative experiences far outweigh the lone good one, so I will not opt in to any future early access titles. which is awful because no one knows who the next big thing will be.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I've had mostly positive early access experiences. Starmade's been great, From The Depths has been great, and I don't think I've been addicted to a game as much as ARK: Survival Evolved before (Avoid official servers though). Actually, the only early access title I kind of regret getting is Stranded Deep, simply because development is moving at such a slow pace. To be honest, I think I've gotten more critical of SQUAD because of some of these devs (Though SQUAD has definitely gotten a bit better recently).

[Camacha]

I do not think I ever regretted supporting an early access game, while I have backed a few. Some development is slow, some are rather bumpy, but most (all in my case) tend to give lots of great gameplay for a relatively small investment.

The biggest drawback I have found is that you often burn out on a game before its done, so you always play a half finished game with more to come. That is an obvious consequence of the early access scheme, so you cannot fault developers for that.

[cantab]

I'll repeat what I've said before: Buy a game based on what it is now, not based on non-binding promises of what it might be next year.

[Camacha]

I'll repeat what I've said before: Buy a game based on what it is now, not based on non-binding promises of what it might be next year.

It depends on your goals. If you are out to get your money's worth, that is the right approach. If you are out to finance upcoming developers and companies, in hopes of adding another interesting title to the library of games out there or to give some people a break, you can spend money on something that is not quite there yet. If I can make things better by risking a few bucks, I do not mind doing so.

If everyone only financed things that are already great fun, starting new projects becomes considerably harder. I have helped finance some pretty preliminary projects, and none so far turned out a disappointment. Most are great fun. I would rather finance four or five indies with the risk of one or two failing, than spend the same amount on some production line AAA title, if I am honest. I accept that failure is an option, but without risk (both conceptually and financially) there is no reward. Trying new things and the guarantee of success are not really compatible.