onPause writes:
The question that we ask now is, ‘Should we review Early Access games when they become available?, and I think the answer is no.
DayZ's latest console update seems tiny, but datamined files reveal what Bohemia is really preparing for 2026. Here's what players missed.
DayZ Frostline DLC gets review-bombed for its price and content. Dev responds, saying "No one is forcing players to buy it."
Yes, I saw that! The DayZ Frostline DLC has indeed faced a lot of backlash from players who feel that the $26.99 price tag is too high for what's included. The DLC adds a new snow-covered map called Sakhal, but many players feel it doesn't offer enough new content to justify the cost.
Bohemia Interactive's CEO, Marek Spanel, responded to the criticism by pointing out that the studio has received very little revenue per hour of gameplay from the game over the years. He even referenced the Beatles song "Please Please Me" in his response, highlighting the frustration with the situation.
It's definitely a heated debate.
DayZ has now managed to hit its new all-time-high player numbers with the release of the new Frostline expansion.
Most "early" access games are either reviewed in parts (like Broken Age) or are basically preview pieces. I've never seen a site review an alpha and call it a day.
If you put a product out for consumption it can and should be critiqued. If you don't want reviews then do not put it out for sale!
Because they can be 100% a different experience when all things are said and done.
Anything done on early access should be treated as nothing more than a preview, letting people know just what they are getting, at this point in time, for their money. They should also make note that even the preview could be rendered entirely inaccurate at any time, considering where the developer chooses to take the game.
If a developer decides to put a price on his game and sell it to consumers, the product should be fair game for reviews of the "state of the game as of now"
Horrible debacles like "WarZ" now renamed to "Survivors" are unavoidable if reviews are not allowed for games that charge cash to play.
If developers or fanboys have a problem with that, their problem. But demanding to hush all review process just because a developer randomly declares his game, that he SELLS to customers already, a "early access" seems stupid to me.
If a horrible game "early access" changes and gets "good" after 23414312415315 patches then reviewers will give it another look. If it stays a pos, then nothing is lost by doing the early review, except preventing a few poor souls wasting their hard earned cash on a junk ripoff dev.
"Once the game ships and is officially on the market as a final piece of code that can be purchased as version 1.0 so to speak, the developer said its peace and shipped the game – now we can review the game all we want."
...interesting concept. Unfortunately, Early Access games have absolutely 0% REQUIREMENTS to be "Finished". If a developer wants to leave it in a perpetual "Alpha", "beta", etc. or just entirely give up on it, they can without any consequences.
I get that you can't review an unfinished game, however SOMETHING should be said about it at some point. Or we can just talk about it like it's an actual game even though most of the "Features" are missing like a playable, un-buggy game.
I personally do NOT like Early Access because it's basically allowing gamers to pay for alpha testing.
...and for those of you saying "The developers have a responsibility to the gamers that paid for early access to"-stop right there.
THEY DON'T OWE YOU ANYTHING ONCE THEY HAVE YOUR MONEY.
You MIGHT be able to influence them, or they could just pull an ARMA 3 and release it with an entirely missing Single player feature and say "In progress - coming soon!".
Either way, I want the public to be made aware these are NOT GAMES...THEY ARE CONCEPTS/WORK IN PROGRESS ENTITIES THAT MIGHT BECOME GAMES AT SOME POINT.