• Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    My argument is that companies shouldn’t charge full price for an unfinished game. Your argument is that the funding from early access could help the company develop the game. I believe a compromise would be to lower the price of the unfinished hand. It could be actual price=completion percent * full price. If they can’t do anything as fluid as that then at the very least there should be a significant flat reduction.

    What I don’t like is the implication you made that since everyone is doing it, then it’s ok.

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Teardown is a great example, can’t remember what I paid but it was cheap when the game only had half a dozen levels - it felt like a full game but s small one, then they added part two and a million mods got made and I think the price went up though it’s still reasonable

    • Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was actually agreeing with you and in no way do I think it’s ok because everyone does it. Rather, I’m very dismayed that everyone does it. Yes, it seems like a good idea on paper to use paid alpha and beta releases to fund development but the system has been shot to hell by the fact that the overwhelming majority of publishers who do this abuse it.