Stoneshard - Gameplay

[HiddenX]

Splattercatgaming checked out Stoneshard after the recent patch:

Stoneshard - Open World Medieval Mercenary Survival RPG

More information.

 

[Carnifex]

I keep reading good things about this one, need to find the time to get around to buying and trying it out.

 

[JDR13]

Another game that seems like it's been in early access for ages.

 

[Carnifex]

Indeed, early access has frightened me for about fifteen years now, with no sign of abating. Although those that do enjoy it are certainly welcome to it, and way more brave than I.

 

[screeg]

This game has made more $$ in Early Access than 20 typical indies make in their whole business cycle.

 

[JDR13]

I don't mind developers releasing a game into EA as long as it's a reasonable time frame. The problem is when games release as EA and are there for years.

I think Steam should implement some kind of limit to how long a game can be EA. That might force devs to better plan their roadmaps and stick to them.

 

[Carnifex]

It really does help when the creators stay in reasonable contact with supporters. I don't do early access though I've backed plenty of projects via kick starter, and the ones that shine seem to be those that maintain open and constructive communication with their supporters.

 

[shaf]

I haven't played it in a while, I should give it another go. I like some of the Combat improvements.

 

[Darkheart]

i bought this a few years ago thinking it as already released as v.1.0.
Although, it was already very playable back then. Will wait for full release before I reinstall.

 

[SirJames]

I think maybe they need to change the term from EA to something like "Ongoing Development Active".

When you're absolutely done working on a game, no more patches, no more anything, totally moved on, then you drop the "Early Access" tag.

I personally prefer to stay away from EA games, Baldurs Gate 3 is a great example, but I'm pretty sure the full release will just be the start of the next phase. I'm almost certain more patches will follow and perhaps more expansion and content after that.

Where's the tag for games that have been finished to the point of "abandoned"?

I guess this would need a little more thinking through because having an "abandoned" tag would probably hurt sales, especially in modern times of people pretty much expecting more content and service.

Still, you get the idea. Why not just leave a game in EA until you're totally finished with it?

 

[They Live]

Still, you get the idea. Why not just leave a game in EA until you're totally finished with it?

Well 1.0 is where most of the games get a huge bump in sales, often they call 1.0 when all the planned features are in (sometimes they just rush it and leave it half backed) and then go for "post launch" support.

 

[Dasale]

Indeed, early access has frightened me for about fifteen years now, with no sign of abating. Although those that do enjoy it are certainly welcome to it, and way more brave than I.

For indies lower budgets there's various points:
- There's much more EA winners than direct release winners. Winning here is about amount of sells vs amount of budget and production level. It allows get the chance to get extra budget before the game is finished and a successful EA tend have benefit of a much more important budget than direct release and make direct releases look pale in comparison.
- There's a sort of dynamic in favor of EA never fully properly finished. Players tend me more kind with a game EA clearly not finished but with already a game-play appealing. Many also focus on promoting the EA game to hope it gets more income and achieve better their expectations. So at end, when many users start be negative with an EA not finished, is never at a clear date. And most unfinished EA are forgotten to oblivion when it's clear it won't lead anywhere, and the promised game will never be released/finished. Hence the backslash is low if not insignificant.
- The potential concurrent system, crowdfunding, didn't benefit of a such dynamic. It was used by too many players more to pay cheaper a future game than to support a game genre or project not popular enough to find the right funding. And most players didn't knew and accept there's a risk level. So there's been plenty severe backslash agaisnt Crowdfunding. But I don't know how players selected their backing, but for me, games I pledged had/has a much better "satisfied" success than non crowdfunded games I bought, with ton I bought that felt from my hands on a much worse proportion than games pledged. But the point remains, the backslash mechanic against crowdfunding hurt a lot the mechanic, but there's no equivalent backslash mechanic against EA games. And for games fully funded before release that's another topic and different games.

Not that I buy much EA, in fact mostly none and like max 3 ever I played before release. But it's a current state of the indies market and I don't see what can make it change.

 

[Carnifex]

Oh agreed, I see the value and potential and did my fair share of testing back in the nineties, though I've no patience for it now. I did extensive testing for Microprose and SSI back in the day.

 

[Dasale]

Oh agreed, I see the value and potential and did my fair share of testing back in the nineties, though I've no patience for it now. I did extensive testing for Microprose and SSI back in the day.

I don't think many EA players see it like that, I believe they prefer quote they enjoy follow the game evolutions and eventually influence it a bit. Yeah sure, I enjoyed that for a very few games, but none was released in EA more unpolished vanilla.

 

[Voqar]

I've got more jaded with EA games but Steam's refund policy helps. I definitely buy fewer EA games these days, and fewer games overall due to time constraints.

Still, unless it's a content heavy game that you will only ever play once (like me with most RPGs so I'm waiting on BG3 and trust Larian to finish the game) why wait?

Why care if a game is tagged as 'ea' if it's enjoyable to play?

In so many cases, are you REALLY going to get more for your whopping $20 when the game releases compared to if you buy it in early access if it's a game you enjoy?

In some cases, like with a Valheim or V Rising where the games felt complete at ea release and had solid MP/co-op, and all they've really done is add content slowly over time, it doesn't even feel like EA, and you will likely miss the MP/co-op peak of those games by waiting.

 

[Carnifex]

I'm straight up weird myself, there's nothing that would ever compel me to play an Electronic Arts game or ever use their platform. A Twins Peak game? An awesome game that completely mirrors the old gold box experience? Doesn't matter, once I put the clamp down, discipline will hold. I will simply bide my time until such products get to GoG or steam and, if that never happens, I've plenty of classics to sustain me forever and a month.

 

[Vaelith]

The confusing thing is that the EA tag means different things for different games. Some are already playable to some degree and are getting updated, others are almost a barely functional demo of the first act of a much longer game, and because there is no ruling or jurisdiction about it, it's used for anything that translates as "look, we need the money now, any money you can give us. We will keep working on the game, trust us at face value with no lawful obligations for us to actually deliver".

And because of that, I don't trust any EA game, and the only reason I ever play one is because it's multiplayer and others I know from playing previous games with invite me over. I personally have Early Access blocked from showing up on Steam at all. Nothing as disappointing as seeing a game that looks like something you'd enjoy a lot and then seeing the little blue "Early Access" disclaimer below.

 

[Carnifex]

Oh, early access....yeah, that's a horse of a different sort! I see EA, I automatically think of electronic arts/Origin. Ignore me, even somewhat educated I can be a dunce at times!