安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
5 
举报此帖
Too many basically see it as a pre order with beta access.
I think when a large amount of people start to complain about a game that's been in early access for either a long time and/or development speed has been comparatively slow, it's not a matter of trying to force it out of EA. It's to light a fire under the team to stick to their promises. It's also a potential "buyers beware" sign.
"If the game is good" is a matter of taste, quite subjectively at times. 7D2D is a game that I don't consider to be good. It is my perfect example of how/why/when early access can be an absolute poopstorm. From completely switching engines and having unresolved optimization issues. To endless server wipes. To losing and having to dispute their rights over the console version of their game and spending a decade in EA (while still arguably EA in practice).
It's actually somewhat of a miracle that they haven't burnt through their playerbase.
Still deeming Grounded 2 is review boosted while having zero proof it has being.
I have 13 Early Access games in my library. All very playable, all very enjoyable. Archaelund, Erannorth Renaissance, Gloomwood, Stellar Tactics to name a few. I would recommend them all. Zero boosting required.
Then there were all the others that were released. Darkest Dungeon, Slay the Spire, Wantless, Baldur's Gate 3 to name a few. All great games in my opinion.
People lack knowledge of how games are made.
People think Early Access is some sort of pre-release Beta, thinking the actual game is bound to release in a short while.
It exists to test games on a variety of rigs after the game is almost complete and nearly ready for release.
In one EA title I have, despite the IT professionals explaining what EA means and how long things take, plus the requirement to get other parties approvals, and when the next beta release is scheduled for, the forum is full if whining "little kids" complaining how the devs stole their money.
I'd make that an immediate ban because defamation of a product is border-line lawsuit.
And every post will be how upset "we" are when they mean just "me". They must have skipped the English class in primary school. Recently someone associated with a similar game was sprung for making posts. Regardless of the nature of the post that's a no-no.
The titles that should be pulled off the shelves are the ones that make a release and then shortly later in IT terms version 2 is released as a new title.
No, that's not what Early access is. That's what a pre-release Beta (or the new anticipated access, which people keep mistaking with Early Access) is for.
Yes, an Early Access game can sit in development for years, because games can take years to be made (And that's the ones who make it to a release, which are a portion of all the started game projects)
on the bright side, it made me realize years ago that i should stop getting games on steam which is actually a right call. you don't own games today.
some examples:
DNF took 15 years to release.
Dragon Age Origins took 5 years
Fallout 3 took 6 years
FF XII: 5 years
FF XV: 10 whooping years
HL2: 5 years too
TF2: 8 years (Go Valve time!)
Starcraft 2: 7 Years
L.A. Noire: 7 years
TES Morrowind: 7 years.
Diablo III: 7 years
Aliens: Colonial Marines - 12 years.