Early Access game Paranautical Activity cancels co-op, drama with the dev proceeds in the comments
173 replies, posted
[img]http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/250580/header.jpg[/img]
[url]http://steamcommunity.com/app/250580/discussions/0/540740501494884103/[/url]
[quote][B]Vallisca:[/B] The co op patch is not a promise nor was it marketed. It was a tier on KS. We wanted to try and make it happen. But it was never promised. Nor was the tier reached. We are two people.. not a full team of hundreds.. sometimes what we want to do is ambitious. Sometimes things cost too much to achieve. These are both the case.[/quote]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/dEQyT7u.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/cdMDm29.png[/img]
[quote][B]Vallisca:[/B] Dude, I have no clue what your deal is. I really dont care. Here is some truth for you. If a year and 6 months, at 12 hours a day is not enough for you, you need to move on to AAA games that have the personel to live up to your expectations. Im sorry you feel this way. You should know that its ♥♥♥♥ like this, your over abundance of obvious ignorance to what kind of dedication it takes to make a game of any sort, that makes you seem like a troll. I honestly feel like you are a 10 year old kid.. who has nothing better to do. If this is indeed the case... you need something better to fill your time with, like reinforcing your opinions with legit facts and understanding of the topics you are posting to. You sir, are in need of some guidance.[/quote]
[quote][B]Vallisca:[/B] hahahaa.. swing and a miss son.. I was doing my diligent duty of speaking to you, as that is what is expected. Just because I waste my time speaking to you, doesnt mean I care.. what it does mean.. is that you have got my attention. Do you have anything intellegent to say to keep my attention? This is doubtful. The countdown begins.[/quote]
TLDR; the game isn't getting co-op despite it being a major selling point for some people. Dev has arguments with his customers.
Another example why Early Access is a shit idea.
early access and KS are not sustainable models, there is going to be a big fuck up eventually and no one will trust them anymore i'm sure.
real good for a dev to talk in a condescending way
[QUOTE=Oizen;44751622]Another example why Early Access is a shit idea.[/QUOTE]
This. Early access is encouraging developer laziness.
Who even buys these games? It seems like they must be really stupid to begin with to look at this for a few seconds and be like "damn this game looks great I gotta buy it now!". Shit like this, guise of the wolf, that 2066 whatever game, revelations 2012, etc.
[QUOTE=Furnost;44751640]real good for a dev to talk in a condescending way[/QUOTE]
Not trying to defend these guys (because this does now sort of constitute false advertising and professionals should be professional) but if you got into an argument with a guy who talked like this
[img]http://i.imgur.com/cdMDm29.png[/img]
wouldn't you start being a bit condescending about it?
I for one blame Minecraft for making early access so popular.
To be fair, making something multiplayer is harder than it sounds.
Of course, that doesn't [I]excuse[/I] them, but it's understandable that they would be all "we're going to make this multiplayer!" and then hit the brick wall of "how the fuck do we do this".
What they [I]should[/I] have done is apologize and ask for advice from other programmers.
The problem isn't with early access, it's just that you have scumbags who abuse the system and idiots who fall for the scummy scams.
To be fair, "planned" =/= "promised"
Plans change, and that's the moral of this story. That said, the guy seems kind of douchey about it. I would be super apologetic yet realistic if I had to make an announcement like this.
Ugh I got this specifically because they said they would be adding coop. Fucking hell.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;44751728]To be perfectly fair, "planned" =/= "promised"
Plans change, and that's the moral of this story. That said, the guy seems kind of douchey about it. I would be super apologetic yet realistic if I had to make an announcement like this.[/QUOTE]
You don't put "We're planning to add co-op" if it's a kickstarter tier that was never reached. That's very misleading for people who don't know about the kickstarter, which isn't even mentioned on the store page.
[QUOTE=Keychain;44751740]You don't put "We're planning to add co-op" if it's a kickstarter tier that was never reached. That's very misleading for people who don't know about the kickstarter, which isn't even mentioned on the store page.[/QUOTE]
I get that, and it is kind of a dick move, but they weren't bound by any contract to add it. It would have been nice for them to be a little more upfront by exactly what they meant by "planning" because to me that means "we'll add it if we can" while to others it apparently means "this is definitely happening"
I'm planning to open a pawn shop in the future, but that doesn't mean i'll ever have to money to make it happen.
edit:
[quote]. You should know that its ♥♥♥♥ like this, your over abundance of obvious ignorance to what kind of dedication it takes to make a game of any sort, that makes you seem like a troll. I honestly feel like you are a 10 year old kid.. [/quote]
that is no way to talk to a customer though, I'm leaning towards your side since they said "very soon" which implies that work has already been done on it. I can see why a customer would be upset, but they still weren't bound [I]legally[/I] to add it. I would have taken a very different tactic about breaking the bad news.
If it was in the dev paragraph on the store page, it's a marketed feature ffs. People read that before they buy the game, that's the POINT.
[QUOTE=Keychain;44751740]You don't put "We're planning to add co-op" if it's a kickstarter tier that was never reached. That's very misleading for people who don't know about the kickstarter, which isn't even mentioned on the store page.[/QUOTE]
While I agree, you shouldn't really buy a game that "plans" something either, why wouldn't they just wait until it was done if that's the 'main' reason they bought it?
Someone just found out that the makers used a bunch of sounds and didnt credit anyone of the artist.
[url]http://steamcommunity.com/app/250580/discussions/0/540741130945980648/[/url]
This could spell trouble for them.
[QUOTE=Oizen;44751622]Another example why Early Access is a shit idea.[/QUOTE]
Early Access and Greenlight are great idea but in most cases terribly executed. The fact that there were a few successes doesn't mean that we get to disregard the disproportionate amount of failures. Valve should get rid of both of these features because at some point these little arguments can escalate into something worse where lawyers are brought into the mix.
I know Valve wants to create a digital market where everyone can publish their software, but I don't believe the current systems in place are an effective approach at succeeding with that goal. I believe that the old system is better than what we have now. There will be less games to play but there will also be a boatload of shit games that won't make it to Steam.
Another thing I want to add is that these shitty games being on Steam make unaware customers believe that what they're buying have Valve's blessing.
I think it's a good idea to avoid Early Access games unless they have finished all the important features and the updates are just polish or more icing on the cake.
[url]http://store.steampowered.com/app/233450/[/url]
Here's a good example of an early access game that's good and is constantly being worked on the developers who actually talk to the community and listen to them.
Have some more: [url=http://store.steampowered.com/app/239030/]Papers, Please[/url], [url=http://store.steampowered.com/app/221910/]The Stanley Parable[/url], [url=http://store.steampowered.com/app/223470/]Postal 2[/url] and [url=http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=94128543]Black Mesa[/url]
There's a few more good titles on Greenlight. The problem is that that's only going to be about 10 good titles worth my time out of a grand total of 781 titles that have been Greenlit.
Half of these things are clones of existing games, or they take a lot of ideas/styles from existing games. It's either minecraftclone with guns/nazis/slavedriving/trains/curved landscapes/hippopotamuses/in space/zombies.
Most of this stuff is pure schlock
Shit like this only reinforces my belief of how terrible Greenlight has been so far.
I think I like the idea someone said before, if you have a game on early access or get greenlit it should have a mandatory demo. Just like Xbox live indie games, those have demos so you can see if the game is shit or not.
[QUOTE=Vilusia;44751826]I think I like the idea someone said before, if you have a game on early access or get greenlit it should have a mandatory demo. Just like Xbox live indie games, those have demos so you can see if the game is shit or not.[/QUOTE]
I think they should remove the option to charge people for early access games. It's been abused like crazy and this shit is becoming quite common.
[QUOTE=Rexxasaurus;44751836]I think they should remove the option to charge people for early access games. It's been abused like crazy and this shit is becoming quite common.[/QUOTE]
TBH a demo system IMO would solve all issues. It would mean the market can have more games and the shit ones can be sorted from the gems.
there's nothing stopping devs from just straight up not following through with their promises/finishing their games. early access is a good idea in theory and some games have done it right but it's such an easily exploited thing. they need to actually punish the devs in some way for not completing their games, or at least expect a certain level of transparency about the development process so that devs can't just promise things like this and then realize that it's too hard to actually implement. we need more information about the process of implementing co-op, how hard it will be, how long it will take etc, and if some of these potential features have the possibility of not actually appearing the game we need to know that, and understand why
[QUOTE=Xubs;44751874]Wish a better game with the same premise came along.[/QUOTE]
have you heard of tower of guns? I haven't played either games but from what I know tower of guns is another first person binding of isaac type game
[QUOTE=Coffee;44751722]The problem isn't with early access, it's just that you have scumbags who abuse the system and idiots who fall for the scummy scams.[/QUOTE]
It is a problem with early access though. I bought Space Engineers so I'm not going to pretend like I'm above how influencing hype for an alpha or a beta of a game you want to play is, but this Kickstarter/Crowdfunding/Steam Greenlight culture of letting people post unfinished projects for money has created a lot of objectively lazy products being sold to unwitting customers. Sure there are diamonds in the rough but these are the outliers amongst a vast sea of garbage that is tacitly supported by the aforementioned platforms. This says nothing about the high number of projects that are permanently in development. The elephant in the room is Star Citizen, a game which grows more and more absurdly grandiose with every stretch goal that is already several months behind schedule.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;44751677]Not trying to defend these guys (because this does now sort of constitute false advertising and professionals should be professional) but if you got into an argument with a guy who talked like this
[img]http://i.imgur.com/cdMDm29.png[/img]
wouldn't you start being a bit condescending about it?[/QUOTE]
The sensible thing is to stay professional instead of making yourself look like as much of an ass as the guy you're arguing with. Most developers have the common sense not to engage in petty flamewars. Even developers who regularly communicate with fans eventually become more withdrawn simply because it's easier to not have to deal with those kinds of people.
I liked this game and then a couple months rolled around and the fuck never updates his game.
Sorry, but that shit is unacceptable. I'm done with Early Access games honestly, I get them and then hate them super hard because they're mostly just pure shit.
We've created a monster and people are feeding off of it. I feel really bad honestly. There is like 15 good early access games and 150 bad ones.
Now this is a damn shame, I got a good bit of playtime out of this. It was an excellent time waster and now not only is the dev a cockweasel, but he's also not adding co-op? Fuuuuck.
[QUOTE=Vilusia;44751858]TBH a demo system IMO would solve all issues. It would mean the market can have more games and the shit ones can be sorted from the gems.[/QUOTE]
Demos seem to be a dying thing. You have to pretty much pirate the game to see if it's worth anything so you don't waste your money buying garbage. Reviews are also an option, but Killing Floor for example had a metascore of 60 when I bought it and I fucking love that game (it's 72 now, it seems). So trying the game yourself is pretty much a must.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.