hunter_alien said:
Except its nothing like that as nobody is asking 30$ for a beta. I have nothing against people having fun with the title, but this trend in general pisses me off, the one where we release a preview for a quick cash grab. Back in the days it would ahve been called a multiplayer demo. Now its early access. |
Except here you get unlimited access to the game, and when it releases, you own it. So you aren't paying $30 for a beta, you're paying $30 for the game, which you can play before release. Game Preview/Early Access is literally plastered all over the place when you try to buy it (not any more on Steam of course since it's officially out), so it's not as if anyone is having wool thrown over their eyes here.
Not all Early Access games are handled as well as this was, but bitching about this one just because it's an early access title would be like bitching about DLC just because Battlefront 2 exists. Developers exist on both sides of the spectrum and some of them actually do a good job. Take H1Z1 for example. It's been in Early Access for years and after Sony sold off or closed the studio, the game went through a major change and is now two titles. PUBG was in Early Access for around 8 months. It was handled very well.
And personally, I don't have any issue with it because we're told upfront it's a Game Preview title. I don't expect flawless performance, because it's a Game Preview title. I don't expect it to be as feature rich as other titles, because it's a Game Preview title. Furthermore, the problems with the game have been massively overblown.
There just seems to be much bigger fish you could fry. To me, a game like Destiny 2 being literally built from the ground up for DLC and microtransactions is infinitely more harmful than PUBG. You could also make a case that there are plenty of games you could call early access that release and cost $60. Games as a service type games. GT Sport being the latest.
