Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Digital Gaming AARs / Re: CMANO - Surprise Party, 1989
« Last post by Iconoclast on Today at 11:33:00 PM »
Great write up!

Thank you for including real-life phraseology in the AAR, please keep that up
Digital Gaming AARs / Re: FIRE IN THE GROGS TOO! (Ep 12 current)
« Last post by Iconoclast on Today at 11:21:18 PM »
Well,  thank you for doing this. I enjoyed the Videos immensely and perfectly understand that at some point cost-benefit is just not cutting it.

If you ever decide to do the Vid, I will be watching, if you don't thank you anyway. It really increased my intrigue with the COIN series, although I am currently eying the Next war  :-\


I fully agree with MilOps.

Something I am wondering about is the overall aesthetics in combination with a "line drawing" order system as in UG: Civil War.  I wish there was a WWII or WWIII style game with this; although I can't seem to reconcile the simple order giving with my demand for complexity at the same time, i.e. order sequencing, different postures etc. But this engine and a WWII title with more unit complexity and fleshed out FoW would be something.

Then I am always thinking back to HPS titles like PoI and Decisive Action. I would love to see a more "generic" (blue vs red) style wargame that plays a bit more with the idea of having a staff. I liked to click around in PoI2 and just check out the staff screens, really gave me the feeling that people are working for me and provide me with staff products to help me make decisions. I would love to see that make a comeback. But please without that click load and bug fest...

And then there is this entire notion of Kriegsspiel style games. Classical multiplayer is interesting, but I would like to see wargames that start to really allow players to play above and below each other and incentivise increased communication.   I think it was General-Staff that wanted to introduce something similar, although I might be wrong.


Computer Wargaming / Lux Deluxe
« Last post by solops on Today at 09:36:00 PM »
has anyone played this Risk-like game available on Steam? I am curious. All of the Risk PC games are really awful. I wondered if this similar game was any better vs AI.
Computer Wargaming / Re: Here Lies Early Access. RIP
« Last post by mikeck on Today at 09:30:20 PM »
I don’t think it needs to be held in escrow. Give the devs the cash. But start the “return clock” when the game is released and not when I bought early access.
I’m sure there is a concern that- by then- people will be tired of playing and refund it but I don’t think so. You give people a quality game and most wont return it even if they are tired of it.

I doubt the cash steam pays back for returns would be higher than the income from all the sold games. If it is, then that dev is done on steam

BUT, like Jason said, it’s about $$. I’m not being sarcastic when I say that Capitalism is probably the greatest invention in history. Capitalism has brought more people and more societies out of true poverty than anything else. It’s responsible for most of the things we own and rely on. The disadvantage is that companies generally don’t do the right thing...they do the thing that lessens $$loss or increases $gain.

So until Steam concludes that they would make more money clamping down on the perpetual early access crap, they won’t.
Computer Wargaming / Re: Here Lies Early Access. RIP
« Last post by GaryMc on Today at 09:10:28 PM »
I've honestly had little interest in Early Access games ever.  Even in the rare games I've Kickstarted, I've not messed with it until the full release. (I think I played 20 minutes of the first Beta Battletech build I had access to, then didn't come back until the real game came out.)

I would rather wait for a complete experience, and then decide if I want to throw my money at it.
Computer Wargaming / Re: Here Lies Early Access. RIP
« Last post by DennisS on Today at 08:52:27 PM »
I like the idea of early access and many titles have done quite well with it. For example, Endless Space 2. I bought early access, the dev took note of bugs and play-issues, incorporated fixes and then released a final finished copy.

BUT, there are too many devs who create games that live in “early access perpetuity”. Games like Naval Action and Predestination. They are in early access for years and years while the developers are able to deflect complaints. Players complain that they bought a game 4 years ago and it’s atill a mess to which the Devs respond: “it’s in early access”. So yeah, I don’t appreciate being sold an unfinished product that will never be finished under the guise of early access.

I liked the idea overall. Even the best beta testing can’t uncover the game play problems that thousands of players can. And hell, who DOESNT like getting a game early? But I would Like to see some type of steam policy whereby a game gets no more than 1 year in early access. Once the game leaves early access and is released, then the Steam return policy kicks in as if you had JUST purchase it. That way, if they release the game from early access but it’s still not finished, I can get a refund.

There is NO excuse for Naval Action and Predestination. Games that have barely advanced in years and seem to use “early access” as merely a tool to allow them to collect money while they fail to have to release a finished game

Naval Action remains the game on my 270+ Steam games listing that has the most hours. Several hundred hours. But....I tried firing it up the other day, after a full year or two, and just couldn't understand the game mechanics. I am told that instead of several hundred players on the server at one time, you might find ... 10. Seriously. Why bother?
Computer Wargaming / Re: Here Lies Early Access. RIP
« Last post by JasonPratt on Today at 07:38:50 PM »
What's that shruggy smile ascii set?

If it's a side project, then they have other work (or they're at college and working or whatever), and they have other ways to survive.

If it's a business, then they should treat their endeavors like a legitimate business, and borrow capital to pay back from their success (and/or save up capital from doing other things to work their project with). The most successful EAs have been either relatively simple projects that can be worked on by a few people in their spare time (category one), and so who don't need reward before they finish; or they've done enough work already to provide an entertaining finished-enough project worth buying outright which they can build off of, and so have a product to actually sell already. (I can think of one project which combines both methods: the original Fortresscraft mod of Minecraft.) The first isn't a solid business model but it isn't supposed to be either. It's a hobby that might pay off eventually. The second is a solid business model that uses funds previously acquired by other means and/or by a method that encourages work to pay the initial money back.

The abuse comes from acquiring the prior funds from the end users. Once they've reaped the harvest early, they have no business motivation to grow the crop for the eventual harvest. They may have other motives like ethical honor and/or artistic drive to continue, but they can only have business motivation to continue if they want to move on to another project -- in which case the main motivation will be to move on to the next project as soon as possible to collect the prepaid money on that one. Which leads to a temptation to call it quits on the current project unfinished.

(I suppose business motivation might split the difference and go for developing DLC instead of finishing the current game. ARK has taken some flack for leading the way in doing that... ;) )

Of course, the early prepay on a very unfinished project with promises to finish it, works great in the short run. And after all, caveat emptor: it's a way of getting around the refund system, hoping people are more likely to wait on a promise of initial quality or concept until it's too late to get their money back. Shady capitalism is still capitalism. From a pragmatic standpoint I can't fault the strategy of an early full harvest without necessarily putting in the full work to get the harvest! -- so long as it works! The buyers bear the brunt of the cost-result differential, not the developers. And so long as no promises are legally made, and legal warnings are given that there may be no payoff, then so long as people are willing to risk their cash, then the market functions. Just like buying lottery tickets.

Neither Steam nor the devs can have any motivation to do something different, and I'm not in favor of forcing them to do so legally somehow. But the market is as the market does, and if the market dries up then they'll either have to change practices or quit.
Computer Wargaming / Re: Here Lies Early Access. RIP
« Last post by jomni on Today at 07:06:09 PM »
Jason that defeats the purpose of EA (crowdfunding). Devs need money to survive. If they are held in escrow, might as well not go though EA in the first place.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10