By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zekkyou on 14 December 2017
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
Zekkyou said:

In general they get early (and on-going) access to a title, get to help fund its development (and often allow the final game to be larger and better polished), be a part of the community that helps shape the game's future, and sometimes get the game cheaper long-term (not applicable to PUBG, but it is to many early access titles). It's fine if you don't consider these benefits worth it, but many others do. It's also entirely fine for you to in general disapprove of early access, but again, others feel differently.

I didn't say "it really is that", i said it's likley that's the case. The alternative would be an illogical position for MS to attempt to hold in extreme situations, for both the reasons i noted.

Indeed, because those people weighed the risks and rewards of going digital and many have decided it's worth it. I agree it's a shame in many respects, but it's down to the consumer to decide how much they value the benefits.

Some of the points you listed aren't benefits to the customer but to the devs... no worry although I wouldn't pay for most early access (can't say I never would, because it could appear a game I'm very interested that I would take the chance to play it earlier). I'm just pointing concern for a disclaimer that protects the company much more than the customer.

Well let's not discuss what ifs and semantics, althought the disclaimer could have been made in a manner that doesn't seem like to totally excuse them from responsability. And sure I agree customers are free to decide even if we think it's a dumb decision. I also think it's dumb to buy year releases and certainly there are people that think it's dumb that I buy GTS and have a wheel.

Something can benefit the developer and still be a selling point to some consumers (e.g. funding development of a game that might otherwise not exist), it doesn't have to be just one or the other.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, because i think the disclaimer is fine. It's clearly placed, and gives you a quick but defined description of the key risks. It's worth noting that at least as far as PUBG goes, i expect those risks are exceedingly unlikely. MS are publishing the game, so i'd be surprised if some sort of contract wasn't in place between MS and Bluehole.