New games in 2020. you are looking forward to!

[Chris Simon]

Ah, the Ark -> Atlas debacle... another fine example of how paying for stuff in advance usually ends badly for the customer.

I get where you're coming from, the only reason why I'm still a bit on the fence is because there are nice (and finished) games from smaller dev teams that would simply never exist without the early access model. But yes indeed it also opened the door to a lot of scummery (is this an english word?)... And I also do miss the time games were released when they were done, before the age of "release now, fix it someday". But those times will never return.

The irony in all this is that there were never so many games being developed as now, but the number of great, truly outstanding games released per year seems the same or actually smaller than before. Most of the games I love and play the most are still from the first half of the decade, and the fingers on one hand are more than enough to count the game I play (or played) regularly from 2016 onwards.

The best compromise we can have now, is to adopt a "buy only when done" stance, early access or not. If someone else wants to come forth with their money, then best of luck. At least until the dev team has amassed a reputation for being serious.

Yes, I can agree that for indie devs, early access represents much easier way of publishing their game, sometimes the only way the game could have been done.

BUT

I think early access also removed one important thing the game industry had in place - quality control.
Previously, you had to be damn sure your idea for the game is viable before you started making it. That alone ensured that most of the games being released were... well... good. The fact that you can now release ANY idea as an EA game (not that EA) and keep milking customers, keep changing things, keep making promises about future,... pretty much destroyed any inherent quality control the game industry had and the games coming out of it are in majority absolute B.
Yes, there are a couple of indie games that were amazing and that wouldn't have ever existed if they couldn't use EA as a financing horse. But at the same time there are now thousands and thousands of completey crap and unnecessary games that only dilute the customer/money pool of the gaming industry as a whole.

Imagine opening a business on a premise that customers will start paying you now and some time in a future, you're going to provide services. That's ridiculous. If you want to have a restaurant, you need a space, interior, kitchen, the cook, waiters, a bar,... You can't charge people money to come inside and watch how you're building it. No, you build it first, THEN let the customers in, who will then pay for a product or service. That's how I see things, anyway. As a small business owner I am kind of biased I guess.

 

[Juniper]

I wish Text adventures were still a thing . Its a lost art, Any one remember Scot Adams Infocom?

They still are... mainly due to the release of Inform (currently at version 7.9), which is what Infocom developed and used to create their games.

There are lots of freeware sites out there with text adventures written using this. Some are excellent. Google is your friend there.

A good place to start though is the IFArchive. Literally hundreds (if not thousands) of text adventures in there, including entries from the annual competition.

It's still a thing.

 

[Old Duck]

I wish Early Access model would simply be made illegal.

I'm not a fan of this model either.

 

[Juniper]

I wish Early Access model would simply be made illegal. So many games got caught in a loop of early access development that uses the monetization to introduce more monetization intead of moving the game towards completeness.
So went even further. For example Ark - after years in early access, devs started to use the money to develop A SEQUEL instead of finishing the first game. That is a definition of scum. And we all know how SC is looking...
I wish games were once again released when they are DONE.

When used appropriately and honestly, it's not so bad. Elite: Dangerous should certainly have been released under EA, and arguably would still be in it.

The problem arises when unscrupulous companies and developers sell you on an idea (ideas are ten a penny), force you to part with money to be involved in it, and then either get bored & forget about it, or just never deliver what they promised (SC, E: D, etc), with everything being just over that horizon...

There aren't many companies left that have the right idea IMO. R* being the obvious one. Bethesda of old, another.

 

[Chris Simon]

They still are... mainly due to the release of Inform (currently at version 7.9), which is what Infocom developed and used to create their games.

There are lots of freeware sites out there with text adventures written using this. Some are excellent. Google is your friend there.

A good place to start though is the IFArchive. Literally hundreds (if not thousands) of text adventures in there, including entries from the annual competition.

It's still a thing.

Ah yes, forgot about Inform. Also a decent engine. Played a couple of games, too, though the interpreters are a bit confusing, not every one of them handles images well, etc.

 

[Pixelated Sparkster]

I am currently enjoying myself with the new Nintendo switch 51 worldwide classics. It is an odd choice but it feel refreshing to play it compared to the other games I have.

I am looking forward to planet coaster when it comes out on ps4. I also wish to replay spongebob squarepants battle for bikini bottom rehydrated and destroy all humans remake. I think there will be a next crash bandicoot gaming coming soon based on rumors which I am excited for.

Beyond that, I have a lot of games in my back catalog as is I wish to play TLOZ Majoras mask but can't decide if I want to play the N64 original or 3DS remake, as well as Banjo and Kazooie. I am also looking forward to the sims 3 update for mac users this year as it will allow mac players to play the sims 3 in 64bits/metal. So it will be the first time I will be able to play this 2009 game smoothly

 

[PiLhEaD]

When used appropriately and honestly, it's not so bad....

One imho very good example of this is Kingdoms and Castles. Early access via steam, a pretty busy community that the devs listen to and implement some of their ideas, routinely updated and showing promising progress. This I would say has proven the benefits of early access when done well as I doubt this game would have been made without a pre-release funding stream to support the two devs.

 

[askavir]

One imho very good example of this is Kingdoms and Castles. Early access via steam, a pretty busy community that the devs listen to and implement some of their ideas, routinely updated and showing promising progress. This I would say has proven the benefits of early access when done well as I doubt this game would have been made without a pre-release funding stream to support the two devs.

That is actually a great positive example, very nice game, very addictive, and the devs were very professional during development and since release they've been adding many things for free. I'm looking forward to their Kingdoms update which will bring competing civilzations.

Another great example is Star Traders:Frontiers, another very nice and addictive indie title, released almost 2 years ago and the devs kept adding things to the game for free almost every single week since then!

And to me the current reigning champion of Crowdfunded games is Kingdom Come: Deliverance, a game that rivals top triple-A rpgs, and would never exist without crowdfunding.

Unfortunately, there are also examples of shady devs taking people's money and then abandoning the projects before completion, or never even showing any scrutinizable work. I already got burnt a few times (fortunately didn't lose that much money). So now I prefer to just let others fund the games and just wishlist them to follow development . I know it's a bit hypocritical, but after getting burnt I now fear the fire.

 

[Juniper]

That is actually a great positive example, very nice game, very addictive, and the devs were very professional during development and sicne release they've been adding many things for free. I'm looking for their Kingdoms update which will bring competing civilzations.

Another great example is Star Traders:Frontiers, another very nice and addictive indie title, released almost 2 years ago and the devs kept adding things to the game for free almost every single week since then!

And to me the current reigning champion of Crowdfunded games is Kingdom Come: Deliverance, a game that rivals top triple-A rpgs, and would never exist without crowdfunding.

Unfortunately, there are also examples of shady devs taking people's money and then abandoning the projects before completion, or never even showing any scrutinizable work. I already got burnt a few times (fortunately didn't lose that much money). So now I prefer to just let others fund the games and just wishlist them to follow development . I know it's a bit hypocritical, but after getting burnt I now fear the fire.

It boils down to trust - and I have come to the conclusion over many years of pain & money spent that an established company utilising Early Access / Kickstarter / Indigogo or whatever in order to fund their ideas is now a massive red flag in terms of trust. Frontier are Exhibit A for that. I will forever regret that £750 I backed E: D for.

There are developers who actually need that crowd funding money, and use it appropriately. Warhorse Studios / KCD is actually a great example of that - I backed that because of the known pedigree of Daniel Vávra, and that trust was not misplaced. They put their heart & soul into it, and the end result is KCD is everything they said it was going to be. It's one of the best RPGs of the last decade.

But otherwise, yes - I'm the same these days. I tend to wishlist games on EA that I like the look of, and watch them for a while. I have about 80 games wishlisted on Steam at the moment... about half of them are EA efforts from an indie developer. Every so often I go through it and check out the ones I'm interested in, and I'll remove 10-20% of them if they haven't moved forward much or appear 'dead'.

I don't see that as being 'hypocritical' at all. I see it as being more sensible than dropping £750 to a bunch of liars & snake-oil salesmen.

 

[PiLhEaD]

It boils down to trust - and I have come to the conclusion over many years of pain & money spent that an established company utilising Early Access / Kickstarter / Indigogo or whatever in order to fund their ideas is now a massive red flag in terms of trust. Frontier are Exhibit A for that. I will forever regret that £750 I backed E: D for.

Wow and gosh - and to think that I struggled with buying the LEP/game 'bundle' for £70-80.

At the £750 level of backing I'd be hard pressed to think that I got value for money if a £30-£50 game was the only end-result, so would have to view my money as ensuring the game's existence - much like SC backers. I did toy with some of the more expensive packages with ED, but in the end decided the rewards didn't merit the money, for me at least, although I'm sure many people liked (e.g.) having their named station in game. If I had one I guess it would be my home-base 'PiLToPiA.

I'm sure there are many indi developers who start out with the best of intentions, and I'm sure some who possibly don't, leading to many projects that fail for a myriad of often unseen reasons. I suppose Limit Theory would be a case in point, where a single dev took on too much and nearly did himself in with the strain and resultant depression - although to his credit he stopped accepting additional money after a while.

I think ED, Planet Coaster and K&C have been the only games I've backed pre-release. My major issue these days, after Planet Coaster, is that by the time this game came out I'd already played it to death. So, as much as I'm very keen to get my hands on 'MS Flight Sim 2020' (or whatever it will be called) I have no desire to get in on the alpha.

 

[Juniper]

Wow and gosh - and to think that I struggled with buying the LEP/game 'bundle' for £70-80.

At the £750 level of backing I'd be hard pressed to think that I got value for money if a £30-£50 game was the only end-result, so would have to view my money as ensuring the game's existence - much like SC backers. I did toy with some of the more expensive packages with ED, but in the end decided the rewards didn't merit the money, for me at least, although I'm sure many people liked (e.g.) having their named station in game. If I had one I guess it would be my home-base 'PiLToPiA.

I've never put that much into any game before or since, but I got caught in the wave & wanted to go to the launch party, and that was the only way at the time to do it.

Little did I know they'd be offering tickets for £50 later, but that's just another example of the disregard shown to early backers.

There was more, because there were also the novels which were a kind of proxy-back for E: D, and also a 2nd account with LEP bought after the KS ended directly through Frontier. All told, it was probably closer to £1000 I put in. Shameful, really.

The way I look at any game purchase is - 1 hour = £1. If I get 750 hours out of E: D (and I've played at least twice that) then I have value for money. I still regret it though for all kinds of reasons. But what's done is done - I've learned my lesson. I'll never be suckered like that again.

I'm sure there are many indi developers who start out with the best of intentions, and I'm sure some who possibly don't, leading to many projects that fail for a myriad of often unseen reasons. I suppose Limit Theory would be a case in point, where a single dev took on too much and nearly did himself in with the strain and resultant depression - although to his credit he stopped accepting additional money after a while.

Yep, also backed Limit Theory, and was perfectly chill (although sad) about how that turned out. Josh really did do his best, but the project was simply beyond him. It's a shame more than annoying. As you say, he wasn't money-grabbing - he stopped all funding after the Kickstarter ended, which says a lot about him because people were pleading with him to let them throw money at him. And he always refused.

 

[PiLhEaD]

...The way I look at any game purchase is - 1 hour = £1. If I get 750 hours out of E: D (and I've played at least twice that) then I have value for money. I still regret it though for all kinds of reasons. But what's done is done - I've learned my lesson...

That's part of learning, I've certainly wasted quite a bit of money over the years 'chasing the uncatchable' - as you say "what's done is done".

And you're absolutely right - hours fun per £ is how I've justified what for me was a very expensive new computer a month back. Much like my Linn CD player, which was £1,800 over 15 years ago - I still got value for money out of it from the many many hours of pleasure, but then I love music, whilst others may consider that a crazy luxury. Each to our own!

 

[Pixelated Sparkster]

I genuinely see that trust, history, quality, size and price point is what I look into when investing in any games I want to jump into. Which thinking about it, it is a lot to look into when getting a game. Where one trait could be the biggest factor in my purchase (the game could be eh in quality but on a super sale, or I trust the team behind the game and their library and wish to support them).

Now with video games being more readily available via digital distribution, I am very thankful of the fact that I could order a game and make a purchase online to have it downloaded into my system of choice immediately upon purchase. I cannot believe at one point, that I would hunt around my town area for a specific game that I would like to enjoy, and that those prices are inflated greatly due to how games are distributed in my country thanks to shipping the media from outside territories in large bulk, provided if they even have those games readily available. Now a good game could be easily purchased in price points that could even be cheaper than demo discs I grew up with.

With that in mind (and a job that pays for my hobby haha), I do have to look into what games I am looking to dive into. I find time to be a bigger resource than money and what I get into may determine if I am enjoying myself or if I will miss out on other new games. Sometimes a good RPG will grab my attention and I want to invest into it, but I am also a huge sim management fan and would jump to games like The Sims, Two Point Hospital, Roller Coaster Tycoon, and Jurassic World Evolution. I do enjoy playing them as it entertains me, and that is the point of video games at the end of the day, but I always feel a sense of regret of the time I would invest in a handful of favorites instead of jumping in and trying some old gems for new experiences. Could I spend the next 12 hours building a park of dinosaurs again? Or will I finally sit down and play metroid fusion from beginning to end?

But yeah! I do that sometimes, where I look into how much I spent on the game and see if my time playing it and enjoying it justifies the cost purchasing the game. I think I spent around $120 for JWE, but having played it for more than 750+ hours means that the experience is akin to paying $0.16 an hour. I also played panzer dragoon for the nintendo switch which costed about $25, but since I only played 2 hours of it, its like I spent $12 per hour. Which I justify since one game is a business sim that takes time, while the other is a fast arcade like rail shooter which is fun in short bursts. I would go crazy if I spent +750 hours on panzer dragoon!

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Yes, I can agree that for indie devs, early access represents much easier way of publishing their game, sometimes the only way the game could have been done.

BUT

I think early access also removed one important thing the game industry had in place - quality control.
Previously, you had to be damn sure your idea for the game is viable before you started making it. That alone ensured that most of the games being released were... well... good. The fact that you can now release ANY idea as an EA game (not that EA) and keep milking customers, keep changing things, keep making promises about future,... pretty much destroyed any inherent quality control the game industry had and the games coming out of it are in majority absolute B.
Yes, there are a couple of indie games that were amazing and that wouldn't have ever existed if they couldn't use EA as a financing horse. But at the same time there are now thousands and thousands of completey crap and unnecessary games that only dilute the customer/money pool of the gaming industry as a whole.

Imagine opening a business on a premise that customers will start paying you now and some time in a future, you're going to provide services. That's ridiculous. If you want to have a restaurant, you need a space, interior, kitchen, the cook, waiters, a bar,... You can't charge people money to come inside and watch how you're building it. No, you build it first, THEN let the customers in, who will then pay for a product or service. That's how I see things, anyway. As a small business owner I am kind of biased I guess.

I keep my involvement in EA (early access) titles limited. Sure, many stuff looks interesting, but I prefer some proof of concept first, too. Sometimes with devs I know I join in early, but it's mostly when I see some sort of milestone or "roadmap" (this term got burned quite in the past) has been delivered on. It's extremely rare I get rid of my cash with prototype ideas. I think too many people confuse flashy trailers and promises with sound proofing and concepts and that's when they get disappointed. As EA buyer you're kinda the publisher - except you got no say. But customers can still decide when they let go off their money.
So far there are quite a few of bad apples, then a number of failed projects with EA. But what I see on Steam is usually quite well to judge when you put in a bit of extra research (visit game forum, check dev track record). Kickstarter is way worse.

 

[Chris Simon]

I keep my involvement in EA (early access) titles limited. Sure, many stuff looks interesting, but I prefer some proof of concept first, too. Sometimes with devs I know I join in early, but it's mostly when I see some sort of milestone or "roadmap" (this term got burned quite in the past) has been delivered on. It's extremely rare I get rid of my cash with prototype ideas. I think too many people confuse flashy trailers and promises with sound proofing and concepts and that's when they get disappointed. As EA buyer you're kinda the publisher - except you got no say. But customers can still decide when they let go off their money.
So far there are quite a few of bad apples, then a number of failed projects with EA. But what I see on Steam is usually quite well to judge when you put in a bit of extra research (visit game forum, check dev track record). Kickstarter is way worse.

Yes, like I said, I don't really participate in any EA games. (Unless you count Elite as an early access. ), but I can see that with careful approach and responsibility it CAN work.
Sadly people are sheep and easily fooled (see the "other space game") and if developer doesn't have enough integrity and self discipline, it's very easy to slip into exploitation of customers over finishing the game.
And from the fact that I know more games where it went wrong than games that were really finished as promised and on time, I suspect it is the more common occurence. I am a pessimist when comes to human nature.

 

[Mole HD]

Yes, like I said, I don't really participate in any EA games. (Unless you count Elite as an early access. ), but I can see that with careful approach and responsibility it CAN work.
Sadly people are sheep and easily fooled (see the "other space game") and if developer doesn't have enough integrity and self discipline, it's very easy to slip into exploitation of customers over finishing the game.
And from the fact that I know more games where it went wrong than games that were really finished as promised and on time, I suspect it is the more common occurence. I am a pessimist when comes to human nature.

I've got Origin access premier from EA which allows me to dabble in stuff I wouldn't normally buy in to...like Anthem. I tried that and promptly uninstalled it after 10 minutes even though I had early access via OA.

I must admit...even coming from EA, Origin access is pretty good if you like dabbling in all sorts of games...even older ones from the vault.

 

[Chris Simon]

I've got Origin access premier from EA which allows me to dabble in stuff I wouldn't normally buy in to...like Anthem. I tried that and promptly uninstalled it after 10 minutes even though I had early access via OA.

I must admit...even coming from EA, Origin access is pretty good if you like dabbling in all sorts of games...even older ones from the vault.

Yeah, I've got the Origin Access and Uplay+ as well. It's good. Saved me a lot of money over the years, I'd say, if we'd count every game I've played that I would need to buy otherwise. These subscription services are good.

But I think you misunderstood the topic and I was talking about Early Access, not Electronic Arts.

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

I am currently enjoying myself with the new Nintendo switch 51 worldwide classics. It is an odd choice but it feel refreshing to play it compared to the other games I have.

I am looking forward to planet coaster when it comes out on ps4. I also wish to replay spongebob squarepants battle for bikini bottom rehydrated and destroy all humans remake. I think there will be a next crash bandicoot gaming coming soon based on rumors which I am excited for.

Beyond that, I have a lot of games in my back catalog as is I wish to play TLOZ Majoras mask but can't decide if I want to play the N64 original or 3DS remake, as well as Banjo and Kazooie. I am also looking forward to the sims 3 update for mac users this year as it will allow mac players to play the sims 3 in 64bits/metal. So it will be the first time I will be able to play this 2009 game smoothly

I was considering Nintendo because of the kids, but the overpriced hardwave is just too much to stomach.

 

[Pixelated Sparkster]

I was considering Nintendo because of the kids, but the overpriced hardwave is just too much to stomach.

Yeah, nintendo is very overpriced, it is a sad truth about them. They are really expensive even after the game has been out for years because they price their games with a premium that the games are nintendo approved. The switch has a lot of indies and their mainline games are almost consistently great, but the price is harder to bear when so many other games could be sold at a cheaper price compared to a singlee nintendo game.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Of the best EA experiences I had I'd point out Rimworld, Prison Architect and Oxygen Not Included. Space Engineers was fun too, UBoat goes quite well, too, and that goes for a couple games - only: Once I played during EA extensively, I'm often saturated with the game once 1.0 releases. But that is fine.

Gone bad have DayZ - and I had a couple friends really going fanboi on this. When the dev (Hall?) stated he'd leave and couldn't be bothered I called it a fail and they were still defending it.
Rogue System or so was spaceship simulator. The dev apparently had head trauma and disabled. What can you do, that's tragic. I still start it sometimes - it has a neat ship system simulated. A bit like DCS in space.
A couple games just went another direction gameplay-wise.

Oh and From the Depths is pretty neat too. Release is planned this year I think.