A week in... 10% still playing

[Scarecrow71]

53 minutes ago, K^2 said:

I think, for someone who both enjoys KSP and is interested in getting into game development, this might be a good recommendation. Like, a lot of things one has to do with KSP2 to get it to cooperate are the sort of things you end up doing with a game during development. Being able to both reproduce a known bug reliably and to step around a known back reliably are survival skills.

Yeah, but there is a rather large difference between being employed by a company and/or striking out on your own and developing game, as opposed to laying money for basically being an alpha tester.  Most people don't enjoy paying money for something that is this broken, whereas people out there who can get paid to do it love doing so.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

I think, for someone who both enjoys KSP and is interested in getting into game development, this might be a good recommendation. Like, a lot of things one has to do with KSP2 to get it to cooperate are the sort of things you end up doing with a game during development. Being able to both reproduce a known bug reliably and to step around a known back reliably are survival skills.

I am usually very forgiving of Alpha/Beta / EA.  I've lost that with these guys. 

The price alone communicates something.  Something they did not live up to.

• Had the game been in what I would call an EA state - I could have forgiven it.  Had the game progressed rapidly to a largely bug-free state even if it had to remain in Sandbox while they awaited other development along the Roadmap I could have  forgiven it. 
• Had their communication strategy not been Soviet in style, I could have forgiven it.

So... I've dropped it for now.  Cannot recommend it.

 

But - directly to your point; if I had someone totally interested in the game and patient with Alpha/Beta/EA - and I could give them a free key to help the devs at this point in the cycle?  Sure - without qualms.  But to recommend someone pay for this experience?

 

Nah.

Edited May 4, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[K^2]

2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

laying money for basically being an alpha tester

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I could give them a free key to help the devs at this point in the cycle?  Sure - without qualms.  But to recommend someone pay for this experience?

From a purely utilitarian perspective, the cost of participating in early access comes down to two factors: How certain are you that the game will eventually be playable, and you will purchase it? And what is the opportunity cost of shelling out the $50 now? That is, is there anything else you'd be missing out on because you spent the money already?

I'm fairly confident that KSP2 will get done, and will be interesting enough for me to buy it at full price. Even if things are going a lot worse than I think, and there will be some shakeups in the studio forced by PD, and the game eventually releases in full in 2025 - just to imagine a particularly bad scenario, whether I spend $50 now or $60 then isn't really impactful. There's a chance that the game doesn't get finished at all, and then I'm effectively out of $50. I think the risk is very low, and it won't hurt me much if I'm wrong. So for me, the effective cost of participating is very close to nothing.

That math won't work out the same way for everyone. For some people, spending $50 on KSP2 now would mean not getting to enjoy something else they wanted to buy. In these kinds of situations, pre-orders and early access of any kind are just a bad idea. Hold on to your money until you know what you're getting. Alternatively, some people might be very pessimistic about the development so far, and evaluate the risk very differently. If the risk of the game not finishing is very high, then the expectation value for the cost of participating in the early access goes up to as high as the full $50 in the worst case.

The concern is valid, and I would absolutely make sure that if I'm making a recommendation, the person I'm telling this to is fully informed about the state of the game, the delays, and anything else that might impact their evaluation of the risk. But simply deciding for another person that, "Nah, it's not worth $50," is unfair to them as well.

[regex]

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The price alone communicates something.  Something they did not live up to.

Eh, I don't know. To me the price communicates an idea that Squad left a literal raft of money lying on the floor with the previous title. Seriously. I got the game and two DLCs for something like $13, and I think earlier adopters payed less. Game prices have been increasing as well (even if purchasing power hasn't). So while I completely understand dissatisfaction with the EA pricing I also don't think it's really promising anything, just part of the business.

[Lyneira]

There's something to be said for charging full price to the early adopters, among which tend to be those who get the most value out of the game as a sequel to KSP1. It might also act as a deterrent for those who think to grab an EA game for cheap, only to be disappointed by the state at release and never look at the game again. Those who are deterred now might still consider getting the game when it makes headlines again, with hopefully more bugs sorted out and more features on the roadmap released.

But this only makes sense if confidence is very high that the product as promised on the roadmap will actually be realized. As users, we have rather little to go on to evaluate this except a gut feeling based on the communications so far. For an early access game, the developer/publisher are required to answer a number of questions on the steam store page, one of which is:

Quote

What is the current state of the Early Access version?

“Initial release of Early Access will include:
• Remodeled and visually updated Kerbolar system with celestial secrets to uncover
• Hundreds of new and improved parts including engines, procedural wings, and more
• Customize your vehicles with creative paint jobs
• Improved experience for new and returning players:
o Animated Tutorials
o Improved User Interface
o Upgraded Map View
• Fully revamped assembly & flight interfaces
• More for players to discover (we don’t want to spoil everything)”

The answer is a list of features that the player can do. Notable omission being the game's stability at release (and still currently), something a prospective buyer certainly would have liked to know as it deeply affects all the above.

Quote

Why Early Access?

“More than anything else, we cannot wait for players to build, fly, crash, and fly again!

The core pillar of KSP2 is building and flying cool rockets. While we have additional features planned like colonies, interstellar travel, and multiplayer, we first want to hear back from players about the core fundamental experience.
We believe that going through early access for KSP2 will ultimately allow us to build a better game through a supportive dialogue with our community.”

(emphasis mine) As the store page states, feedback on the core fundamental experience is what they're looking for. With only the information above, a prospective buyer has no indication to expect severe performance and stability issues that will hinder them from properly exploring this core fundamental experience and giving feedback on the features mentioned in the previous quote above. Nor does it state anywhere that said performance and stability issues are actually what they need our feedback on to help them resolve.

And this ties into the communication pattern that ObsidianAnt has taken issue with in his most recent KSP2 video.

(too long; didn't watch): Vagueness and tiptoeing around the elephant in the room, when addressing the game's current issues.

All in all, it's understandable to see why people who are critical of the game feel misled.

[PDCWolf]

4 hours ago, K^2 said:

And what is the opportunity cost of shelling out the $50 now?

Put the 50 on some S&P500 or some even less risky investment, maybe even a bank. You will have the $70 for the full game, plus interests, plus it'll probable be very heavily discounted either very soon, or by the time it releases anyways.

These kind of "opportunity cost" arguments only work with quickly developing, low price games that you know will increase in price a proper amount like KSP1's $7 to $35, or some steeper examples as well. If the game costs $50 now and $70 in the 5 years it'll take for it to complete, there's no opportunity cost, you don't even get to enjoy the product.

5 hours ago, regex said:

So while I completely understand dissatisfaction with the EA pricing I also don't think it's really promising anything, just part of the business.

Prices set expectations, this is a lesson repeated so many times yet still not learnt. You can top a shopping cart with amazing games for $50, even more in the coming weeks when the sales start rolling one after another. $50 is what I'd pay for a proper full release, or like 3 to 5 really good indie games, or up to 15 decent titles on discount.

[LoSBoL]

The better lesson is that price may set expectations, but when gaming concerned its just like in the real world, price does not  set a precedent. 

Yes, people get burnt when basing their purchase decisions set on price as expectancy, for some its a lesson, for some it isn't.

[K^2]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

These kind of "opportunity cost" arguments only work with quickly developing, low price games that you know will increase in price a proper amount like KSP1's $7 to $35, or some steeper examples as well. If the game costs $50 now and $70 in the 5 years it'll take for it to complete, there's no opportunity cost, you don't even get to enjoy the product.

I think you misunderstand what an opportunity cost is. The opportunity is to spend $50 on something else right now. Say, all I had was $50 to spend on games for the next X months. Would it make sense for me to get KSP2 EA? Absolutely not. There are a lot of better games I can play in the meanwhile. Locking up these $50 in early access, even if I'm sure it will come through eventually, would make no sense.

In contrast, the situation I have is that I'm going to be able to get the games I will actually have time to play either way. And whether that $50 ends up in my savings/investment account and sits there until KSP2 releases, or I just pick it up now doesn't really make a financial difference to me. Not the kind that's going to matter. It's all within a cup of coffee difference at the most. So what's the downside of getting the early access and trying it out in this case?

These are the two endpoints on the opportunity cost analysis here. There is an entire spectrum in between. The monetary value of the opportunity cost will land somewhere between $0 to $50 depending not only on each person's financial situation, but also on how they budget their finances and how easy it is to amortize the $50 now vs later. So it will always be a fraction of these $50.

[Scarecrow71]

28 minutes ago, K^2 said:

The opportunity is to spend $50 on something else right now. Say, all I had was $50 to spend on games for the next X months. Would it make sense for me to get KSP2 EA? Absolutely not. There are a lot of better games I can play in the meanwhile. Locking up these $50 in early access, even if I'm sure it will come through eventually, would make no sense.

But you don't have the benefit of hindsight when the game initially drops in EA; all you have at that point is what you've been told by the developers and the game studio about what the game is going to be.  In the case of KSP2, we were told nearly 2 years ago that the game was almost finished, and Nate has been waxing on and on about how awesome it's going to be for months.  So that opportunity cost that you think would make no sense?  You can't really say whether or not it would make sense until AFTER you actually spend the $50.

[PDCWolf]

45 minutes ago, K^2 said:

I think you misunderstand what an opportunity cost is. The opportunity is to spend $50 on something else right now. Say, all I had was $50 to spend on games for the next X months. Would it make sense for me to get KSP2 EA? Absolutely not. There are a lot of better games I can play in the meanwhile. Locking up these $50 in early access, even if I'm sure it will come through eventually, would make no sense.

In contrast, the situation I have is that I'm going to be able to get the games I will actually have time to play either way. And whether that $50 ends up in my savings/investment account and sits there until KSP2 releases, or I just pick it up now doesn't really make a financial difference to me. Not the kind that's going to matter. It's all within a cup of coffee difference at the most. So what's the downside of getting the early access and trying it out in this case?

These are the two endpoints on the opportunity cost analysis here. There is an entire spectrum in between. The monetary value of the opportunity cost will land somewhere between $0 to $50 depending not only on each person's financial situation, but also on how they budget their finances and how easy it is to amortize the $50 now vs later. So it will always be a fraction of these $50.

I think I expressed myself incorrectly. What I mean is that there's almost no cost of opportunity analysis capable of making KSP2 worth the $50. I agree with what you say.

1. $50 to $70 in optimistically 2 to 3 years is almost nothing. The price increment during EA is clearly not a motivator to spend early.
2. If we talk about only the present, considering the state of KSP2, there's much better games, as single titles or multiple, that'll give you much higher returns on your $50.
3. It will go on sale anyways, so you'd be spending money on a broken product now vs less money on a working product further ahead. Even if it goes on sale from $70 to $50, you'd still be losing now.

The only way to reach the other side of the spectrum, is extreme loyalty to the franchise, or charity spending to "fund development" (don't, that's not how this works).

2 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

The better lesson is that price may set expectations, but when gaming concerned its just like in the real world, price does not  set a precedent. 

Yes, people get burnt when basing their purchase decisions set on price as expectancy, for some its a lesson, for some it isn't.

The most important lesson is for companies. You make something premium price, customers will expect premium quality. Happened to like 90% of modern AAA games, that have been steadily rising prices for nothing in return to the customer, and in fact even worse products every time.

 

[AtomicTech]

40 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

The only way to reach the other side of the spectrum, is extreme loyalty to the franchise, or charity spending to "fund development" (don't, that's not how this works).

That's what I realized that I did 

[regex]

3 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

You can top a shopping cart with amazing games for $50, even more in the coming weeks when the sales start rolling one after another. $50 is what I'd pay for a proper full release, or like 3 to 5 really good indie games, or up to 15 decent titles on discount.

I don't think I could find more than one or two games I want play at any given time, let alone fifteen. To me that sounds like buying games just for the sake of buying games, just in case I might want to play them a year or two down the road. I'm probably an outlier but I buy games when I want to play them, sales be damned.

I wanted to play KSP2, to check it out. I got about 90 hours out of it so far and I'm pretty sure I'll get at least another 90, so I consider it worth the price.

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, regex said:

I wanted to play KSP2, to check it out. I got about 90 hours out of it so far and I'm pretty sure I'll get at least another 90, so I consider it worth the price.

So, you bought KSP2 because you wanted to play KSP2, and you played, indeed, KSP2. I can't interest you in other ice cream flavors if you really want chocolate, and you seem to really want chocolate to the point that you're going to ignore other, possibly better value propositions. As I said:

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

The only way to reach the other side of the spectrum, is extreme loyalty to the franchise, or charity spending to "fund development" (don't, that's not how this works).

1 hour ago, regex said:

I don't think I could find more than one or two games I want play at any given time, let alone fifteen.

How many games you purchase/play is entirely dependent on your personal circumstances. I purchase games I know I want to play, not always to play them immediately after purchase, I just take advantage of sales to the point I haven't paid full price for a game in at least a decade.

[Alexoff]

It seems to me that in the case of KSP2, although the price is defiantly overpriced, it is not very important. The main problem is that the game is quite difficult to enjoy, even if it was given for free. And it's doubly sad that T2 and the developers are using the KSP franchise dear to the hearts of the fans to unceremoniously extract profits while minimizing costs.

[regex]

22 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

It seems to me that in the case of KSP2, although the price is definitely overpriced, it is not very important.

Yes, for me the price point wasn't much of a factor in my decision to buy, if it had been I would have waited until it developed more so I could see where it was going.

41 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

you're going to ignore other, possibly better value propositions.

There were no other (better or otherwise) value propositions when I bought KSP2; I either already had them, was waiting on them, or they hadn't crossed my path. KSP2 was an "opportunity".

Edited May 4, 2023 by regex

[K^2]

3 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

I think I expressed myself incorrectly. What I mean is that there's almost no cost of opportunity analysis capable of making KSP2 worth the $50. I agree with what you say.

1. $50 to $70 in optimistically 2 to 3 years is almost nothing. The price increment during EA is clearly not a motivator to spend early.
2. If we talk about only the present, considering the state of KSP2, there's much better games, as single titles or multiple, that'll give you much higher returns on your $50.
3. It will go on sale anyways, so you'd be spending money on a broken product now vs less money on a working product further ahead. Even if it goes on sale from $70 to $50, you'd still be losing now.

The only way to reach the other side of the spectrum, is extreme loyalty to the franchise, or charity spending to "fund development" (don't, that's not how this works).

You are making it way more complicated than it needs to be.

Simplification time. Forget about the price change. Forget about the inflation, investment opportunities, etc. You and I both agree that the impact of these is minimal. For the purpose of keeping it simple, make following assumptions:

• Game costs $50 today. (Rounding, ignoring tax.)
• The game will get finished eventually, even if it's 10 years from now. (Fiat for the purpose of discussion.)
• The game will cost $50 when it's fully released. (Or if it's a bit more expensive, you can get it on sale.)
• The buying power of $50 is going to be the same now and ten years from now. (This estimate gets worse the further off the release, but lets keep it simple.)
• Your options for these $50 are:
  • Buy KSP2 Early Access.
  • Put $50 in your checking account, and buy KSP2 1.0 when it's ready.

I'm intentionally ignoring possibility of using that $50 to buy something else, not KSP-related, because that's exactly the opportunity cost addressed earlier.

In this case, the cost to me of getting KSP2 EA now is zero. The $50 is already destined to pay for a copy of KSP2. It can happen now, or it can happen at some indeterminate point in the future. There are no other outcomes that give me a different value. The only difference is do I have access to EA or do I have $50 sitting idly in my checking account. In one case, I'm getting value out of it, even if absolutely marginal, and in another I get zero value.

In order for this equation to change, there has to be an alternative use for the $50. Like buying a different game. But then it's not a strict alternative either. You don't get $50 to spend on games for your life ever. You're not just choosing between buying KSP2 now and buying something else and not buying KSP2 at all. So lets modify it to reflect something a bit more realistic.

• You get $50 in your games budget every X days.
• There is an effectively infinite pool of games you can buy for $50 each.
• On average, you play a good game from the pool for Y days.
• KSP2 is available as EA in the pool of games, and will eventually hit 1.0 where it becomes a game you want to play.

In this simple model, there are only two outcomes.

1. X > Y - you are money-limited, and you are always looking for a new game to play. If you buy KSP2 EA now, you don't buy a game you want, and spend the next X days not having a good new game to play. Your opportunity cost in this case is the full $50 - or its utility equivalent of X days of playtime.
2. Y > X - you are time-limited, and you always have available budget to pick up the next game. If you buy KSP2 EA, absolutely nothing changes. You still play all the other games from the pool until KSP2 1.0 is released.

In case 1, the opportunity cost is $50. In case 2, opportunity cost is $0.

In the real world, all of this gets more complicated, but you still have the same end points. The "cost" of playing Early Access is somewhere in that $0 to $50 range that will vary from every person's preferences, time available for gaming, and financial situation.

[asmi]

My problem is always the limited time I have to play games, not lack of games. So I bought KSP2, played a bit, and shelved it until some "better times". Just like I did to a considerable amount of other EA games, and insidently, a fair amount of them I started playing again several years after my purchase, and they did grow into much better shape than I remember them being when I initially purchased them. Of course, there are some in the list which did turn into abandonware, but that's the risk I've been willing to take when I made my initial purchase decision.

[PDCWolf]

33 minutes ago, K^2 said:

• Game costs $50 today. (Rounding, ignoring tax.)
• The game will get finished eventually, even if it's 10 years from now. (Fiat for the purpose of discussion.)
• The game will cost $50 when it's fully released. (Or if it's a bit more expensive, you can get it on sale.)
• The buying power of $50 is going to be the same now and ten years from now. (This estimate gets worse the further off the release, but lets keep it simple.)
• Your options for these $50 are:
  • Buy KSP2 Early Access.
  • Put $50 in your checking account, and buy KSP2 1.0 when it's ready.

I'm intentionally ignoring possibility of using that $50 to buy something else, not KSP-related, because that's exactly the opportunity cost addressed earlier.

1 hour ago, regex said:

Yes, for me the price point wasn't much of a factor in my decision to buy, if it had been I would have waited until it developed more so I could see where it was going.

There were no other (better or otherwise) value propositions when I bought KSP2; I either already had them, was waiting on them, or they hadn't crossed my path. KSP2 was an "opportunity".

Yeah, if you ignore the monetary value of the game, consider the game to be a godsend, and ignore the value proposition of literally anything else, then yeah, KSP2 is the best purchase ever for you. That's exactly the opposite of evaluating opportunity cost. The whole discussion is worthless then.

[regex]

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

consider the game to be a godsend

Where was this said?

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

ignore the value proposition of literally anything else

Well, no, that's not what I said at all. There was literally nothing else at the time for me to compare it against that I was interested in buying and was available. KSP2 was interesting to me and I knew I would probably end up buying it at some point, so why not then.

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

KSP2 is the best purchase ever for you

lolwut

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

The whole discussion is worthless then.

Yeah, you're not lying there...

[K^2]

25 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Yeah, if you ignore the monetary value of the game, consider the game to be a godsend, and ignore the value proposition of literally anything else, then yeah, KSP2 is the best purchase ever for you. That's exactly the opposite of evaluating opportunity cost. The whole discussion is worthless then.

You're making a strawman. If you aren't confident that you'll want KSP2 when it's finished, you shouldn't get early access. That's true of literally any game in early access. Don't buy early access if you aren't certain you'll want the finished game. That's not a controversial statement.

So the only people who might consider getting early access are people who are pretty sure they'll buy KSP2 when it hits 1.0.

That's the only assumption about quality being made up there. Again, it's a necessary one for anyone to consider early access of any game. KSP2 doesn't have to be perfect for this to be true. It doesn't even have to be great. Just of sufficient quality for someone to make that purchase eventually.

Everything else is covered in a point-by-point. If you don't understand it, feel free to ask questions and I'll walk you through in more details. If you have a problem with a specific assumption, you can bring it up and suggest modifications. Right now, you're just presenting a strawman argument and thinking yourself clever.

[PDCWolf]

33 minutes ago, regex said:

Where was this said?

Well, no, that's not what I said at all. There was literally nothing else at the time for me to compare it against that I was interested in buying and was available. KSP2 was interesting to me and I knew I would probably end up buying it at some point, so why not then.

lolwut

Yeah, you're not lying there...

Well, it was interesting to you over everything else, incomparable, and you already wanted it anyways. The game is a godsend to you, and in whatever valuation you did, KSP2 was indeed the perfect buy for you.

17 minutes ago, K^2 said:

You're making a strawman. If you aren't confident that you'll want KSP2 when it's finished, you shouldn't get early access. That's true of literally any game in early access. Don't buy early access if you aren't certain you'll want the finished game. That's not a controversial statement.

So the only people who might consider getting early access are people who are pretty sure they'll buy KSP2 when it hits 1.0.

That's the only assumption about quality being made up there. Again, it's a necessary one for anyone to consider early access of any game. KSP2 doesn't have to be perfect for this to be true. It doesn't even have to be great. Just of sufficient quality for someone to make that purchase eventually.

Everything else is covered in a point-by-point. If you don't understand it, feel free to ask questions and I'll walk you through in more details. If you have a problem with a specific assumption, you can bring it up and suggest modifications. Right now, you're just presenting a strawman argument and thinking yourself clever.

Not really. You'll want it when it is done, so you're gonna buy it now... That's the opposite of logic. You either want the product now or you think you're saving the $20 extra it'll cost when it is done.

Your argument was based around removing variables from play. Casually enough, those variables are the ones that tip any analysis of opportunity cost against KSP2 sounding like a worthwhile purchase, you propose we ignore:

1. The current quality of the game.
2. The price change as it moves towards 1.0
3. The change of purchasing power from here to whenever the game is done.
4. That any other game exists or could be a better alternative.

At that point, KSP2 is the only and best thing in the market, and you'll only ever have $50, there's literally no other thing to do in your entire existence other than to purchase KSP2 as soon as it is available. The way you salvage this is by saying you'll have more money in the future, thus making your own money now worth $0, and the whole analysis worthless.

Reality is pretty different:

1. The game is near unplayable.
2. The high entry cost is unjustified by quality.
3. Early buyers will get shafted, as the price increase from EA release to 1.0 is relatively small and most likely will be wiped out by a sale. Not like they get a playable game either.
4. There's hundreds of alternatives, including a much cheaper direct competitor.
5. There's millions of other games if you ignore genre barriers.
6. You could actually buy more than one game with that money, getting a much bigger return in hours/entertainment per dollar.
7. In reality, we don't know the future of KSP2, it could be 1 year or 10 to 1.0, and every extra year makes spending or investing those $50 a better option when considering points 1-6.
8. Speaking of that, it could just as easily be dropped and forgotten.
9. Current comments and actions from the Devs/T2/PR devalue the game even further, we know it's gonna be even longer between updates.

[regex]

12 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Well, it was interesting to you over everything else, incomparable, and you already wanted it anyways. The game is a godsend to you, and in whatever valuation you did, KSP2 was indeed the perfect buy for you.

Way to completely misrepresent everything I've said, now you're just trolling. Dumb conversation anyway...

[Alexoff]

2 hours ago, K^2 said:

The game will cost $50 when it's fully released.

I wouldn't be so sure when cyberpunk almost stopped buying it was being given away at substantial discounts. I don't think many of us will starve to death if we spend the extra 50 bucks, but it's a question of propriety. If you have seen a lot of great pizzas in pizzerias for 50-60 bucks, and someone offer you a corn tortilla for 50 bucks, then questions arise about the justification of the purchase. After all, you don’t seem to get poorer by 50 bucks, but is the price of this dish justified?

[K^2]

3 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

The current quality of the game.

Why does that factor into it? If I'm sure that I'll buy the game eventually, what is the actual difference between me spending $50 now or $50 then. (I'm not even considering the likely price increase. Forget about it. I'm not trying to save on the difference here.) The net loss to me is $50 either way.

The difference is that I get to try the game and see how the development is going and to have something to compare it to as the game gets finished. I can try it for an hour and decide it's unplayable. (In reality, I've put in about 20 hours total by now.) Or I don't do any of that, and still get the full game later on. Either experience costs me $50. Where am I taking a loss by getting the early access now?

3 hours ago, Alexoff said:

I wouldn't be so sure when cyberpunk almost stopped buying it was being given away at substantial discounts.

At 35% off from $70, it's still $45. I'm sure I can look for a deeper discount at some arbitrary point in the future, but then by that logic, spending $70 for any game ever is stupid, because it will go for $20 eventually. Again, I'm not trying to save $5 here. We're talking about the bulk of the purchase for someone who would get the game day one or near that when the game is finished.

You clearly don't think the game will ever be finished or be good. You shouldn't be getting early access. And that's fine. I'm not sure why you're trying to convince other people that your pessimism is the only rational state of being, and everyone else is an idiot, without any relevant experience to actually help you make predictions like that. You can make your own decision. Unlike you, I'm not trying to convince you to buy the game. And I'm not trying to convince anyone else to buy the game. At this point, you're just being a person on a soapbox telling everyone the end is near.

Edited May 5, 2023 by K^2

[cocoscacao]

17 minutes ago, K^2 said:

You clearly don't think the game will ever be finished or be good. You shouldn't be getting early access. And that's fine. I'm not sure why you're trying to convince other people that your pessimism is the only rational state of being, and everyone else is an idiot

The more I read through the forum, the less I engage into these conversations. Happy or unhappy, the game will end up somewhere eventually. I'm having fun, even now, and battling naysayers won't change their opinion one iota. Only a fraction of them make valid points and understandable arguments, and they're open to discussion. The rest just keep parroting the same thing, while actively dodging counter-args.

Edited May 5, 2023 by cocoscacao