The alternative to this problem is, and always will be, giving devs the power to censor reviews. Its not really something with a middle ground.
The cost of being released to the masses, and thereby getting their money in much huger amounts, is that you are dealing with the IQ of those masses.
Maybe if devs didn't use EA as "quality control and market testing" they would know a lot of these problems before it started to tank their reputation. Because if that many people are having the same misunderstanding, then you should have been able to catch that in house during game testing and put in a tutorial or text box explaining it.
But instead they went for the "they will pay me to test my game for me!" option, and are now suffering the consequence that can bring.
I think one solution, at least for PC games, would be if Valve loosened their refund conditions just a little.
The 2 hour of gameplay cutoff is frankly not terribly flexible. Like anyone who really speed runs a game in 4 or 8 hours is probably not typical of a customer that actually wants to enjoy the game.
The 14 day thing isn't technically that bad though, save for maybe around Christmas when things might be a little hectic (and when sales are going).
That 2 hour window is just for "no questions asked" refunds. You can pretty easily get refunds further on if you demonstrate good reason, such as "its not what it portrays itself as." I've managed it a few times on whim purchases that ended up not being fun once the "true game" opens up.
I have also returned a game outside of the 2-hour window; No Man's Sky. I bought it a few years ago once it had shaped up from it's initial disastrous release, but 3-4 hours in I realized what the loop was going to be the whole time and didn't want to do any more of that. I explained myself in my return request, and the next day I was credited for the purchase.
My worst Steam experiences are the comment sections by far.
I actually hate the 14 day policy, and don't understand reasoning the behind it for a non-physical item. I've bought many games on sale that actually I don't get around to playing for months.
The reasoning is that they don’t want you to spend hundreds of bucks on a sale and then wise up a month later when you realize you didn’t actually want 90% of those games at any price.
Yeah, I've experienced this as well a few times. It can be a bit aggravating.
From a business standpoint, I wasn't sure I could justify too much more leeway on it though, outside of the Christmas season anyway, because it's worth factoring in purchased gifts that won't be "unwrapped" until Xmas proper.
Maybe let the individual devs set it on a per game basis? Like if your game is six hours long then refunds ending at 2 hours makes sense, but if your game takes 20 hours to really get rolling then maybe 2 hours isn't enough of a window and you choose another duration.
Something along these lines might be a good idea. Or maybe have it scale based on the standard running price for the game, since most devs already price their games based on how much content and playtime their product provides.
As of right now, 18,609 reviews. "Very Positive" overall. 85% of all reviews are positive.
Moreover, I switched to reading just negative reviews, and even amongst the negative reviews they're not focused solely on the co-op issue you claim (menu bug, quest rollback issues, etc.)
Is it really worth freaking out over 15% negative reviews?
I don't follow steam drama, I don't follow indie game dev drama, but I guess I wouldn't have called an early release game getting 85% positive reviews "an absolute mess."
Dealing with people is dealing with bullshit. Maybe they have a point that the coop mode could be better? Beats me.
It just seems weird. It comes out a week after Palworld, which is basically the same game, also Early Access, but nothing like what you're describing has been happening with Palworld, which has its share of issues.
I have no idea if they had announced the EA release date before Palworld came out (so I could be wrong), but I can't shake the feeling that they rushed their release because of the unexpected heavy competition.
It's also hilarious that many of the streamers that got keys and were fawning over Palworld and playing it nonstop instantly switched to Enshrouded. So organic.
From the looks of it, it's a combination of misunderstanding (devs could've been clearer, people could've read the fine line more) and some systems still being remarkably broken in multiplayer.
I don't think the devs should be given as much shit over it as they are, since I doubt it was with entirely malicious intent, but they also could've done a better job in their communication.
Additionally, people may as well just get used to at LEAST expecting games to be a little broken on day one of release. It's just a reality that's not ever going to roll back to the "old days", no matter how much people bitch about it.
Eh, I see it going the other way on Steam just as much, i.e. overly enthusiastic fans in the forums pouncing on the mildest and justified criticisms of a game while making endless excuses for devs. I experienced personally with the Long Dark and Sons of the Forest.
The alternative to this problem is, and always will be, giving devs the power to censor reviews. Its not really something with a middle ground.
The cost of being released to the masses, and thereby getting their money in much huger amounts, is that you are dealing with the IQ of those masses.
Maybe if devs didn't use EA as "quality control and market testing" they would know a lot of these problems before it started to tank their reputation. Because if that many people are having the same misunderstanding, then you should have been able to catch that in house during game testing and put in a tutorial or text box explaining it.
But instead they went for the "they will pay me to test my game for me!" option, and are now suffering the consequence that can bring.
I think one solution, at least for PC games, would be if Valve loosened their refund conditions just a little.
The 2 hour of gameplay cutoff is frankly not terribly flexible. Like anyone who really speed runs a game in 4 or 8 hours is probably not typical of a customer that actually wants to enjoy the game.
The 14 day thing isn't technically that bad though, save for maybe around Christmas when things might be a little hectic (and when sales are going).
That 2 hour window is just for "no questions asked" refunds. You can pretty easily get refunds further on if you demonstrate good reason, such as "its not what it portrays itself as." I've managed it a few times on whim purchases that ended up not being fun once the "true game" opens up.
I have also returned a game outside of the 2-hour window; No Man's Sky. I bought it a few years ago once it had shaped up from it's initial disastrous release, but 3-4 hours in I realized what the loop was going to be the whole time and didn't want to do any more of that. I explained myself in my return request, and the next day I was credited for the purchase.
My worst Steam experiences are the comment sections by far.
That's fair, my experience might not be universal.
Like all tech stuff it probably depends on if there is a human reading it at the time or just an auto response.
I actually hate the 14 day policy, and don't understand reasoning the behind it for a non-physical item. I've bought many games on sale that actually I don't get around to playing for months.
The reasoning is that they don’t want you to spend hundreds of bucks on a sale and then wise up a month later when you realize you didn’t actually want 90% of those games at any price.
Yeah, I've experienced this as well a few times. It can be a bit aggravating.
From a business standpoint, I wasn't sure I could justify too much more leeway on it though, outside of the Christmas season anyway, because it's worth factoring in purchased gifts that won't be "unwrapped" until Xmas proper.
Maybe let the individual devs set it on a per game basis? Like if your game is six hours long then refunds ending at 2 hours makes sense, but if your game takes 20 hours to really get rolling then maybe 2 hours isn't enough of a window and you choose another duration.
Something along these lines might be a good idea. Or maybe have it scale based on the standard running price for the game, since most devs already price their games based on how much content and playtime their product provides.
What's the big deal?
As of right now, 18,609 reviews. "Very Positive" overall. 85% of all reviews are positive.
Moreover, I switched to reading just negative reviews, and even amongst the negative reviews they're not focused solely on the co-op issue you claim (menu bug, quest rollback issues, etc.)
Is it really worth freaking out over 15% negative reviews?
I mean, welcome to people, I guess?
I don't follow steam drama, I don't follow indie game dev drama, but I guess I wouldn't have called an early release game getting 85% positive reviews "an absolute mess."
Dealing with people is dealing with bullshit. Maybe they have a point that the coop mode could be better? Beats me.
He's committing the Twitter error. He saw some bonehead comment but like the fool who follows a fool he thought it was more than it was
Release an unfinished game and get unrewarded? I think not.
It's early access and sold for $25. If you're broke just say it lil fella.
I've asked refunds for less. ;)
It's not about the money. It's about sending a message.
I really wish developers would stop doing early access. Just go back to closed betas or something.
If you like throwing away $25 randomly you can just say that too
What's the co-op issue?
It just seems weird. It comes out a week after Palworld, which is basically the same game, also Early Access, but nothing like what you're describing has been happening with Palworld, which has its share of issues.
I have no idea if they had announced the EA release date before Palworld came out (so I could be wrong), but I can't shake the feeling that they rushed their release because of the unexpected heavy competition.
It's also hilarious that many of the streamers that got keys and were fawning over Palworld and playing it nonstop instantly switched to Enshrouded. So organic.
Cost of doing business, my overly verbose friend.
Stupid angry people are such a stain on the world.
From the looks of it, it's a combination of misunderstanding (devs could've been clearer, people could've read the fine line more) and some systems still being remarkably broken in multiplayer.
I don't think the devs should be given as much shit over it as they are, since I doubt it was with entirely malicious intent, but they also could've done a better job in their communication.
Additionally, people may as well just get used to at LEAST expecting games to be a little broken on day one of release. It's just a reality that's not ever going to roll back to the "old days", no matter how much people bitch about it.
Eh, I see it going the other way on Steam just as much, i.e. overly enthusiastic fans in the forums pouncing on the mildest and justified criticisms of a game while making endless excuses for devs. I experienced personally with the Long Dark and Sons of the Forest.
Fair enough!
Sons of the Forest was actually ass. One of the biggest disappointments of the last year or so.
Yeah I agree. It's a huge disappointment, as you say. I got dogpilled in the SOTF Steam forum for wanting it to be better.