Then it's just the 80-20 rule, where no matter what you will do with your game, it will just bring less and less money back. And if not for a single update that got spotted by some twitchy youtuber, the game would be just still be somewhere in the corner, rather than sudden rebound of popularity.īut why not finishing it? Why keep the early access? It's simple: you take absolutely ZERO responsibility for anything, while whatever money there was to be made on your product was earned in the initial 1-3 months after first build got released. The actual development pace barely existed for majority of that time. That game is in early access for a DECADE.
Let's bring a game that, while not a strategy (but still a survival colony, lol), is the epitome of everything wrong with early access business model. It's about how the whole early access model exists. Stuff like Timberborn seems to be chugging along just fine right now but I can cast a glance over at, say, Space Haven and wonder if it was always a scam, like DF9.
They start, add basic shit, don't plan for the end game, don't ad more then one building model for majority of buildings and leave it there like what the fuck How fucking hard is it to finish city/colony builder?!?!? >indie is forgotten 99% trash, 0.9% porn, 0.1% an overpopular game everyone won't shut up about and it's not that good anyway, also the programmer thinks he can do the art >AAA has the budget but it's all graphics, ragdoll physics, treadmills, microtransactions and "player engagement"
0 kommentar(er)
