Im not big on Steam but Early Access is promising in respect of what it was meant for originally ie help devs out while developing games -- alpha betas etc and people being able to get into them to support the dev. Anyone tell me why its so easy for some devs to get onto EA ? -- whats the process?. Seems like the dev talked about got through whatever steam passes for the vetting process easily enough...

The main problem is - steams lack of QA - maybe its gotten too hard for them (people/resource wise) because of their size now and the decision to let dev's have control over their own sales sort of tells me steam is trying to step back their control (greenlight running rampant letting through whatever seems to an issue that wont go away....til they get rid or replace it).

How about expansion packs over DLC's? Expansion packs offer more and are always better.

Expansions packs are DLC's if they are digitally distributed, and those I get if I like the game. If I did not, then I see no point.

What I see is that Early Access games go on sale now and again, like regular games, but their prices are similar to any finished product. Again, now someone could tell you that people shouldn't have to pay to test out alpha/beta versions.

missed a word

I will never consider expansion packs DLC's even if they are sold digitally only.

It's nostalgia :).

I kind of repeat this, but you do not pay to "test" an alpha/beta, you pay to play them, and the final version also. If this is the language, then all games you pay for is paying to "test" them.
Maybe, but DLC is DownLoadable Content, nostalgia do not change that :)

So what xD.

Calling it a "different model" doesn't magically change what it is. Is access to the alpha/beta version part of what's being paid for? Then they're charging for an alpha/beta product. And if it's not then the "pre-order" should be something that can be cancelled any time before that product is delivered, because, well, you haven't yet received what was purportedly paid for. And patronage isn't a correct description of it either; that would be more along the lines of Kickstarter (where you basically donate money with no actual promise that you'll be getting anything for it).

I actually don't buy any such products because, well, because I'm not a sap. As for why this model shouldn't be enabled, it's because of the tremendous amount of scummy behavior around it. Many of the consumer protection laws (such as the implied warranty of merchantability) came about precisely because there was so much of this "caveat emptor" type behavior occurring in an unregulated environment, with the end result of business slowing down for everyone because buyers had to be so cautious. Despite your claims this isn't some brave new world, it's just history repeating itself.

Yikes, that guy could get a job at Hammerpoint interactive. It looks like a small scale 'the War Z/Infestation' and he even has the Steam forum deleting attitude of Hammerpoints dev team.

Valve really needs to get a handle on their product, I do like Steam but even I can see that with all the new crap they've heaped on to it that it's in sore need of maintenance and is starting to become a complete unnavigable, low quality filled mess like the google play store and ios app store.

Heck, we're at a point where EA's Origin store actually has a more user friendly attitude towards it's customers' rights. Yes, the same EA that won the USA's worst company two years in a row.

for me, the issue is that "early access" is giving "devs" (using the term loosely in the case of 2066) carte blanche to do whatever they feel like without repercussion.

Yeah, I see what you mean, and I think it's okay as long as people get what was advertised. I still say that there should be some quality control in the form of deadlines. Right now, though, there's no accountability regarding how the money acquired from such sales is spent; if players are buying something on good faith, i.e. that it will be completed some day, then they're entitled to know how things are progressing.

Or sellers who want to avoid being held accountable, should say so on their product pages; as long as everything is transparent, how people spend their money is up to them.

Sort of, there's no accounting for taste, but we should be able to count on the outlets to at least let us know if the game is an unplayable wreck with serious bugs and control problems.

I disagree. If there was so much control as you suggest, Early Access wouldn't be any better than getting a publisher. What makes Kickstarter and Early Access appealing is that developers are free from restrictions and time constraints imposed by publishers. I prefer the way it is right now.

And to be honest, i don't get all the bitching around Early Access. If you don't like it, don't buy it, wait for the final product. What Early Access does is give the OPTION of playing the game before it's finished. No one is forcind you to buy an Early Access game. It's completely optional. I really don't get all the hate for something that's completely optional.
The thing is, DLCs are expansion packs, just with a different name. There are good and bad DLCs, just like there were good and worthless expansion packs back in the day.
"I don't like Early Access, therefore no one should be allowed to buy Early Access games". Yeah, sounds reasonable.

I don't think things like Early Access need to be completely eliminated, but that there need to be much stricter controls on it. Customers need to be clearly informed just what they're getting- the current state of the game, what work still needs to be done on it, projected timelines, and an option to get at least some of their money back if those timelines aren't met. With the way things are currently being handled Early Access (and similar initiatives) are going to become completely toxic (if they aren't toxic already), such that they become useless for any responsible devs because too many people have become sour to it due to irresponsible and scummy devs.

I would agree with you if the items sold in CS:GO offered some kind of competitive advantage against other players. They don't. All the items i've seen so far were purely cosmetic and didn't alter the balance of the game in any way. And i'm pretty sure you can get these skins just by playing the game. Well, at least i got a few weapon skins just by playing the game.

I have already played many Pay 2 Win games. I know one when i see it.
That i do agree with. The thing here is that Earth 2066 is basically a scam. Steam shouldn't allow something like this to be sold (same goes for The War Z, Day One Garry's Incident and a few others). I think that even Early Access needs a minimum "standard".

But i think that most developers are really honest about it. DayZ's developers, for example, told people to NOT buy the game if they were expecting a full polished game. This is the warning that you get when you open DayZ's store page: "WARNING: THIS GAME IS EARLY ACCESS ALPHA. PLEASE DO NOT PURCHASE IT UNLESS YOU WANT TO ACTIVELY SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF THE GAME AND ARE PREPARED TO HANDLE WITH SERIOUS ISSUES AND POSSIBLE INTERRUPTIONS OF GAME FUNCTIONING".

What Steam needs to do is stop people from abusing Early Access. But most of the time Early Access works.
Just out of curiosity: why exactly are the COD games broken? I have never seen anyone complaining about that.