Games

32993 readers

1206 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

651

Devs should not be "forced to run on a treadmill until their mental or physical health breaks", says publisher of Manor Lords, citing how gamers seem to be trained to expect endless content work now (www.eurogamer.net)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

165 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This really does not sound healthy. The game is released, for a certain amount of money. If people don't like what they get for their money, they simply should not buy it.

But by now gamers have been so trained to expect to endless content treadmills and all their ilk like mtx and battle passes that publishers/developers get egged on if they don't work on their game 24/7 and forever.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 48 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think part of the problem is down to how a lot of games come out as "Early Access" which implies it's more bare bones and will get fleshed out over time.

If a game releases as EA then the expectation is you will get more content until release, if a game just comes out without EA then it's assumed it has all content and anything new is dlc/mtx/expansions.

I'm not gonna bother addressing Live Service games, wish they would go in the bin with most other MTX.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Absolutely. I will never buy another Early Access game - it's buying something that is clearly unfinished, and you the player never get a second chance at the first impression. There's too many other games to expect us to come back and try it again once there's more content and the bugs are ironed out.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Early access definitely has its place. I've bought several EA games I really enjoy, and it's kind of rewarding seeing something go from basic and threadbare to a more complete picture, and knowing I was a part of that is satisfying. I've also been burned by EA too, so it's a double sided coin.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Rogue Legacy 2 was a standout example for me. I was happy to support the developer while they worked on the game, and all progress carried over to the finished product. Granted, roguelikes in particular are really well suited for EA because they're meant to be played over and over with no real end.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Ground Branch for me. Love the old Rainbow Six games, and I find that newer tactical shooters in general just don't hit the mark for me. GB still has a long way to go but actually has some original R6 devs at the helm and has an excellent core experience so far, and it's only getting better.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

I'm not against early access as a whole, if devs want to get player feedback earlier on in the life cycle and players are happy to be pseudo testers then it's fine.

I get some people would rather wait and buy when it's finished, and some studiosd/devs would rather bypass EA and just release the game outright, but I feel both paradigms can exist as long as both parties (devs/consumers) continue to benefit.