STEAM

The metacritic scores being put up are wholly unnecessary, but they're not undeserved.

The Steam Early Access is, as we all know, priced at $90 for access to the testing stages for the game -- but that's all it promises, as well as the game release itself.

Here's the difference between Kickstarter backers and Steam Early Access: For Kickstarter, those who gave the project $90 did so as a donation to fund the development of the game, and as a result you're being rewarded very generously with an upgraded version of the game that gives you some awesome bonuses. For Steam, you're essentially buying the game during its testing, when it's already fully in development. You're paying -- not donating -- $90 for none of the bonuses offered to those who willfully donated $90 to fund initial development.

You're asking Steam users to pay $50 to $60 more than what is slated to be the retail price, for alpha and beta access, because you want to keep things fair for your Kickstarter donators, while stabbing Steam users in the back by setting the price where it is and not offering the same bonuses Kickstarter backers are getting.

The only solution I can see for this whole situation is to offer Galactic Edition on release to Steam users who purchase the Early Access to justify the $90.

Can I personally apologise on behalf of the, quite frankly, IDIOTS that have infested the Steam forums.

Those people are the worst of trolls and quite frankly ive repeatedly tried to explain to them in multiple threads that the way the pricing works, as well as informing them how utterly disgusting it is to try and dismantle a game on Metacritic that hard working developers worked on.


Personally I think it was a massive mistake to bring the game at this state to Steam because all those imbeciles were always going to do that.

The point is that 80% of the people on the Steam forums are pure trolls. Most of them dont even know what PA is. Most of them dont know who Uber Games are, or GPG or Supreme Commander or Total Annihilation etc etc. Most of those imbeciles were on the Steam store and they happened to see an early access game that cost £69 or whatever, and they decided to jump on it and rant without knowing 1 single detail.

Basically this. The community forums for almost all early access games are full of people who don't seem to understand what alphas are.

For example, people complaining of how terrible a game is when it just released a week ago, seemingly not realizing it's an alpha game, or talking about how overpriced the game is (such as Prison Architect).

It would be great if people would actually read what they are getting into before buying a early access game. Maybe making early access games not showing up in the new releases section (or have a new section just for new early access games), and forcing them to read a simple explanation of what they're getting into.

What? You can't seriously believe that can you? Those "reviews" have nothing to do with the game itself!

If the reviews stated that for the content available the cost was high that's one thing, but what they're doing is nothing more than hurting the game and making the situation worse for everyone, including themselves.

Mike

Sorry but ive been there THE WHOLE NIGHT.

Those "metacritic" scores are the most BS thing ive seen. Half of those ****ING trolls are doing it out of spite and the other half are doing it because their small brains cant comprehend the concept of Kickstarter.

Im sorry im getting annoyed but Ive been waiting for this game for a long time and looking forward to it and it infuriates me that games like this get destroyed by FOOLS.

It's two completely different things.

Yes, people who complain about alpha games while they're in alpha, and not realizing they're in alpha, are annoying as crap -- but there's a difference between complaining about game bugs in an alpha build, and complaining about the price just to get into the testing.

$90 for early access to the game on Steam, with none of the bonuses that have been offered to Kickstarter supporters/those who purchased off of the website, itself, is just ludicrous and not justifiable.

Is it confirmed that the $90 only gets you the alpha, not the rest of the extras?

All the information that is on the Steam page is that the buying the Early Access will get you Alpha and Beta access, as well as the full game upon release, but there is no information as to whether or not those who buy the game now while it's in Alpha will be given the Galactic Edition. If further information was posted clarifying that buying the game off Steam Early Access will guarantee the Galactic Edition, then I can completely justify buying the game and would do so on Steam in a heartbeat.

First of all, this is just my personal opinion, and thus will not be objective yet I have checked some documentation before making this response. I'm posting this here because it is a serious , and not written some enraged kid, piece of criticism.
If you could clear some of the things I mentioned in the arguments that will follow, I'd be very happy. If you can't/won't or do not have the time, I understand.

Apperently Steam didn't clarify or update the part in which you stated that the version on Steam will be the Galactic version. Please disregard that part.

Here it goes:
How can you justify saying "I'm not concerned about us looking greedy just because people don't understand what it costs to build videogames." -Neutrino (an Uber employee)

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=46284&start=190

Definetly click this link if you want more insight into their responses on their forums. I'd like to point out that they would like a sticky thread on Steam to explain exactly why it should be priced this way. Neutrino also says that they only want the passionate players at the moment and that is why they are pricing it this way, I'll come back to that statement later.

The previous statement, in my opinion, goes wholeheartedly against the gaming community in general. As game developers, they should have had experience with the gaming community and the history of game development.
I , for one, will not tolerate statements like "they don't understand the costs" because plain facts state otherwise:
- How come games like Call of Duty, Halo, Need for Speed, Starcraft etc. can release their AAA games for much less than you can release an , already kickstarted, alpha project?
- How much costs does a low to mid-level company of 11 employees really have?
- Did you not get Kickstarted twice the amount you asked for (They recieved 2 million $)

How could you not assume that there would be hate or negative PR coming your way?
They should have known that the current gaming community is very sensetive for these "scandals" because of recent events , such as WarZ and SimCity, should they not? I ,for one, will not tolerate changes on this level in marketing strategies and what if every big gaming company adjusts their strategy likewise?
- Will this be a new age in which we pay 90 $ for an alpha version of Call of Duty or an alpha version of Simcity 2014? I'd rather think not.
- I'm pretty sure that if this is succesful we would see similar attempts from EA, which has lost all it's credebility in my eyes.

However while this is a "what if" game, it is still a justified response. This isn't just an anxiety attack. I fear for the future of gaming because we fail to stand united, most of the time. This was the perfect situation in which people can get together to "bomb" the deliverer of bad news or bad ideas. Yet I would not go as far as to "bomb" their score on Metacritic for this game.

As for my response to the high price "because they are searching for passionate players'. There are tons of ways that you can find passionate players for your games, yet you chose this route.
You could have got out there and spread the news that you were looking for active and passionate alpha testers. You could have spoken to gaming channels (like Totalbiscuit who was promoting this game), put a F2P system for testers with regular enquiries or you could have asked fan communities of older games. BUT! You insisted on doing this. You insisted on going to Steam (or getting approached by it) , the general store of games, inquiring after active alpha testers at a whooping 90 dollars.
Or if you too have the similar fortune of living in Europe 110 dollars worth of euros.

Does this not seem absurd to your company? We would have to pay them to become their dedicated testers? Just because their already established fanbase paid that much?
A similar example would be selling furniture that doesn't work properly yet at an IKEA store at an increased price because the people who bought the first X bought it at a higher price. Or they want you to be their trusted fanbase of their furniture. That's why new company sells goods at ridicoulsy high prices right?

At the same time, people say: "Well if you don't want to pay, wait till it gets out". Yet then we can't tell them our suggestions or setbacks in the game because I, for one, do not want to pay that much money. So we would always only see the final result. Major problem in my opinion because these fanboys can be blind enough to see the results more colorful than they really are.

Furthermore, their company , as a whole, has not released enough games to deserve this kind of "street or gaming cred". The company has shot itself in the foot by using this strategy. They want passionate gamers who are willing to pay a lot of money for a remake of a classic. A classic which they didn't make entirely tehmselves. Do not get me wrong, members of Uber have worked on the classic. But now it seems to me that they are getting as much money as possible out of the Steam-community in this early alpha. Reviving an old game and putting it in a new cover with a lacking statement should not suffice to get millions of dollars from gamers! I can see that they made changes to improve the game but for their asking price it is simply not enough, for me.

I understand the arguments made of "line-cutting" but understand that Steam is no Kickstarter. They have already raised 2 million dollars on kickstarter. Maybe you could make yourself believe that Greenlight is a Kickstarter, but certainly not Steam itself. Steam should be reserved for finished games and late-beta only!

Now I get to the fact that they want to "stand by their original backers"
Surely you want the same prices along the board then?
- On kickstarter you could get the finished game at 20 $
- On kickstarter you could get early access to the Beta at 40 $
- On kickstarter you could get alpha access at 90$
And this is excluded the extra's.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/659 ... ration-rts

However I, living in Europe, would be paying 110$ for this early access which (because it is not on Kickstarter anymore) will not give me the following:

Special commemorative limited edition full size game box, PA backer T-shirt and a digital art book showcasing the units and concept art from PA. In addition, special thanks in the in-game credits highlighting your contribution. You also get access to the game at Alpha stage. Includes all previous tiers. Those previous tiers were an alpha commander (or Progenitor commander),private discussion boards and digital soundtrack. Please add $15 additional for international shipping.

So by their statements, I would get less for the same amount of money? Because I should pay if I want to become a devoted fan?
Even if I wait it would be at a loss for me, because you could buy the finished game for 20$ on Kickstarter.
Either way, Steam users will get less for the same amount of cash.

My end-all suggestion would be that they never should have put it in the highlights and let it gain it's fanboy status (with their high pricing) till they drop to the market accepted pricing. I cannot tolerate their economic view on the situation by milking us with ridiculous prices for passionate gaming. You have to grow your passionate community and not profit from us so greedily in order to claim a fanbase.

Lastly, I'd like to excuse myself for grammer or spelling mistakes since English is not my native tongue.

One concerned gamer

It *is* the galactic edition. Steam will update to clarify this.

Thank you for confirming this. I'll let the teeming and frothing masses of the Steam forums know.

I dont think you guys understand how people on steam feel. The people that used kickstarted payed to help delevop the game and they got early access as a bonus. The players on steam did not do this and they are paying to play the game. Every company that puts the alpha or beta at higher prices than the actual release must be mentally challenged. Tats not how it works on steam so just take it off or lower the price.

Have any games other than this one actually put an early access out which cost more than the sticker price? I'm curious.

Nobody is saying you couldn't charge more than the final price for a product through Early Access, they are instead questioning the wisdom of it.

You can not deny that most studios both bigger and smaller than yours have chosen to go one way, and you have gone the opposite direction. Since we are all here talking about it, it certainly generated buzz of some kind and that can work in your favour.

But it might also not.

Can you convert existing keys already?

Because they sell millions of copies. Economy of scale anyone?

Much more then you know. Really, if you don't know how somethings works, better not try to argue with it.

2mio$ is a tiny amount for a game like this. They not only got more money then they wanted initially, they also expanded the scope of the game which instantly makes the game more expensive.

Usual strategy game development is on the scale of 10mio$ or more. (Don't remember the exact cost of SupCom, but it was pretty high.)



And the rest of your post is a whine about how you didn't back the kickstarter so you can't get some goodies, oh noes. You didn't risk your money there, your loss.

And finally, you're not a crusader for the good of gaming by attacking the revenue model of a small company. Really. :mrgreen:

-------------------

Do I got this correctly? People on steam got something different that they're not used to and now their feelings are hurt? So uber should remove the game from steam? Seriously?

Gamers really have no right to complain on the financing on a development house unless it's VERY shifty or they know exactly how they work.

Because those games are finished and they are funded by multi billion dollar public companies?

Yes we got more than $900k but that wasn't the cost of developing the game. Which you don't know. We have way more than 11 employees BTW and our costs are substantial.

Because we've been pre-selling the game on our website since day 1 at this price.

People are passionate about things they care about. Trust me it's better than the alternative of nobody showing up for the party.

Quick, get the CTO of EA to respond to you. Good luck with that. Are you really comparing us to EA?

And we chose Steam because people asked for it.

Given inflation I don't even think the price is that high. Certainly not higher than buying Total Annihilation on day 1 back in the 90's.

The internet is famous for getting mad and then forgetting about it.

I don't really have a response to this other than, I disagree.

In your opinion.

Your costs are higher because taxes are included in european prices on Steam.

Because you didn't support the game early when it was being kickstarted? They get more because they made the game happen. Without them, no game. I will pretty much protect our kickstarter backers over anything else.

So what? I want it known that supporting us on KS has real advantages. You can still buy the game for $40 from our website.

We aren't trying to get as many people as possible. We want to grow the community over time.

No problem on the grammar, you did great.

In response:
- I understand economy of scale. Yet usual game price at releases is set between 40-60, is it not?
- I must admit that I do not know how much it costs to run a company like that, if there are some figures that I could check or some released figures of the accountancy, I'd be more than willing to study it further.
-I did not know they expanded their initial scope of the game
-I'm not really whining about the goodies, I had no real interest in them but since both sides, Steam and Kickstarter, gets the same edition. That argument of mine is not worth anything more
-I know I'm not really a crusader, you could just call it anxiousness towards bigger companies trying to implicate this strategy into the renewal of classics.

Thank for your response Neutrino

-I based my informations of the 11 staff members of the Kickstarter. Sorry for misinformation
-The PR stuff is , in my opinion, still debatable
- No, I'm not truly comparing Uber to EA. I'm just frightened to see huge companies use this to sell renewed classics. Especially EA
- I don't know if it was Greenlight or not. Yet putting it on steam highlight might have caused a bit too much commotion
-I can't say I have paid for the first one. Just lended it from a friend.
-It's true that you can't do anything about the tax in Europe.
- I can agree that I shall have to pay 10 euros more to play the game that friends sponsored on KS
- I still disagree using Steam as a source of alpha cash injections
- I still disagree for having us pay a lot to become dedicated testers
-We might have our differences but I am happy you replied.

I will buy this game on release, or perhaps even join friends in beta (who chipped in with KS). But 90 euros is a bit too high for my price range.

Thanks

I can't help but laugh when people compare Uber to EA, I mean seriously!

EA has just announced a new Battlefront game, that's great news but if you were to go to them and say "Can I have it 6 months earlier than release please?" They would just say either jog on or charge a huge amount of money for it!

I just don't understand the logic these steam users seem to have.
"We will pay less if you let us have the game early" <------ Logic!