Metacritic user votes?

I don't get this. Why does it say early release, but people argue release means release, but I argue it says early, as in before release, and people argue release means release, but I argue that... that early means...

They are outright ignoring sound logic. Early means early. You. Can. Not. Ignore. 50%. Of. The. Words.

The ENTIRE ARGUEMENT is hating 1 aspect, and afixiating on it. And it goes out of it's way to set fires to the fields of every other point, because of that one point.

Early access? Still a release. Clear warnings? Still a release. People will get a fully functional game, server and client, with mod support, in a promised timeframe of half a year or less? Still a release, grade it poorly now.

And what is the grade usually? 0. So STOP RIGHT THERE. You are telling me, getting a bad game is a 6, getting a bad game with glitches is a 4, and getting a beta after being promised it's a beta is a 0? That is no more less than a 2 no matter how harsh you grade it. That isn't opinion, that is by logic of scale WRONG. An outright lie is not an opinion. It isn't your right to lie in a court of law, its perjury. It isn't your right to lie when reviewing an item, its not a review if it is lying about something and giving it a 0 when getting a physical object warrants a 2.

FYI, I am still going to go full force against Metacritic when this game is actually for realzies released. I am going to Metacritic, collecting every "false review" that claims the game has bad fps when on release it is better or claims the game has no serverside when it does on release, and telling them to take it down or expect to answer to a lot of us about it. You are just wasting your time.

Pfft, right now the game is in PRETTY DAMN GOOD shape. What, if development stopped on the game now, would the community not be able to make good on this with server side released alone? Get out of here with the fearmongering and doubtmongering, go post that in the Star Citizen forums and get a rise out of those gents. DO NOT WANT HERE.

For the record I highly doubt anyone actually likes early access more than that they're simply willing to put up with it.

If there are people that consider it a plus then it's a little worrying

Let me explain it since I know what it actually means. A Straw Man is a logical fallacy in which one misrepresents the opposing argument, usually via hyperbole:

Gordon: I like sunny days
Clarke: If all days were sunny all the crops would die and everyone would starve!

Gordon never said he disliked rainy days or that he wanted all days to be sunny. See it now?

Point me to the law that says only games that are feature-complete can be released physically.

You don't seem to understand that the high Early Access price was to filter out useless players who moan about the lag and never touch it again and attract only a dedicated community with a true passion for improving the game. So let me explain it: The high Early Access price was to filter out useless players who moan about the lag and never touch it again and attract only a dedicated community with a true passion for improving the game.

They're not holding a gun to your head screaming "BUY IT NOW!", they're simply asking "Do you really care?"

This is what we payed for, to be part of bug testing, balance changes, improvements. We want the game so much that we will pay extra so we can help speed things along a little.

Metacritic exists to aggregate general opinion about a specific product. NOT the manufacturer. Open a food magazine and the recipe reviews don't b*tch about Monsanto, they complain about the lack of texture or too much chili or whatever. Ender's Game was a novel that was received well enough to get a movie. The author is an archaic homophobic asshat but no matter his personal views, a good book is a good book and should be judged as a book and not the creator. Metacritic is not a soapbox to stand on and complain about the state of the world, that crap belongs on Tumblr. Metacritic is there for you to review the product. Just pretend it literally appeared out of nowhere with no ties to anyone or anything.

Do I like say... Call of Duty Black Ops II? Honestly? I do. It's a decent, arcadey time-wasting shooter. It runs well, there's a fair amount of map variety. Do I like the business practices behind it? The constant flow of BS overpriced DLC, the day-one DLC, the rerelease of the same game with a different texture pack once a year? No, of course not. But that doesn't make it a bad game. Buying the game would be seen as supporting said practices, yes but that doesn't change the fact that, judged on its own, it's a solid title.

Oh, it wasn't for money then!

They could have filtered them by, I don't know, making them fill a form?
Like, you know, what every other studio did in the past (and hopefully in the future), a (free or even paid for the tester) closed-beta?

Heroes of the storm Alpha is free, yet greatly filtered. Way better than PA was. Maybe you should step back from the PR guys of Uber and start looking around you.

Oh god they definitively should. I'm pretty sure I would buy a food magazine if they start doing that, so I can be sure I don't eat some ****.

Actually, I'm pretty sure some does. Some movie magazine talks about how the production was made, how well/bad the VFX guys were paid,... These things are really important too.

Err, it always important to give some context about the author on some books.
It gives some perspective on the views of the authors, and often bring a second layer of lecture.

Unless you think an author doesn't pass his ideas into his creation, I can't believe you think it's not necessary.

It is done a lot in book reviews (not your amazon review section, I'm talking real book magazine), and it's good.

Some books are actually more interesting knowing the historical/political context of the period it was written and the view of the author than the story itself.

A lot of us actually take great interest in helping this game out, making sure we submit all the recommendations we want to go into development. We don't have our hands on the steering wheel of the development, but we definitely get to mention our feedback and the next update often enough has an answer or pass on it. A pass is usually a different dev idea direction, no biggie, if it persists on the suggestions end it usually gets a look at when dev direction didn't work.

That is the point of early access.

On a kickstarter level, you are willing to pay to fund a game get started for what is absolutely nothing for the first 6 months, just because the other option is play everything but rts.

On an alpha level, you are willing to fund a game in exchange to see and submit feedback on a very crude base engine for the game to run on, a generated planet with some units poorly pathing across it's surface.

On a beta level, I think is the most feedback orientated level and people fund the game to test the first pass of all vital working features to make a better second pass and sharpen "problems" with the first pass and recommend missing things.

This is pretty much post-beta and pre release, its just the deal of "helps fund devs" in exchange for "play almost ready version of game". The last things are being gotten into working order where it presents no problems to anybody. The biggest complaints, aren't things missing, they are things that are here but aren't very visible. Serverside and offline, those aren't missing, they aren't distributed but aren't hidden in function, the devs stream using local game and you see it when you set your copy in dev mode although it doesn't work. FPS is there, but the server caps the best one can see of this.

First, most people still think "early access" simply means being able to play the game earlier than everyone else, there's plenty of room for confusion, they should just put a "GAME UNFINISHED" sticker on the box, but I guess that would turn people off, huh?

Second, I haven't posted a review of the game yet, I'm going to wait until they work their way through half the Greek alphabet and they consider the game "feature complete before I do.

why? why would you care? ... just becuse the option is there doesn´t mean you have to take it ...
if you for yourself want to wait for a true fully finished game then just do so
read reviews watch videos of the finished title and then consider the purchase or not ..
once the information is out there there should be no worries for you weither or not to make the purchase ...
even then you get deals on varius sides you can wait for if you are unhappy with the original price ... the options are there ..

it´s all about propper information and people reading and understanding what they buy into ...
if you are unsure then wait or ask your friends who may have it what they think of it and if they know exactly what they bought into ...

and realy get as much information as possible when official gamereviews are out, don´t look at the scores but at the words what is good what is bad and compare the reviews and impressions of people ...

Well that's their own damn fault. Try buying rat poison and trying to return it saying "it killed my pet mouse".

I don't see how a reasonable person with basic cognitive ability can see a box openly available to anyone with functioning limbs and think "ooh I get to play it earlier than everyone else".

No law, but it goes against the norm, call them trend-setters all you want, but it's still a practice I and many others are vehemently against

If you're OK with giving terrible people money so you can be entertained for a couple hours, that's cool
Not calling Uber terrible people here, that's just a really bad point

Nonononono.... That is my point. That right there. Early access never means it is released. Fall of cybertron had a free online multiplayer xbox live arcade download for 2 maps and 4 classes with just 3 weapons, just for balance feedback. There is a lot of games that put out "early access", and their release date is always AFTER they do that. NEVER before. Care to present any physical evidence against that? Any game released, but not available to the full public, just early access buyers?

To add to that, Fall of Cybertron really was a good example of good demoing a game to customers, it was free and you played the whole game limited to certain class builds and 2 levels, and it also gathered borderline balance considerations. This is a good game for early release in my opinion, it has been plagued with cost complaints stemming from kickstarter, and it is a bit delayed, but it is still on budget and a completely new built engine and game, that is pretty much as the kickstarter described. Didn't get the demo into everyone's hands via free gameplay, but plenty of videos demoing gameplay. Compared to other kickstarter, it is near the front of the pack. Meaning, go lynch other games that actually do what you accuse of this one.

OH NO HOW WILL WE EVER COPE!

You missed the point entirely.

Sure.
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/can-you-see-why-he-is-saying-this.61473/page-15#post-954362

Kind of anti-consumer, don't you think?

That game wasn't missing features though, there was some cut content from the demo but that's usually what demos do.
I don't really understand your point

No. Consumers have responsibilities too. You're not in an intensive care ward. You're expected to know what the hell you're doing.

I had early access tickets for movies in my hands, and I saw the movie before anyone else.
And it was openly available to anyone, you just had to buy them soon enough.

I can easily imagine people thinking it's a time-limited edition with some bonus.

"Early Access " != "Unfinished". Unless you are on Steam.

That or you just failed to get it across properly

Ahahaha... Really... EA... An AAA title making generic sports games that are just updates to their last title, constitutes an answer?

You do realize, those sports games are ready 2 months before release? Yet, they give 3 day early access to milk more money, just because they could just reset their pirated leaderboards 3 days early and forget about them after that?

Heck, wouldn't suprise me, if they are ready within months after the PREVIOUS game was. Really, if you want them to be "heroes", they would have to do the actual heroic thing, and release the same game and engine with updates, as an update to the last game, which they can easily do, and possibly release it when it is ready.

This would mean, making a sports game, naming it without a set "year", and having yearly updates, and if they have any "new function" updates releasing them when they are done months prior to the year.

Until they do that, pfft, I argue EA are the bad guys and Uber are the good guys. Idfc, everyone here would agree with that. For every "early access full game 3 days early FIFA", there is a "Sim City singleplayer online only"... DERP.

Of course I do, that's what you asked for, no? I quote

"Care to present any physical evidence against that? Any game released, but not available to the full public, just early access buyers?"

The fact that you don't like EA is irrelevant. I'm quite sure Madden has more sales than PA every year, it's a very valid counter-example.
Lot of people (who buy these games, more people than PA) think "playing the full and finished game before everyone else" when they hear/read "early access".

Uber/Steam are shifting the meaning, but it's still not the common sense.

And it's the same sense for "early access" when it come to book, movies, music,...
Not the "half-baked but more expensive" sense that you think is so obvious.

(well, okay, not so true for book, it's often variating a little from the final release, due to editor retake, but still, the book is finished : http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...nveils-early-access-program-kindle-first.html).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_access

I'm no expert. But in almost every case of limited edition content, the words "Limited Edition" are on the cover.

The conversation that has now (mostly) been going on for 10ish pages is more in the nature of a religious discussion, not an actual discussion. You have immutable people on both sides who strongly feel one way or the other, and compelling arguments in either direction is not likely to sway either side.

I will simply state:

• Kickstarter, and kickstarter goals, are not a budget. They are a goal to indicate interest. For some projects, maybe it is the budget, but I would contend not for most with more than 3 or 4 people working on them.
• If you don't like people selling a game that got kickstarted, you should probably verify with the creators they don't plan on selling it.
• If you fundamentally disagree with the concept of "Early Access" (which is now basically synonymous with paid alpha/beta), that's fine, but it seems a large swatch of gamers out there approve of it because, and let's talk basics here, Kickstarter and Early Access literally pays for this game's development. We at Uber are not all walking around wearing money hats. Though that would be cool.
• If you like a model where developers are able to make the games they really want to, rather than what a publishers are willing to fund, you really should consider what Early Access brings to the table- because it's one of the first models to come along that allows that as an option.

Last thing I'll add to the current state of this thread:



Anyway, have fun.