this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
268 points (99.6% liked)

PC Gaming

9223 readers
1084 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 22 hours ago

Yes, its a way for a developer to shift blame, but its also a very obvious and clear label to the consumer to expect an unfinished game. I wouldn't really consider ot abuse as long as the developer is actually trying to make a decent game. For example, 7 Days to Die is a buggy, unfinished game that the devs have failed to complete for years. It should be labeled as such and shouldn't be sold as a finished game. That said, its also a good game even in its unfinished state, and I'm happy its available to buy. Removing early access either means these games aren't sold, or they're sold without the disclaimer. Either situation is worse for the consumer.

The bigger problem is when its used to disguise a game that isn't even trying, but at that point, removing the early access warning doesn't help much. In that case, a generous refund policy and decent support are far more important.