1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
It's like buying a tiara for your fetus, before you even buy a crib.
ALSO, MICROTRANSACTIONS = DLC.
Good point, but Crowder can suck a dick.
I'm pretty sure you're threatening him with a good time.
His affinity for homoeroticism and drag is even stronger than your average manosphere chud.
Oh, for sure. I forgot that was even him. In twenty or thirty years, this useful meme template will be the entirety of his legacy. I find that funny, so I'll continue using the template.
We can keep the meme, but give him what he deserves - 30 seconds more in paint with the eraser tool keeps dickheads in the past 👍
Because Steven Crowder doesn't deserve to be a meme
Ya know, Calvin really has more in common with Crowder than you might think.
They obviously both childish. They're fundamentally selfish beings. They have incredibly vivid imaginations, but they only ever use them to amuse themselves and reinforce their delusion that they're the most important person. They believe themselves to be rebels against a banal and suffocating system, but in reality they're just irritating little shits, constantly acting upon every rogue impulse of their raging ego and id, with no regard for how they're making life hard for the people who have to live near them.
didn't like crowder show is dick to all the bros at his work tho?
Imo, Calvin at least is an imaginative, creative individual with an imaginary tiger that frequently gives him shit for his flaws. Kids also notably grow through self absorbed phases while Crowder acts a similar way as an adult.
Stop fucking buying fucking early access fucking games. Companies do shit like this because it's profitable
If that was strictly true, I would agree, and I wouldn't bother talking about it.
But it's NOT strictly true. There are Early Access developers who actually use the model to get funds for developing games, within reasonable timescales, and without doing exploitative shit.
It's important for Early Access to exist, because it's a way for independent developers to exist, completely outside of any big business control. A truly independent developer never has to deal with corporate jackals, breathing down their necks, demanding that they add more microtransactions and gambling into the game. They can make games that are truly outside the mainstream genres, without having to justify themselves to traditional investors.
These are GOOD THINGS. If I truly believed every single Early Access developer was just a scammer, I wouldn't bother saying any of this. I think Valve needs to get a handle on the system, rather than just letting it twist in the wind, the way they have been. There needs to be a time limit, before a game has to either be released, or else be cut off from further Early Access sales. They need to disallow DLC and other forms of microtransactions, within Early Access games. They need to establish rules about Early Access developers having connections with outside investors, and what exactly would be considered acceptable, within the system.
The developers who use the Early Access program the way it's supposed to be used are not making massive profits from it. They are paying for the up-front development costs of a game, and hoping that it will turn out to be a big enough success that it will continue to be profitable, after development is complete.
When people do annoying, scam-adjacent shit like selling DLC content for an Early Access game, it fuels opinions like yours. It makes people throw their hands up and say "Early Access is all a scam." And that fucking sucks. Because if it goes away, there's no alternative but for indie developers to sign up with traditional corporate psychos, who always try to make games worse.
Just to piggyback off of this/give an example of good usage of early access: to me BG3 was great usage of early access. It stayed there for a long time and actually used the early access to get player feedback to improve the game. When the game finally released the only dlc they had was given for free to everyone who played early access, and it doesn't really change the gameplay experience at all, it was only stuff like an art book and some references to their older game.
I agree that Steam should regulate early access more. The best buyer's policy in my opinion is to only buy games you know you'll enjoy in their current state. Any future features are a bonus.
I had great success that way with Dave the Diver, Subnautica, and Satisfactory.
I've avoided buying Kerbal Space Program 2 despite 400 hrs on the original because it still feels like a cash grab with not enough content yet.
There have been many truly amazing early access games though that might not have been made without it (rimworld, factorio, etc)
Nah there are actually good early access game (Palworld, and predecessor come to mind although predecessor is f2p) but one should use caution when buying Early access games
I thought we were going to use the Calvin and Hobbes template from now on?
Meanwhile, ConcernedApe is out there quietly adding more and more free features to an eight year old game: Stardew Valley. All while working on a completely new title that will release... eh, eventually.
I have no issue with people shipping unfinished products, as long as they're transparent about it. But using it as a way to lower expectations for a buggy "final" product, while charging more for the updates, is just crummy. At least bundle it in, turn off "early access", and raise the price appropriately. If it has DLC, the core game is "done" in my book.
Edit: thanks for the robust conversation on this thread.
I'll add this clarification: clearly there are outliers and exceptions to all this. It's entirely possible to have something incomplete, and still be worth treating like a full release, DLC and all.
To me, I think the key dividing line is determined by the overall "buginess" or "playability" of the product. If something has broken mechanics or is full of game-destroying bugs, and it negatively impacts the overall fun factor, that's the case I'm talking about here. As a game's main job is to package joy for other people, it's pretty easy to see how a developer or publisher is just seeking a payday at your expense.
Same for Wube and Factorio, and Re-Logic and Terraria. I think we're on the 8th "final patch" for Terraria.
Terraria is a truly extreme case, the developers truly just can't stop making updates.
Factorio isn't amazing in this way, but the developers have a lot of integrity - they delivered their plans for 1.0, released some good extra updates, continue fixing bugs, and went to work developing paid DLC. I do suppose the DLC will come with a major update to the base game, but that's also because they found they needed to make changes and additions for the expansion.
Stop using this fucking idiot for your memes, there's alternatives if you need them, but this dude objectively sucks.
Fuck that bigot
Someone needs to make a new template with that bigot photoshoped out
I mean, do that, and they'll just stop labeling the games as early access while still being in the same unfinished state, meaning people can't even decide if they want to avoid a game or not based on that label.
So they'll have to avoid games based on what people say about them, and nobody will be able to hide behind the excuse of "but it's still in Early Access, maaaan."
Steam's refund system is really good. I say get rid of Early Access and let every game stand on an absolutely equal footing, with no excuses anywhere in sight, for anybody. No privileged "oooh, but you don't get to judge this game yet" roped-off section for people to play shell-games with.
Start selling your game any time you want, in any state you want. But beware the wrath of the consumer. That's fair.
EDIT: I realize this could seemingly contradict another comment I just made, where I defended the Early Access program, as a vital means of securing funds for independent developers. To be clear, I think that the function of Early Access should essentially remain, but not be labeled, in any default way.
I think all the games should be on the store, all the time, any time. And it should be up to each developer to make their case, on their own, as to why the customer should be willing to spend money on their product.
You know that would only lead to more games being published as 'a finished product' eventhough they really are not. It would make the problem worse, not better.
For sale: baby tiara, never worn.
Don't call it stillborn, call it vaporware.
I would consider selling something like a soundtrack acceptable but no game content dlc, absolutely.
Also also: can we make it that developers have only one Early Access game at a time. Finish the game before moving on to the next one, or abandon it and release it without the EA label.
