read the warning.... if you dont like the ea deal... dont buy it...

thats basically it...

i just block... never see it... dont worry at all...


not enough quality control is what i will always say about ea....


but blocking was the best thing i did...

Valve already made a policy regarding eternal Earl Access. There are consequences. If you're not the dev on a stuck project you'll never experience it.

I'm not particularly picking out EA here. My personal experience is with Team 17 and Hell Let Loose. They bought the game from Black Matter in 2022 and have been in "development" of the game. They continuously released updates to it that degraded the game play to point that it is unplayable by most of the player base. If they had an official release of the game that doesn't get "developed" then this wouldn't have happened. That and they were changing things behind the scenes that they were not making public. If the updates were DLC instead then they would have just made a bad DLC and the players could have just gone back to the original and keep playing. The way it's being done now there is no choice to revert back to the earlier version.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

I'm not particularly picking out EA here. My personal experience is with Team 17 and Hell Let Loose. They bought the game from Black Matter in 2022 and have been in "development" of the game. They continuously released updates to it that degraded the game play to point that it is unplayable by most of the player base. If they had an official release of the game that doesn't get "developed" then this wouldn't have happened. That and they were changing things behind the scenes that they were not making public. If the updates were DLC instead then they would have just made a bad DLC and the players could have just gone back to the original and keep playing. They it's being done now there is no choice to revert back to the earlier version.

ea is the only place that you should be able to choose were you the customer
want to keep the game... by reverting back to something you liked more...

that seems fair... and might stop anything dodgey happening like making a game
worse so it loses interest so the devs can repackage it for more sales...

but i could be wrong

Yes, I have heard of the policies but I think that a lot of it gets brushed under the rug as the developers claim that it is "just maintenance".

Originally posted by DarkCrystalMethod:

Valve already made a policy regarding eternal Earl Access. There are consequences. If you're not the dev on a stuck project you'll never experience it.

Can you source this for me? I've never heard anything about consequences for eternal Early Access.

Maybe it isn't early access that is the issue as it is developers pushing unwanted updates out because technically Hell Let Loose isn't in early access. The problem is that they keep dropping maps and major mechanic changes without the ability to revert back making what was paid for pretty much useless. Perhaps it should be stated more as control over what is considered a patch and what should just be DLC to put it the hands of the consumers.

You can't tell developers not to develop their game, unless, that is, you own the IP. If you don't like the idea of developers working on their games (whether it's EA or not) then you should pretty much find a new hobby. This is the era of GAAS and that mindset is being adapted to many games that aren't specifically GAAS, too. It is not Valve's place to tell their business partners to not do that.

Originally posted by datCookie:

Can you source this for me? I've never heard anything about consequences for eternal Early Access.

He probably means the "last updated" warning. Which isn't so much a consequence as a reminder to customers that some games can be stuck in development hell. The original Blue Box warning also tells those who bother to read it that games may never see completion.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

Maybe it isn't early access that is the issue as it is developers pushing unwanted updates out because technically Hell Let Loose isn't in early access. The problem is that they keep dropping maps and major mechanic changes without the ability to revert back making what was paid for pretty much useless. Perhaps it should be stated more as control over what is considered a patch and what should just be DLC to put it the hands of the consumers.

You have that control. Don't buy a game on release. That's it, really.
Do. Not. Buy. Games. On. Release. It's not like new maps & mechanics changes aren't to be expected, my dude. So if you're really THAT averse to new maps (which is honestly extremely weird) or mechanics changes (because post-release balance is bad, for some reason), don't buy games early. Don't buy Early Access games, don't buy "fully released" games on release. Give it a year or two or three. Then you'll get a game that's actually-really-no-more-maps-finished, also you'll usually get it for dirt-cheap on some sale then.

You have the power to solve your own problem. So use that power and go solve your own problem!

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

Maybe it isn't early access that is the issue as it is developers pushing unwanted updates out because technically Hell Let Loose isn't in early access.

They left Early Access on July 27 2021.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

The problem is that they keep dropping maps and major mechanic changes without the ability to revert back making what was paid for pretty much useless.

They had a roadmap for 2021/2022, people shouldn't buy it if they don't want what's in the roadmap. It appears on a quick search they added other roadmaps as more content was released.

Online PvP games are likely to get content updates especially to keep gameplay fresh.

Granted it's online PvP, previous versions don't make sense compared to SP-only or Multiplayer-optional.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

Perhaps it should be stated more as control over what is considered a patch and what should just be DLC to put it the hands of the consumers.

Good number of the DLC are free for that game. Cosmetics are optional and extra, and can be used to unlock in-game content, which for games like that the DLC data is already present when the game receives a DLC, it just unlocks it for use in the game.

Devs have control over their product which is better than letting random people decide, especially for an online PvP game.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

I think that there should be a hard two year cap where the developers should have to put out an official release and everything after that is DLC.

This would backfire as the game would be "released" and the content that would've likely been included for free, would suddenly be a paid DLC. Don't like the games progress as-is? Don't buy it until it's in a condition you accept for purchase. Want to see if it makes it to full release? Be ready to be patient, wishlist it.

Well I wish it were that simple. You see. I did buy the game about a year or so after it was released. (this is a solid policy and I stand by it as well) After a couple years the title was purchased buy a bigger developer and it went downhill from there. The "quality improvements" they made slowly made the game less playable. When I purchased the game I absolutely fell in love with it but it went down hill after the fact. I am not against new mechanics being introduced or maps for that matter. In fact I would gladly pay for such things as a DLC but to force updates that break the game on the customer base is wrong. I don't see any reason why DLC cant be released instead of forced updates to protect the investment of the person that bought it. I don't see that as controlling the developers ability to develop their game as I see it as a way to do it in a way that doesn't screw people over.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

I am not against new mechanics being introduced or maps for that matter. In fact I would gladly pay for such things as a DLC but to force updates that break the game on the customer base is wrong.

The DLC all appears to be cosmetic at a quick look. Be specific as to what "breaks" the game. Massively-multiplayer online-pvp games tend to keep getting updated to retain or increase the playerbase.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

I don't see any reason why DLC cant be released instead of forced updates to protect the investment of the person that bought it.

Again; Massively-multiplayer online-pvp. So to see the DLC on other players/their stuff in-game, it must be included in an update. Getting the DLC merely unlocks it to be usable in such games.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

I don't see that as controlling the developers ability to develop their game as I see it as a way to do it in a way that doesn't screw people over.

What, exactly, has "screwed people over" about updating a massively-multiplayer online-pvp game with more content and releasing optional cosmetic extras to sustain development/fund new development, cover server costs etc?

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

Maybe it isn't early access that is the issue as it is developers pushing unwanted updates out because technically Hell Let Loose isn't in early access.

They left Early Access on July 27 2021.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

The problem is that they keep dropping maps and major mechanic changes without the ability to revert back making what was paid for pretty much useless.

They had a roadmap for 2021/2022, people shouldn't buy it if they don't want what's in the roadmap. It appears on a quick search they added other roadmaps as more content was released.

Online PvP games are likely to get content updates especially to keep gameplay fresh.


Granted it's online PvP, previous versions don't make sense compared to SP-only or Multiplayer-optional.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

Perhaps it should be stated more as control over what is considered a patch and what should just be DLC to put it the hands of the consumers.

Good number of the DLC are free for that game. Cosmetics are optional and extra, and can be used to unlock in-game content, which for games like that the DLC data is already present when the game receives a DLC, it just unlocks it for use in the game.

Devs have control over their product which is better than letting random people decide, especially for an online PvP game.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

I think that there should be a hard two year cap where the developers should have to put out an official release and everything after that is DLC.

This would backfire as the game would be "released" and the content that would've likely been included for free, would suddenly be a paid DLC. Don't like the games progress as-is? Don't buy it until it's in a condition you accept for purchase. Want to see if it makes it to full release? Be ready to be patient, wishlist it.

This is why I stated it differently. You are correct, they have been out of early access for a while.

I can see how DLC could be a headache for PvP servers but splitting servers over different DLC requirements would be better than loosing the player base. Besides, maybe it would push the developers to be a little more methodical about releasing things if they know it needs to be purchased.

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

I am not against new mechanics being introduced or maps for that matter. In fact I would gladly pay for such things as a DLC but to force updates that break the game on the customer base is wrong.

The DLC all appears to be cosmetic at a quick look. Be specific as to what "breaks" the game. Massively-multiplayer online-pvp games tend to keep getting updated to retain or increase the playerbase.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

I don't see any reason why DLC cant be released instead of forced updates to protect the investment of the person that bought it.

Again; Massively-multiplayer online-pvp. So to see the DLC on other players/their stuff in-game, it must be included in an update. Getting the DLC merely unlocks it to be usable in such games.

Originally posted by Combatwombat87:

I don't see that as controlling the developers ability to develop their game as I see it as a way to do it in a way that doesn't screw people over.

What, exactly, has "screwed people over" about updating a massively-multiplayer online-pvp game with more content and releasing optional cosmetic extras to sustain development/fund new development, cover server costs etc?

Its not the cosmetics that killed it. When BF6 was about to launch they came out with a pretty big update (U18) that introduced a lot of new mechanics. It didn't seem like they tested it at all. Look up hell let loose tank kickflips on youtube and you can see what I mean. This didn't happen before. On top of that they messed with something on the server end as well. I started loosing connection with servers all of the sudden that appeared to have low ping. It would also appear as if you have good connection but when I was chatting with one of the server admins they reported my ping spiking 5 times higher than I was seeing on my end. There were also fatal errors occurring as well causing crashes. (I think they have since fixed that though)

One of the earliest and most successful games in Early Access was Nuclear Throne

It was 'technically' 2 years late as it was mostly intended to be a small project. But the reception to the game was extremely good, and the devs constantly improved and iterated on it with the community. If they had 'stuck' to an aribtrary deadline both the devs and teh community would have hated it.

Satisfactory came out June 2020. It was initially described as "1 year maybe more". Version 1.0 did not get released until Sep 2024. Which is 'technically 3 years late'. And if Satisfactory was forced to release in June of 2021, that would have been the tail end of v0.4. Again no one is really complaining about this.

Putting arbitrary rules to 'release' a game doesn't make a game better. There are plenty of examples of games being 'late' that are excellent and the community was fine with it.

This is a solution for the wrong problem.