319
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
319 points (96.0% liked)
PC Gaming
8615 readers
671 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
500k a month to support 19 million person play base doesn't seem totally unreasonable. They've already made £400m+ in early access in the first month - so it's a drop on the ocean at the moment.
Costs will probably come down - at the moment they've been scrambling to keep up with demand which means expensive rapid deployment rather than long term server build out.
And presumably they plan to get the game out of early access so potentially get more players (although may not get many more players in this case as it's so popular) and more importantly start rolling out DLC content to make more money.
I doubt they need to go the subscription route plus may be too late as they launched without it.
Also, the player base will be a fraction of what it is today in a month. They're dealing with unprecedented demand that's gonna fall off into something more reasonable by throwing money at it.
It's the right thing for them to do. It would have been stupid to plan for this much demand. You'd delay the game by another year just building out a cloud native architecture. Letting the servers buckle would have killed momentum.
They can go the Minecraft route and allow players to self host servers, plus a subscription option for online servers.
They do, they need to work on the code but it works.
I've heard that the company has a history of…not doing that. They apparently have a few games out that went early access and left in an unfinished state.
From what I can tell their games that are in early access have not been left to languish in an unfinished state and are still getting updates
I am assuming the reason for that rumor that they just leave games unfinished has to do with people who bought their previous game Craftopia, which is very similar to Palworld but without the creatures.
In the last 6 months it seems to have been getting constant updates and fixes (about 2 a month)based on the steam changelogs, so I am not sure how that came to be seen as the game being left to die.
Because having 2 early access games at once and announcing a third is not the point of early access.
Steam should straight up ban developers from even creating any additional game pages while they have early access active.
This in my opinion is a horrible take. There are many games that companies just realize are not going to take off and therefore are not worth finishing, preventing a company from publishing a game because they have another game that they are not intending to finish that's still an early access is a horrible way to cut Innovation and prevent what could be very good games from publishing.
The very game you're commenting about is one of them, palworld was originally created as a jab to Pokemon that was its entire point of creation as more or less a joke it wasn't meant to be serious until a little bit into development. If they had been restricted down under what you're talking about they might not have even bothered launching it because nobody expected the game to take off the way it did.
Steam should not be punishing someone for using Early Access the way it was meant to be used, which is to demonstrate a game that is in early content state. As a consumer, you should not be buying Early Access games if you're worried about the game never being finished, Steam even States this under the description of Early Access.
If you don't intend to continue to develop it, calling it early access is extremely gross and fraudulent.
There is no possible scenario where a studio small enough to justify using the early access tag can ever be forgiven for splitting their attention and taking money for multiple projects.
It is not possible to have multiple active early access projects in anything that even vaguely resembles good faith.
That's the entire point of the Early Access tag though, it's a tag that states "hey this is still in its early development stages and is not a final product" it even states that the game might not be finished. I can understand why some might see the term Early Access and think that it means that it's a game that is going to be finished eventually, but under the description of the tag it's not an obligation and it would be stupid as a game developer to throw money towards something that you know isn't going to take off or that you've lost passion for.
I would say they should change the name of the tag to be something that better clarifies it, but honestly I can't think of a better term because it's right it's early access the only alternative I can think of is maybe early development to remove people thinking that it's just paying to get access to the game early.
As a counter argument to the good faith argument, I personally don't think it's within good faith to buy an early access game with the expectation that it's going to be finished, I'm not sure how much clearer Steam and the development team can make it regarding that the future of the game is uncertain. I for one avoid Early Access games until I can see the reviews and see whether or not it's worth getting (or if I am super interested) and if I see the game reviews stating the game is Dead Or there's nothing on the devlog I skip it and go to the next game.
Don't take me wrong I'm not saying that developers should keep their game permanently in early access, however I don't see a problem with the Early Access tag being used to illustrate at the game is still in early development, and if the tag itself didn't say the game may or may not be finished I would even Advocate that if in Early Access game gets canceled they should give refunds.
The tag means that you will continue to develop it. The second you decide you are not developing it, the early access tag is a lie.
That said, the idea that it's OK to abandon a game you sold people to make another one is also disgusting and also makes you a piece of shit of a person. The disclaimer is not a free pass to be a trashbag. It does not excuse or justify throwing away customers. It is merely an acknowledgment that you might fail.
Frankly, not only should you be required to remove a game from early access before you're permitted to launch another, but that release should be validated by Valve, and sent back with a "nope, this isn't a product" to get to release. Until it's actually a full featured game, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything else. If your studio fails under those conditions, it deserves to fail. A studio "rescued" by shitting on customers to fleece new ones is a trash studio.
I fully believe that when a game stops being developed the Early Access tag should be removed but that's the extent of where I agree, anything past that is a problem strictly of the consumer who knowingly purchased a game that advertised itself as unfinished.
I would also agree that if you want to keep an early access tag at minimum you should be required to post developer updates using steams update log like many companies already do, and failure to do so will eventually result in your Early Access tag being replaced with an abandoned tag, that way it lets buyers know that the game is not a finished product and it's no longer in active development.
As for the sleaziness of abandoning a project once people have paid for it, I would chalk that down as they knew the risk upon buying the game since it was labeled Early Access. I think that it would be nice if the return window opened for 2 weeks when a game was abandoned to allow people who were hoping the project would go somewhere the ability to refund but I also think that neither company nor steam should be under obligation to do so since the consumer knew the risk going into it, plus I also think it would be kind of sleazy for those who got hours of playtime on it to expect that you'd get your full money's back, even if the project was discontinued
Early access is unconditionally not permission to abandon a game.
It is "permission" for your studio to fail. Literally nothing short of actual closure, forever, makes abandoning a game you sold forgivable.
Oh no, you have to drop the studio name that has no sales and spin up a new LLC.
It takes about ten minutes to do that
That's good to know, thanks!