@Mangakamen
"Dean Takahashi" The same guy who screwed up the Cuphead Tutorial?
@josephdanejackson
3:53 Let me correct something. If a user refunds the game, you can still see the negative review, and that they refunded it, but it will not count towards the overall negative score of the game. This is a measure Steam uses to prevent review bombing. It's stated within their systems.
@trentonpreston3463
Hot take: if you are willing to take the money of players for an unfinished game, you must be willing to have your game reviewed while unfinished. If you aren't confident in the games ability to succeed in its early access state, then wait for a full release
@nathan9903
Reviews are a MUST for early access. Between the reviews warning me of abandonware and now steam just straight up saying its not been updated has saved me SO much money.
@The_Primary_Axiom
You really can’t hate mainstream gaming media enough. They are a blight on the industry.
@ShemJacobs33
The easiest and most obvious solution is having the “early access” version have a separate page. Basically treating it as a stand-alone title compared to the finished product
@radiatedduck
Watching before Asmongold does.
@po-cf1ut
but Steam shows recent review scores so people can get an impression of opinions within recent timeframe, reflecting how a game may evolve over time
@TimHortonHAW
It's almost like releasing an unfinished product for money is a bad idea.
@BLVCKO
I highly disagree with not having reviews for early access games. Early access is a double edge sword, If you're going to side step the financial risk and ask money from player for an unfinished product, you better release a kickass project. As a someone who's bought early access games, what's stopping devs from abandoning their games or not keeping their promises to the players that had supported them when they had nothing. Devs like the ones from battlebit remasters had completely abandoned their game and games like Ground Branch had been in early access for years but their product is still a shell of a game. A lot of developers has taken advantage of steam's early access system by pocketing money and not delivering promised product.
@LordSkullkid
We are the media now
@jaranth
One way devs can soften the impact of bad early access reviews is to offer a development roadmap. I feel players are less likely to post a bad review when they can look forward to stated updates... it lets the players know its not abandonware. Devs can always change roadmaps based on user feedback. IME games that do this tend to gain a devoted following. Sometimes a new update is as exciting as a new release.
@RydraMMO
Who actually reads Kotaku? Nothing but hate farming.
@kyledabearsfan
I whole heartedly disagree with "early access games shouldnt be scored". Thats just another way to dodge accountability for a near infinite amount of time. There isnt a strict enough window on how long a game can be in early access. If a game drops in early access, players need to be able to give that feedback to other players and developers in the most efficient way. In theory, a Early Access game could be in Early Access forever.
@msotic
Well if they dont want negative reviews, release your game after you tested it. Its not like you pay less because game is not finished
@Updup
Finally some real fucking journalism
@elindred
The legacy gaming press probably have it out for Mahler since he humiliated that one activist who claimed to work for him for credibility.
@SoulKingsss
THIS WHAT DEVS DONT UNDERSTAND. You have ONE chance to give a good first impression. Thats it. and under the guise of "early access" does not help players judgements at all. They should do Alpha/Beta tech tests. like recent ARC Raiders. Players know its more like a demo, and changes will be made.
@jamesbrady1930
when you sell a game, Early Access does not shield you from criticism. Finished or not, when you require money for someone to try your game, you are open to discussion on the quality of your game and whether it's worth buying or not.
@LegendaryDrops