Why no early access?

[Kadatherion]

aaaaand you are dead wrong, early acces is there to WARN newcomers that hey, approach with care. Not putting that tag there is a LIE...

delivering a lie is a scam, being honest and having an early access is NOT

Oh, how I wish to be young and naive again, to see the world with such innocence, hope, with that pure shine in my eyes, when everything is possible and all we have to do is give peace a chance, imagine... and get screwed all over again, time and time again, by the real world... Uhm, no, actually, all things considered I don't

[CaptainX4]

aaaaand you are dead wrong, early acces is there to WARN newcomers that hey, approach with care. Not putting that tag there is a LIE...

delivering a lie is a scam, being honest and having an early access is NOT

Oh, how I wish to be young and naive again, to see the world with such innocence, hope, with that pure shine in my eyes, when everything is possible and all we have to do is give peace a chance, imagine... and get screwed all over again, time and time again, by the real world... Uhm, no, actually, all things considered I don't

so you consider the world being shit a norm now and those are honest and naive are the wrong... I guess I know why the society is sinking and stinking

[Taramafor]

2. You made one mistake: Besides the economy bug, no promised content has been missing.

You mean other then the empty hostiles sectors, lack of pirate space and combat focuses missions which TC had?

Riiiiiiight.

[Nexuscrawler]

2. You made one mistake: Besides the economy bug, no promised content has been missing.

You mean other then the empty hostiles sectors, lack of pirate space and combat focuses missions which TC had?

Riiiiiiight.

Not to mention that he seems to think that the economy not working is a small thing here.

[Taramafor]

My experience with it would have been exactly the same whether it was launched as 1.0 or 0.5. So would yours.

Now I know you're full of it. A game gets IMPROVED with the future numbers. So it WOULD be different. So no, a 1.0 game would NOT be the same as a 0.5. Because 0.5 is WAY behind 1.0. How many early access games have you played? Ark. Rimworld. To name just a few. Now BETA testing is different then early access. It's more "Preparing the ground work" for release. It's something between early access and release. Unless it's an early beta. It gets kind of technical. But with these SIMPLE LABELS we KNOW WHERE WE STAND. You on the other hand seem to want a game to be released with NO WARNING about the state it's in. Where other games go out of their way to do that. Defeating your complaints about "boo hoo, it's all only harsh".

Look, like it or not it's about the honesty of it. I wouldn't pay for early access either and I am also NORMALLY against pulling the wool over peoples eyes for "public beta testing". But games NEED to do that in order to grow at times. And if so that's why early access exists. Because it's honest.

And again, LYING and DECEIVING is SCAMMING. HONESTY about a situation, no matter how pleasant or unpleasant, is not. So early access is indeed not scamming. All you did was make a smart ass comment about how the world is harsh or unfair or something without stating a counter argument to us.

Define scamming. Compare it to an early access game. Compare to this game. Tell me which one LIED and made empty promises about "large and epic combat". Hint: This one. And that is the REALITY of the harsh situation. Deal with it. Or otherwise make a civil counter debate in regards to scamming. You're so focused on crying about how harsh everything is that you seem to overlook that it's happened with X4 where other EARLY ACCESS games have tried to be more fair. Except for the ones that do take advantage. In my experience, whatever the situation, it comes down to "keeping an eye out for the bad". My guess is you're so focused on seeing the bad of early access that you don't even try to see the good. Just a thought.

[Kadatherion]

My experience with it would have been exactly the same whether it was launched as 1.0 or 0.5. So would yours.

Now I know you're full of it. A game gets IMPROVED with the future numbers. So it WOULD be different.

Look, like it or not it's about the honesty of it. I wouldn't pay for early access either and I am also NORMALLY against pulling the wool over peoples eyes for "public beta testing". But games NEED to do that in order to grow at times. And if so that's why early access exists. Because it's honest.

And again, LYING and DECEIVING is SCAMMING. HONESTY about a situation, no matter how pleasant or unpleasant, is not. So early access is indeed not scamming. All you did was make a smart ass comment about how the world is harsh or unfair or something without stating a counter argument to us.

Define scamming. Compare it to an early access game. Compare to this game. Tell me which one LIED and made empty promises about "large and epic combat". Hint: This one.

Ok, now I know it's just too difficult for you to get it. I'll try to rephrase, and forgive the profanity but you seem to need shorter and easier sentences: if I feed you a turd, it's still going to taste like shit, whether I call it turd (0.5) or I call it an apple (1.0). Or, on the opposite, as Shakespeare'd say, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Looks like you had a hard time understanding the point, so I'll just invite you to read my reply again, because, just like in this case, all your other questions and remarks are already answered there.

[Taramafor]

My experience with it would have been exactly the same whether it was launched as 1.0 or 0.5. So would yours.

Now I know you're full of it. A game gets IMPROVED with the future numbers. So it WOULD be different.

Look, like it or not it's about the honesty of it. I wouldn't pay for early access either and I am also NORMALLY against pulling the wool over peoples eyes for "public beta testing". But games NEED to do that in order to grow at times. And if so that's why early access exists. Because it's honest.

And again, LYING and DECEIVING is SCAMMING. HONESTY about a situation, no matter how pleasant or unpleasant, is not. So early access is indeed not scamming. All you did was make a smart ass comment about how the world is harsh or unfair or something without stating a counter argument to us.

Define scamming. Compare it to an early access game. Compare to this game. Tell me which one LIED and made empty promises about "large and epic combat". Hint: This one.

Ok, now I know it's just too difficult for you to get it. I'll try to rephrase, and forgive the profanity but you seem to need shorter and easier sentences: if I feed you a turd, it's still going to taste like shit, whether I call it turd (0.5) or I call it an apple (1.0). Or, on the opposite, as Shakespeare'd say, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Looks like you had a hard time understanding the point, so I'll just invite you to read my reply again, because, just like in this case, all your other questions and remarks are already answered there.

None of that has to do with the game. I get the metaphor it just doesn't make sense. And for one simple reason.

You said 0.5 would be EXACTLY the same as 1.0. A turd is not an apple and vice versa. Frankly, you know you're feeding me shit. So reap what you sow. This is "not to be" and you can piss off with that high and mighty bull you're spewing at me. You're just being insulting at this point. Or should I talk down on you about how little you know about the han dynasty? Stick to the topic would ya.

We both know this game isn't up to the standards of 1.0 (baring other games that flopped due to lack of content. But it never ends well. THAT'S my point). And we both know it could have been better on release. A public 0.5 or early access WILL have been VERY different (or even the same as this 1.0. Maybe that's what you meant) BUT if we HAD WARNING then maybe THIS 1.0 would be an IMPROVED 1.0. Which early access games have done successfully over and over again. The examples I stated earlier being proof of this. It's called evidence. You might want to try it some time.

Early access 1. Whatever you went on about 0. When the PUBLIC gets involved and provides feedback AS THE GAME GROWS then that's like pruning a rose. So, what, you want early access to not exist at all and for so many games to have never been made or otherwise released in a less optimised and more buggy state with the release title? Is that it? If not early access then what? I've seen donation funded games grow and excel countless times.

You also COMPLETELY danced around the argument. Is being silent about the lack of polish in a game scamming or not when released? Is an early access lable being honest about lack of content? Yes or no? Don't BS psychobabble me. I do enough of it myself to know when someone is pulling that shit. Just answer the damn question. The core of scamming is deception. Normally intended, but sometimes I think people make promises and end up finding out they can't do what they claimed. At the same time however the lack of intent does not excuse toe lack of honesty. Silence can be just as bad as lies.

When it comes to personal people situations it's normally a case of fear. In this case I'm guessing the devs were afraid they'd lose faith in their customers if they stated early access or something. But with people like you looking down on that who can blame them for going 1.0 and not speaking up? Maybe YOU'RE part of the problem for the "harsh things" you complain about.

[vonski1985]

Any Idea that version 2.0 dont work with those save from 1.32? I heard rumors that I will be supose to start game again..

[nickolaiproblem]

Any Idea that version 2.0 dont work with those save from 1.32? I heard rumors that I will be supose to start game again..

There is no version 2.0 my guy its only 1.5 beta

[Nexuscrawler]

Any Idea that version 2.0 dont work with those save from 1.32? I heard rumors that I will be supose to start game again..

There is no version 2.0 my guy its only 1.5 beta

Version 2.0 was said to be released somewhere between late January and the beginning of February.
There are not many details about it yet.

[Kadatherion]

None of that has to do with the game. I get the metaphor it just doesn't make sense. And for one simple reason.

You said 0.5 would be EXACTLY the same as 1.0. A turd is not an apple and vice versa. Frankly, you know you're feeding me shit and I'm saying back the **** off before I stop being civil. You're being a snarky jackass at this point.

Dude, it's a LABEL. Really, take a breath, read it slowly, you'll get it...

0.5 is the early access, 1.0 is the launch we've got, still it would have launched the 30th of november, *it would have been the very same game with a different label*, for crying out loud! For the love of God, I'm trying hard not to be snarky, believe me, but you are making it hard, very hard, because you can't read...

Early access 1. Whatever you went on about 0. When the PUBLIC gets involved and provides feedback AS THE GAME GROWS then that's like pruning a rose. So, what, you want early access to not exist at all and for so many games to have never been made or otherwise released in a less optimised and more buggy state with the release title? Is that it? If not early access then what?

What are we doing right now? Precisely that. Whether it's called early access or 1.0 doesn't change a single thing. Not one. Neither does whether we like it or not, we are betatesting an unfinished game. It's a LABEL.

You also COMPLETELY danced around the argument. Is being silent about the lack of polish in a game scamming or not when released? Is an early access lable being honest about lack of content? Yes or no? Don't BS psychobabble me. I do enough of it myself to know when someone is pulling that shit. Just answer the damn question.

I'm not dancing, I'm standing very, very still. You're just being blind to simple english text, doing a whole conversation with yourself about a point you and only you are making. I'm sure it's a fun conversation, but you are having it with yourself, not with me.

[CBJ]

Yet again, people are getting personal. Discuss the subject of the thread, not each other, or don't post.

[Shy'la Nesthorn]

Dude, it's a LABEL. Really, take a breath, read it slowly, you'll get it...

I mean you say that but label are important. If you label a can "beans" and they buy it expecting beans, and instead find worms they are gonna very reasonably be upset.

This game very much is unfinished so releasing it "finished" will, again reasonably be received poorly. You can't call one thing something else, sell it, and expect people not to be upset about that.

Sure there is us who've been playing X for a long time and understand that but new people are always coming in, especially with how easily accessible more niche games like this are getting.

[Kadatherion]

I mean you say that but label are important. If you label a can "beans" and they buy it expecting beans, and instead find worms they are gonna very reasonably be upset.

This game very much is unfinished so releasing it "finished" will, again reasonably be received poorly. You can't call one thing something else, sell it, and expect people not to be upset about that.

Sure there is us who've been playing X for a long time and understand that but new people are always coming in, especially with how easily accessible more niche games like this are getting.

This is perfectly fair. But my opening point was that the "early access" label doesn't really differ in tangible results. It actually can be even worse, as it's often used as an alibi to not deliver in the end (and still get away with the money ofc), in a framework that, nowadays, makes it so when that happens is even "expected" so no one should complain too much.

The fact is, in the end we still have worms to eat and we paid to eat them: I argue that whether we knew that ahead or not, worms will still taste like worms. It's very much legit to complain worms taste bad, and saying you wouldn't have wanted to eat them (AKA: you wouldn't have bought the game) if you knew they were worms is something that can't be argued with.
But that's not what's being said here: here some are saying they wish they were told before they were gonna eat worms (the game should have been tagged early access), and yet state they'd have wanted to eat them anwyay (so they still would have played it and paid for it in this very same state). It doesn't make the slightest sense.

[Shy'la Nesthorn]

The fact is, in the end we still have worms to eat and we paid to eat them: I argue that whether we knew that ahead or not, worms will still taste like worms. It's very much legit to complain worms taste bad, and saying you wouldn't have wanted to eat them (AKA: you wouldn't have bought the game) if you knew they were worms is something that can't be argued with.
But that's not what's being said here: here some are saying they wish they were told before they were gonna eat worms (the game should have been tagged early access), and yet state they'd have wanted to eat them anwyay (so they still would have played it and paid for it in this very same state). It doesn't make the slightest sense.

I get where your coming from but for that reasoning it's just people don't like being lied too. Which is kinda what this is, I'd go even as far to say it's false advertising which is straight up illegal in some places. But yeah, like you said some people still would've bought it, I know I would've, I love the X games.

But yeah it just comes down to people feel lied too. They were sold a game described as being done, full release. But get a game that, in some cases, is barley playable. Which is something you'd expect from a early access game, not a full release game.

Also just a little side note

This is perfectly fair. But my opening point was that the "early access" label doesn't really differ in tangible results. It actually can be even worse, as it's often used as an alibi to not deliver in the end (and still get away with the money ofc), in a framework that, nowadays, makes it so when that happens is even "expected" so no one should complain too much.

I feel like this is unfair, sure that happens but I can point to many early access games that progress, get updated and eventually finished/will be finished. Subnautica, Slay the Spire, Kerbal Space Program, Deep Rock Galactic, Avorion, Factorio. And those are just a few that I can name off the top of my head.
I know this topic wasn't about that but I just felt that was an unfair accusation towards early access

[Bozz11]

I for myself would not have bought x4 if it was early acces, because the full release is already buggy can't imagine what a EA game made by Egosoft would look like
Usually I never buy EA games, I'm tirted of all the EA games on steam and osme of them have been there forever... It's like an excuse for gales to be bugged to hell, most of them come out of EA and keep most of the bugs.
The most recent would be Kenshi, I love the game, but it's still very buggy and crashing here and there, been in EA for 12 years

[Kadatherion]

I get where your coming from but for that reasoning it's just people don't like being lied too. Which is kinda what this is, I'd go even as far to say it's false advertising which is straight up illegal in some places. But yeah, like you said some people still would've bought it, I know I would've, I love the X games.

But yeah it just comes down to people feel lied too. They were sold a game described as being done, full release. But get a game that, in some cases, is barley playable. Which is something you'd expect from a early access game, not a full release game.

Sure, and I'm annoyed too. Being annoyed for the state of the game is perfectly reasonable, whether you expected it or not. And even though the "being lied to" might be quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (whether the game is good or bad), I'd perfectly understand it coming from a newcomer to the series. Because the newcomer's point would be "if I had known, I'd have at least waited". This indeed makes you feel scammed. But if you have been an X player for 10+ years, then it's different. If you say that you know how the game would have been at launch however it was tagged, and you would have been fine with it anyway, what's the point?

The obvious comparison is Bethesda: who doesn't expect a Beth game to be a bugfest, if he has played one of their games before? Most of us buy them for mods anyway. And yet none of us would imagine the next Elder Scrolls to come out in early access, it's how they are, and to an extent even for understandable reasons. FO76 took a well deserved shitstorm because it was *much worse* than other Beth games, an obvious cashgrab, but that's a whole different story. X4 is arguably at least on par with previous X titles at launch, and even waaaay better than the latest one, Rebirth, was at launch and for long after that. So...

I feel like this is unfair, sure that happens but I can point to many early access games that progress, get updated and eventually finished/will be finished. Subnautica, Slay the Spire, Kerbal Space Program, Deep Rock Galactic, Avorion, Factorio. And those are just a few that I can name off the top of my head.
I know this topic wasn't about that but I just felt that was an unfair accusation towards early access

Of course there are gems in early access. Early access, just like kickstarter, was born for very good reasons. Fund development of indie games, so that a good concept had a chance of seeing fruition when otherwise it would have had no chances of finding the budget to be any better than some rpgmaker homemade game. It was a great idea. Unfortunately, this doesn't change the fact the system - and our own dumbness - let it become swarmed by projects that specifically exploit it. Because hey, it's a project, no guarantees! And for every dedicated, passionate young dev that tries his best to see his dream game see birth, there are 4 others that only see an exploitable environment to grab cash with no - or very little - strings attached nor responsibilities.
And this let alone the other issue with the industry, that's mindboggling but it's the standard nowadays: the fact people are ok with working for free. Betatesting and QA was a very well paid and professional job position once. Now companies feel free to launch buggy, unfinished games because the playerbase is ok with doing it for them, for free. And there's no doubt that the early access system further reinforces this habit, that's become the norm even for full AAA launches. These are the times, this is what players are ok with, so there's little point in complaining, but it doesn't make it any fairer of a business model.

[Shy'la Nesthorn]

Sure, and I'm annoyed too. Being annoyed for the state of the game is perfectly reasonable, whether you expected it or not. And even though the "being lied to" might be quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (whether the game is good or bad), I'd perfectly understand it coming from a newcomer to the series. Because the newcomer's point would be "if I had known, I'd have at least waited". This indeed makes you feel scammed. But if you have been an X player for 10+ years, then it's different. If you say that you know how the game would have been at launch however it was tagged, and you would have been fine with it anyway, what's the point?

I think this where the issue is, you as someone who has played X long enough knows how this comes out and don't see it as an issue. But there is a very big issue. Egosoft, like any dev, is a business that sells goods, products. It is very serious when a business lies about what it sells and always has very strong repercussions. Both legally and with customer loyalty.

A car company can't sell a car stating it never runs out of gas.

A resturaunt can't sell a food saying it'll make you look younger.

A game dev can't sell an unfinished game saying it's finished.

Sure people still do that, and very often they are called scams and eventually suffer major business issues, especially now in this age as communication grows and more and more people rely of reviews.

Your reference to Bethesda is a perfect example. As more of their games come out broken, they are seeing less and less in sales with fans becoming more and more distrusting even if that's "just how they are". Look at Fallout 76, one of the worst rated games in forever because of it's release vs advertisement. They've already dropped the price to half of what it was on launch in their desperation to get people to actually buy it, because people aren't. Someone buys a game, gets a broken buggy mess vs the finished version they were promised. That person goes online and lets everyone know and suddenly people don't buy it. The more common reviews like this happen the more it hurts companies. And I very don't much want that to happen to egosoft.

It all comes down to advertising. You advertise what you have, not falsely advertise to build expectation because then you lead to disappointment with your fans, and potential new fans. You can't simple go "Oh well they labelled it one but BUT if you knew them you'd know it'd be something else."

X4 is very much an early access game which, as many people would probably call it, a scam trapping people who think it's a polished, new game. Yet even if they released it the exact same way as it was, but simply called it early access you wouldn't see as much complaining because people know what they are getting going into it, and not being lied too. Which again is the biggest thing here.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

The state of the game is not as bad as rebirth

No, it is worse IMO - the key problems being that it is an inexcusably unstable and poorly performing unfinnished mess.

With X-Rebirth, at least the game had a thread you could follow despite the bugs and things that worked in X-Rebirth either do not work in X4 or are changed and poorly explained (if at all). The in-game encyclopedia in X4 is not even half finnished either.

Given X4 obviously has it's roots in X-Rebirth I think it more resembles a poorly developed mod of X-Rebirth than a true X4 or sequal to X-Rebirth.

Don't get me wrong - I like the general thread of X4 and the direction Egosoft have taken it but it is far from being up to V1.0 release quality standards on many fronts.

[Kadatherion]

...[cut]

I'll contest just one thing: FO76 isn't having bad sales because it's a sorry, buggy mess (it is). It's because nobody cares for an online multiplayer Fallout. 90% (heck, I'm keeping it low) of sales come from the first few days of launch, just like movies make most of their gross income in the first weekend in theaters. That's why expansions (and standalone ones at that) or major DLCs became such a prominent business model as well, because on the market they work like little "re-launches".
We all saw that coming with FO76 a mile ahead ever since E3, but didn't stay away from it just because we expected it to be worse than your average Beth game, we did because Bethesda's playerbase (the FO and TES one at least) really is in large part a different demographics than the MMO one. They tried to pitch into the survival fad, but they were late to the party, very late, and didn't even had the right playerbase to at least count on selling on the name of the franchise alone (which happened for FO4, that was a disappointment for most even though, technically, in line with previous titles).

Remember that Rebirth was the best selling game for Egosoft. Their arguably worst game was the best selling one, even though no longer than 24/48 hours after release everybody in the gaming world knew it was one of that year's worst trainwreck releases (whether we personally agree or not it was their worst, half of the gaming internet made it a meme to make fun of, that was the common perception). People buy games based on expectations, not based on their actual real state. Which is bad (real bad, and preorders further add to that), because it allows companies to care less and less about the actual state of their releases. Some will then fix their game later, like Egosoft does (whether it's for passion or because they do it for damage control doesn't change the result, which is at least positive in the end), others won't, and those that won't, don't because they are confident the players will forget anyway before the next game and will come back with their brand new expectations and hype. And, usually, they are right, They don't guess, it's marketing "science". This, of course, doesn't always apply, especially on those franchises that churn out a game every year (Battlefield V is a good example), and sooner or later sometimes it will come back to bite them, but it takes a loooong time.

What's worse for the average quality of the industry between the two models? Feeding high, unrealistic expectations that more and more often get disappointed at launch, but still sell the game mighty fine (they wouldn't do it otherwise), and usually somehow getting away with it even though a lot of people - rightfully so - complain, at least for a bit... or declaring from the very beginning you'll launch an unfinished game, ask money for it anyway tagging it as early access, and as such lowering just as well the bar of what is generally considered a product good enough to spend your money on?
I honestly don't know: both models, in the end, lower the bar of what's considered acceptable, lower the value of your money. Sure, an early access could be considered "an investement" (albeit a very dangerous one nowadays), but then the same could be said of games like X, that still get developed long after launch, whatever the launch was labeled.

And, BTW, while X4 clearly is in an unacceptable state for a full release, this fact doesn't change and won't change because of a comparison, I've seen much, much worse releases, and much worse "false advertising" before. Do you perhaps remember Elemental:War of Magic? That game by Stardock - another rather little company that was (heck, still somehow is) very well loved by its niche much like Egosoft - that was supposed to be the new Master of Magic. It wasn't only such a buggy and empty shell of a game that taking the worst of X4 and Rebirth and putting them together you'd still have a CD Project Red masterpiece by comparison, but it was called Elemental and it didn't even had... guess what... elemental affinities! Yeah, fire does double damage to ice, basic things like that. Somehow they are still afloat, and even more surprsingly are still well regarded in the public's eye (even though now they also shat all over the Star Control IP), because the general public... forgets. Politics teach us that.

X4 is still missing some promised features, but most of what's missing isn't just *not here*. It's *in, but quite far from an acceptable state*. The war mechanic is there, even the mechanic to capture sectors. It's just it wasn't playtested basically at all, was jury rigged here and there with placeholders, and it all went at launch blind, fingers crossed hope it works, we'll fix it anyway on the go. Now, if they said that "all the races of X are coming back" and then we found out only three were here, then that would have been a whole different thing. But they didn't. They made the public aware well ahead only three would be in, and the others (some, all? Not even that was promised) would come later. Their marketing pitch was honestly among the less pretentious I've seen in cases such as this. Sure, the delivery still was arguably insufficient, and there's no excuse for that, but the game still has mostly positive reviews, so it's not so much of a wreck like topics such as this one usually end up implying.