Metacritic user votes?

If you still don't see the problem, think about it for any other media.

Let's take cinema. It's exactly the same as selling a unfinished movie (no VFX/grading, no music, barely edited) just a little more than now in the cinema, with the promise to get the finished movie (maybe), for free, later on bluray.

So you don't mind paying more for having less a little sooner, with just promises about the final product (that can sucks for all you know)?

Not so long ago, having less sooner was free (was called free open beta/demo), and paying before was costing less (was called pre-order).

You are basically okay to pay more to have the exact same thing as before.

Yes, but I won't buy in on a company I don't trust obviously. I'll do my research on the developer, and see if I can put in enough trust to buy and hope for the best. Even if it turns out not what expected, it's only 40 - 60 bucks.

I consider being apart of the development of a game amazing, and love being able to make even the smallest impact on the game when it's finished. If you don't want to be apart of this... DON'T BUY THE EARLY ACCESS GAME. There's no problem with early access imo, the problem is with some people buying it when they shouldn't. (Complaining about early access games, and then going ahead and BUYING and early access game) that's just silly.

Basically: Early access is great and people who are afraid of the end game not being as promised should just wait for the game to be done, leave the playing of the early access games to the ones who either have faith, or don't care.

http://www.metacritic.com/user/TrophySystem

This game isn't like other games (starcraft, supcom, c&c). Strongly recommend watching gameplay video and reading full game features.

Notes:
1) Game is online only for up to another half year. It's official release will release offline and player-servers.
2) Game is not played like other games of genre, it is more macro than ever attempted, you don't build a base, you build a surface of the planet against someone else building as much a face of a planet as possible, and you need 10 units to kill enemy economy early game and 200 units to smash through fields of enemy base later game, you need 4-16 factories to build units as large mass as possible.
3) Game is not finished, a lot of features are test to see if they function before adding features on features. The game has most of it's features, but some features are 1st attempt and lack details still to be developed.
4) Game runs at 15 fps if you have (modern 1yr-) integrated graphics and 4g ram, and 15fps if you have 3g dedicated gpu and 16g ram, it runs 15fps on the Uber servers atm because every Amazon server runs 8 games 1 per core, so the game runes 15fps PERIOD, it will run 30-60fps on good computers once server is player side but in early access expect 15fps or wait for release.
5) Game doesn't auto matchmake yet. Usually there are plenty of people to join games, just make sure you make games liberally. You can play vs ai only. You can play vs other people, you can play with people vs ai, you can do many combos. Just make sure you don't see 3 servers only and assume nobody is playing, just create a game with the "create game" button.
6) There are a few customization game mods, server and client. Recommend downloading PAMM from the UberEnt forums.
7) The AI is very strong against beginners, due to it's spread. It spreads FAST and EVERYWHERE. "normal" ai is weakest. To effectively learn PA against the AI, lower his Eco Scale, the number at the side by default is 1, set the AI to .4 for beginners and it will not go very far very fast but will still assault if the "difficulty" is hard. It is "easier" to have a harder enemy with a lower ecoomy number, than an easier enemy with a high economy scale. Once you are strong at the game, you can use normal or hard or Uber difficulties and just give the AI a "1" eco (1:1 unmodified economy), use multiple AI enemies against 1 of you, and/or turn the AI eco to 1.5 or 2 (double eco).

it made a scandal with how battlefield 4 was released in an unfinished state. how well do you think it'll go down this time?

If it had no indication that it WAS early access- then yes. You can't go showing off your product like it's complete, when it isn't.

Completely agree, review the game, not the company.

This one's hilarious. I'll highlight the funny bits:

My favourite part is when he complains about the selling of an unfinished game, then acknowledges it's in Early Access.

They really need to allow comments on these because some of what he says is very misleading.

You know what? I'm reporting it since he barely mentions the game at all.

I did that comment.

I'm not complaining of selling an unfinished game, I complain of selling an unfinished game at a higher price than the probable finished one, with fallacious arguments (you really think you are part of the dev?)

And yes, selling an unfinished game overall should not be tolerated. I don't see how acknowledging that is called "early access" is funny. You can know the name of something and be against it you know.

These things are FREE currently. Well they were a year ago.

I'm surprised at how ignorant some of the reviews on there are.

More than just those who gave 0/10's, as well; I'm talking about things like this:

Shouldn't that be a good thing, as it discouraged buyers buying an unfinished game?

Checkmate.

Despite all this, what you wrote isn't a review and doesn't belong on Metacritic.

I don't take anything back.

IT'S IN EARLY ACCESS. That's literally defined by the sale of an unfinished game. The higher price is to discourage people who aren't going to take an active part in bug tracking and testing. Several tweaks have been made as a direct result of user input (ask Brian).

Furthermore what you said about microtransactions is misleading. Those microtransactions get your precisely one completely optional thing: Aesthetics. If you had said that it would be fair but because you didn't people will make those negative connotations.

and you just now lost every respect i ever had for you, feel free to not care as i wont about you and those that think like you either

WRONG!

Let's start with the kicker that started this stream of early access madness: MINECRAFT (which is largely, if not solely responsible for the early access culture that reigns today).
Minecraft was never free while in development (I am not counting classic since that was just a demo) It was cheaper, but never free.
And any standalone games that are in early access/beta aren't free either.

The exceptions being MMO's, and they have a frakking good reason for that, because it draws a lot of people who can test the game, get dragged into it, and will then pay inordinate amounts of money for it. (and get their friends to do the same).

Personally I think reviewing a game that is still in development as a finished product is BS. reviewing any unfinished product just shouldn't happen.

Also: We aren't UBER's editorial police, we are a community, we have no affiliations with UBER, except for the fact we bloody like the game they are making. We are not employed, payed, or otherwise contractually or financially bound to UBER. UBER doesn't interfere in any way when it comes to this metacritic thingy.

But I suppose it's fair you want to compensate for us.

As a closing note: might I point out the hypocrisy of your rejection of early access, while all the while participating?

Just put up my review.
I hate how a 7 marks a review as mixed, though. 7 is more than above average but whatever Metacritic you're the boss.

It's weird because when I selected 7 while writing my review it counted as a green rectangle.

What are you even doing here when you hate early access so much?
Hypertrolling?

could we like each put up our review without getting bashed for it?

We should at least show some solidarity here. we probably never should have even bothered.

I know i didn't bother for the whole steam community and rating.

Oops I guess that review was supposed to go on corporationcritic.com not metacritic.