![]() I'm just saying that in my opinion this approach is messed up, and unfair, and fundamentally disrespectful towards the games' fans, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm expecting someone will chime in with - " but they have a right to charge whatever they want, and clearly some people are willing to pay, so there!" And, sure, that's true! I don't disagree with the fact that they can, or with the fact that some people, maybe even quite a few people, will be happy to pay. I feel that it's fundamentally messed up that the new devs are openly asking me to help them test their unfinished game, which offers none of the features that have been hyped up for years, and I have to pay a hefty price for the privilege. And, of course, I own both DLCs, and have actually bought at least one of the DLCs at least once as a gift as well.īut none of that expenditure felt like it left a bad taste in my mouth. And on top of that, I actually bought two additional copies of the game as gifts for friends. But then I bought it again years later when it came out on Steam because I wanted to support it and I was so excited about it. ![]() I bought the game early, when it was still discounted. The fact that this developer wants to charge me $50 to play a game that has none of the promised features, that probably won't run well on my computer, and on top of that I'm asked to play the role of a QA tester for a game that turns out to be, basically, in an alpha state? And even if it can't, even if for some reason the developer does need to rely on the audience to also be QA testers, the decent thing to do would be at least to price the game accordingly. It's being released by a major corporation that should be able to afford a QA department. KSP2 is not being developed by a small indie group. But even a small indie publisher will generally be kind enough to its fans to charge them some small, steeply discounted amount of money for an early version of the game that needs early testing. For a small indie publisher, sure, that's fair enough. Now, if you're a small tiny publisher, like a group of a few people working on a passion project together, sure, maybe you can't afford a QA department, so you ask your fans to test the game for you, even if they're also the ones financially supporting you. ![]() KSP2 is being sold for the price of a big, shiny, finished game. It's not fair to ask me, or anyone else, to pay a hefty sum for the privilege of testing an alpha. It's that, well, the game is at a stage where it probably shouldn't have been released yet at all. It's not just that a bunch of nice features are missing, as we've been told they would be since the roadmap was announced. Now I see review after review basically saying that this is a very buggy alpha-level release. We've been explicitly, openly told that the point of this Early Access release is to help the developer fine-tune the game and make sure everything is "working right" before the new features in the road-map can be added. before it's released to the actual audience. ![]() Instead, it's developers who pay QA testers, in exchange for the help the QA testers give them in finding problems with a new game so that the game can be fixed and improved. Traditionally, QA testers don't pay for the privilege of testing games. We're being asked to pay for the privilege of being QA testers. It's a more basic thing behind the philosophy of this launch that, for some reason, I'm only realizing now, after having read and seen a bunch of early reviews. It's not just the sky-high system requirements that make this "more accessible" space sim game anything but. It's not just the road-map that puts all the promised features an unknown length of time into the future (despite the game already costing what you'd expect a finished game to cost). I am actually feeling like this whole launch is pretty unfair.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |