So, when a game releases, buyers get the option to partially refund or commit, and valve uses the commit money to pay the refunds, so devs only make money if they keep more than half of their buyers, and customers have to consciously deal with sinking money into a potentially failed project.
At least right now the abandoned games are still labelled early access.
Most early access failures eventually just call themselves released at some point, so we're no better off as far as that.
Not charging until the game properly releases is normal. Most devs need to manage and deal with that, and beta testing used to be an expense on the devs. Now, the buyers are paying the devs to beta test, taking the project risk for the devs. Even if the system were free to both sides, it's still beneficial to the devs, but without the corruption of thinking they should be making money during beta testing--money that they'll happily keep as they walk away if their project fails to deliver what they sold.
There's a more fair solution out there than letting devs just sell their games before they finish.
Which is fair. Most people should not buy early access, and should wait for the devs to declare their project release ready. Early access buying is all risk and responsibility (to post feedback, to update Steam review if it's out of date withe the project, to understand the individual project's development pace, etc), with a lot of factors a buyer should take into account, that most people genuinely should not need to care about or wait for.
There are an insane number of Steam games already released to buy and play.
I follow lots of early access devs, and it's not uncommon for some devs to blatantly post updates only strategically, fixing some minor thing as the next seasonal Steam sale approaches. Some continue even after leaving early access: serious issues in bug report threads, but some minor fix gets posted as the sale approaches, clearly to make the game look alive, even though none of the big stuff is getting fixed.
Plenty of devs are their own business side, anymore.
Like I’ve seen games that are in “early access” for years.
Games take years to build, especially when you are changing your design from feedback and improving the game. Some games come to early access intending to change little and just finish the game, while others come to get ideas and reshape the project as it moves along. Many EA projects are also indies with small teams, or even just one dev plugging along on their own, not even full time.
Of course there are bad actors, and devs who made mistakes (like thinking early access would fund development--even Valve tells devs not to do that, but there are always optimists thinking EA is for sales, and then they run out of money), but there are many ways to do every early access, and you have to look at each project to see what it looks like it's doing, how much and how often it posts updates, etc.
8/10 for a shell of a game, gutted of significant single player modes from the VF5 series (like VF5's quest, and VF5FS's licenses), plus only porting some of the customization options, even though VF created fighter customization.
VF5 has become less every installment, and it's sad this is all that's left to limp onto PC, still praying that such basic online fighting can be the only thing that actually matters and should earn them a pass on how much of the game they've cut.
I wish companies could do genuinely good things like release big games on more platforms, without everyone's response being hand-wringing about what bad things it might mean for their own hardware.
Especially when it's Microsoft, whose Xbox platform already extends into this tiny other thing people might have heard of, called Windows... I think they'll be ok, somehow.
I'm more interested in this being FH5, which is just switching into a kind of maintenance mode, where weekly activity playlists repeat instead of doing new things, and both of those before there's even talk about FH6. Adding significant new players to FH5 now seems an interesting choice.
However, the reality is that most gamers are now using gear that has some ray-tracing capability.
Sure, plenty, and I'm still going to hard-pass any idiot game that forces raytracing or upscaling. Find something actually useful to do with the power available, instead of something that worthless and computationally wasteful, or don't and run at lower power. That's more valuable than raytracing.
Seems like a strange problem. I'd suggest playing more different games, and focusing on getting your hands in tune with the specific game rather than the type of game or perspective, and being more aggressive about remapping controls to fit how you want to play.
I switch games a lot and don't generally have issues settling into a game just because its controls are off from another game, but if a dev puts something common somewhere weird, I'm absolutely going to move it to one of the places I expect it to be.
It's more that many keep Origin because the EA App is so much more of a problem.
Generally the control im talking about is whether or not I can continue to play the game.
Obviously, and I'm saying that's an extremely small amount of control, for which you give up a lot of other control to have.
"Straightforward" or not, it's well-trod territory, and devs don't do their homework on a doing a good job before putting games out. I don't just mean absurdly basic niceties like rebinding (which is frankly only difficult if your game input is built wrong), but mechanics like deadzones, trigger response handling, aim reticle behavior, and so on. All these are things I frequently need to adjust from outside of games, because we simply can't rely on developers to do quality work, nor to correct things afterward. Building new input schemes is also occasionally useful, eg Curse of the Dead Gods used a dumb weapon switching mechanic on controller, but I was able to build a more reasonable swap-button mechanic on top of it, and share it so anyone else running through Steam can load that config to play that way. It'd be nicer if devs listened and did it themselves, but they couldn't be bothered, even though they already built the kbm input to work the right way.
I've had one Steam game delicensed the past ten years or so, and I got it replaced later. I couldn't easily count the number of games I've changed in one way or another, but I've got a couple thousand hours playing controller in a game with no support whatsoever, so the control I have over my how games play seems a pretty big deal ;) Off-Steam, there was Ubisoft taking The Crew away from owners. How's your physical copy of that running for you? Oh, right, it doesn't run for anyone, at least aside from PC people working on modding in replacement servers.
I'm just saying, there's a lot more to it all than "game runs".
It was not. As I said, Valve specifically warns devs in their info docs not to use early access for the money, because it won't profit. And that's incredibly obvious to pretty much anyone given how hard it is for any released game to get attention on Steam, and that most people do--and should--avoid buying early access games. Early access money is a small slice of nothing.
Yes, some devs still do it for money, despite all the evidence otherwise, but devs that go early access because they actually need the money to finish the game almost always fail their project, because that's just a disastrously bad management choice.
Early access was created for feedback and hype/community building. Being in early access for a year gives you 12 months paid testing/feedback and invested players already there on launch day for Steam metrics to count, 12mo of organic social media growth plus chances to catch some actual influencers and whatnot, etc. You'd never see that just dropping the game on release day, without a ton more money in advertisement. Early access is to give a game a chance for the most positive launch day it can manage, if devs make their customers happy and fix bugs.
A project that needs early access money has already failed.