It really needs to be more than just a warning, though. Early Access is, for the most part, selling promises- the promise of a completed game, with access to an alpha/beta in the meantime. The problem, though, is that no one's holding the devs' feet to the fire to make sure they fulfill this promise. That's why I said there needs to be projected timelines (or at least a projected release date), along with an option for customers to get at least some portion of their money back if they decide the promise of a completed game isn't worth much at some point. I think the pricing on Early Access games should have a stated split- how much of the price is for access to the alpha/beta, and how much is for what amounts to a pre-order, with the latter amount being refundable upon customer request at any point before the release of the game. This would 1) make it clearer just what people are paying for and 2) would force both developers and Steam to be much more responsible and much more discerning about what gets put up on Early Access (since Steam would either need to either trust the devs enough to believe they'll pay Steam back for any requested refunds, or keep some of the "pre-order" money in escrow until the release of the game). I think that this is the bare minimum of what would be required to bring some much needed accountability to the Early Access system.

Uh, I'd like to buy some Early Access games as well, but what keeps me back is that I don't have any idea of what I will get out of doing it. All I am saying is that sellers should either say that they'd like to be held accountable with time tables, or not; personally, I would buy more from those who are open to it. It's okay if you have a preference of how you'd like it, I am just telling you mine.

At this point, all of them are basically saying, yeah we'll give you the finished product someday, and it sounds like a lie when many of them haven't made any perceivable progress.

They really arent the same and its quite unfair to paint them as such.

KS - starting from scratch or finishing off a game already in production - dev's do have time constraints and budgetary constaints *until they happen to throw the beta/alpha on EA for sale -- not always the case* -- answerable to KS and the backers - having said that some are really **** at communication.

EA - games are already in development by the time they hit EA & most of them will be available for purchase into the beta/alpha ----> here they have open slather taking years to complete a game (if ever in some cases) -- ie Xenonauts & Kenshi. This is where the problem is.Steam lets the dev free reign pretty much.

DLC's and expansion packs are entirely different. Even though DLC means DownLoadable Content expansion packs even though you download them digitally they are still not DLC's they are expansion packs.

CD Projekt RED also said this same thing in a interview early in 2013.

Here is what qualifies as a expansion pack.

#1. Now in order for a Expansion Pack to be called a Expansion Pack if the video game is a open world singleplayer video game that you can constantly explore like The Elder Scrolls video games it has to have over or at least 30+ new types of armor (medieval or modern if the video game is a medieval video game or if the video game is a modern video game), over or at least 30+ new types of clothing (medieval or modern if the video game is a medieval video game or if the video game is a modern video game), new land that is the same size as the original video game itself or bigger than the original video game, over or at least 100+ NPC's, over or at least 30+ new types of weapons ( medieval or modern if the video game is medieval medieval weapons if the video game is modern modern weapons) and at least over 50+ campaigns, missions, stories, quests or whatever you wanna call them if the video game is medieval or modern.

#2. Another Expansion Pack is if the video game is a open world singelpalyer and multiplayer video game that you can constantly explore then same thing as #1.

#3 Another Expansion Pack is if the video game is not a open world video game they you can constantly explore but still singleplayer instead of having constantly explorable land or both singleplayer and multiplayer and you have levels or maps that when you beat a campaign, mission, story, quest, whatever you go onto the next level, map, whatever this Expansion Pack needs to have the Expansion Pack in either 2 ways requires you to have the original video game itself installed in order to play and once you install the Expansion Pack it takes you to a whole new menu and stuff like that for anyone who played Call of Duty and Call of Duty: United Offensive that's how I want the Expansion Packs or the second way the Expansion Pack can be is you don't need the original video game itself to play you just install the Expansion Pack but it still needs to have a whole new menu if anyone played Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon you will know what I am talking about and it still needs over or at least 30+ new types of armor (medieval or modern if the video game is a medieval video game or if the video game is a modern video game), over or at least 30+ new types of clothing (medieval or modern if the video game is a medieval video game or if the video game is a modern video game), over or at least 20+ new maps, over or at least 100+ NPC's, over or at least 30+ new types of weapons ( medieval or modern if the video game is medieval medieval weapons if the video game is modern modern weapons) and at least over 50+ campaigns, missions, stories, quests or whatever you wanna call them if the video game is medieval or modern.

Just like #1 new everything. There can be some vanilla stuff as an exception but there has to be lots of new stuff as well. I will gladly pay $20 dollars (USD), $30 dollars (USD), $40 dollars (USD) or even $50 dollars (USD) I don't ever want to pay $60 dollars (USD) for video games ever again or even $51 dollars (US)D if the video game is $50 dollars (USD) + $1 dollar (USD) because of tax or 1 cent because of tax then I will pay it that way and since I live in California there is sales tax so the video game will cost a few extra dollars (USD).

They're two names for the same thing. Additional content to the base game (or even a sub-add-on to another add-on, for example Trials of The Luremaster for Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter). Distribution method, price and amount of content does not matter whatsoever. If a developer/publisher decides to call a 50-hour add-on DLC that's up to them, if another decides to call a handful of maps an expansion pack, that's fine too. It's up to the consumer to decide which one's worth their money based on descriptions of the content.

Lair of the Shadow Broker for Mass Effect 2, and Knights of the Nine for Elder Scrolls: Oblivion are both labelled as DLC, but are certainly big enough to fit into what many gamers consider a "proper expansion".

Small map packs that were sold for Duke Nukem 3D and Doom were labelled as expansions, but wouldn't fit into any common understanding of "proper expansion" by a long shot.

Well I like to call expansion packs the 3 things I explained and DLC's things that add 1 gun skin, 5 gun skins, 1 new vehicle, 5 new vehicles, 1 new map, 10 new maps, 1 new game mode, 5 new game modes, 1 new type of armor and 1 new type of weapon, 5+ new types of armor and weapons, small content like that which should be added for FREE in patches, in the expansion packs or in the main video game itself before it's released for sale.

So the only things I am for to be sold is the main video game itself and expansion packs.

You have your definition, and that's all well and good, but nowadays the whole span - from a new skin or gun up to additional content to rival the main game - is called "DLC" by pretty much everyone except a scarce few that like to pretend "expansions" weren't always extremely varying in how much or little they added. And me, I have switched to using "add-on" since "expansion" have all but disappeared from official branding and I dislike the term "DLC" (just the term, mind you, I have nothing against the even smaller content packages it brought forward).

It must be a slow week, his episodes are usually better.
I guess it's a good highlight of what an abusive developer can do with the tools Steam gives you, but hardly something that needs to be urgently addressed.

As long as people pay attention to what they throw money at then turds like that game can be avoided.
As long as people who take issue with early access pretend an EA game doesn't exist until/if it launches they can be happy too.

no, but you also not just paying monies to play alpha/betas either. And calling it i different model does change it, as it is not really comparable with previous models - it is a new way of doing things. Part of the problem is that people need to refer it to something that they know from before.


I keep hearing about this "scummy behaviour" but have not really seen any of it yet... There is no more or less "scummy behaviour" in Early Access / Alpha/Betas than anywhere else. Believe the hype and you are the sap. For me - all I know is that I have enjoyed all of my alphas I bought into so far, quite a few of them are also now released. It may make me a sap, but I am a happy sap :)

It has nothing to do with the length or "how many things" an expansion/DLC offers. Both are the same thing, just with a different name.

Look at Borderlands, Fallout 3 and Fallout NV, for example. All of these games have some pretty big DLCs that would certainly be considered expansion packs. Still, they are called DLCs, not expansion packs.

Back in the day there were also some worthless add-ons without that much content that were called "expansion packs". There's an expansion pack for an old Test Drive (don't remember which one) that just added a few cars to the base game.

I have my own definition what a DLC is and what a expansion pack is. Just like you have your own definition what a DLC is and what a expansion pack is. Lets just leave it that way ok? I don't want to argue about it anymore.

But things work so much better when we use the same definitions.... I can not just say that "I define DLC's to be at least 3 meters length in code, written in type 12 font, and at one point it needs to change one objects colour green to pink. Now, lets discuss DLC's!"

A common framework is needed to have any meaningful discussions, you may not like some of the DLC's, but naming them differently do not change that fact that it is all DLC's. An Expansion Pack is a DLC for digital content, among many other types of added content packages. That is its definition. It is fine to talk about expansion packs versus skins or map packs, but they are all DLC's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_content

I already said as much (except with other examples), but I agree with his last post, let's just give the guy a break and agree to disagree.

Kerbal Space Program is very different from many other early access games, in that all their updates goes through internal alpha and beta testing before they are released to the public. Basically, they're trying to keep the game in a playable state, just in case they would be forced to stop developing the game. I think that's a very good model for early access and for small developers, so they just bite of small chunks at a time, instead of trying to gape over everything at once. It makes the game feel complete and I would say it works in its favor because of its sandbox nature.

Early access is a good method for fledgling indie developers to switch focus from regular jobs, to be able to work more on their game, and get more feedback in the process. But abusing it is the problem, and where Steam needs to do quality control. If an early access game looks and plays like shit and the developer is being an asshat, it should be kicked off Steam, and the buyers should be refunded. Buyers shouldn't be held accountable for not doing research on a bad purchase, when the store page pretty much outright lies about what they're trying to do or what the product actually does, which is something we often see in the gaming industry. Not just from indie developers, but also from major publishers. If that happened in any other industry, there would be hell to pay.

Major developers, or rather, established developers, with experience and funds, should stick with traditional development and release finalized products for sale. I could imagine that if someone is trying to suddenly tackle an old franchise today, that some input from the fans of the old should be taken into account, but it should not be an excuse for the developer to release it as early access. Like with Ubisoft, and Might and Magic X. They should rather hold free closed betas for those with particular interest of the series.

Thank god for the Jimquisition ;)

But seriously; Steam doesn't need to do shit.

They get their money anyway. Most ppl go there first for their gaming. Those who doesnt go there first go there indirectly after they pull out nothing but a steam key out of the gamebox they got from the store. And most of those who claim to refuse anything steam fold the moment Valve subcompanys like Bethesda or 2k games announced their next steam exclusive.

So why should steam bother?