This. Loved the original Mount and Blade and the evolution of Warband all the way. Spent countless hours on it. Although it is a sandbox game without a campaign (at least without mods) so it is especially favourable to replaying in different ways. A very story oriented game might suffer more from following the development progress, maybe. Although then you can still support and wait to play later, if you really want the game to be done and you are aware of possible risks.

yes the result is clear, buying unfinished products in a hope they will be great is stupid
now go and make a list about the failed EA and kickstarter games

The list of crowdfunded games that failed to deliver altogther is quite short. It looks worse for EarlyAccess, but quite good for InDevelopment.

Edit: To provide a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_crowdfunding_projects#cite_note-565
(you have to search for the ones that are green @ amount raised but red at release date; most notable ones are Yogventures, Clang and Limit Theory)

For the downvoters of #31. Yes, I will keep supporting the games that I wish to support. So, downvote at your leisure. Maybe the concept of having fun with games is alien to you? ^_^

yeah these are just the released ones , wonder how many of those are actually good

for me one line is convincing enough to not spend money on these:
Star Citizen’ Passes $300 Million In Crowdfunding 2020

Yeah - let people like you risk their money and wait for the finished product :D

Sure, a lot of good games came out of crowdfunding, early access etc. That doesn't make dumping money into them "responsible". You can run with scissors a dozen times too before you finally trip... "Like it or not" releasing half-finished games, games missing most promised features, "fixing" games for months or years after release, the whole "games as service" concept - it all comes from people accepting the idea of buying games unfinished. Buying based on hype, marketing, qewl art or shiny pre-order extras.

You may think it's worth the risk, you may think the risk very low, but don't call "responsible" sending a dev a message that basically reads "I'll buy anything you promise right now, the end result doesn't matter". That's exactly how we got Cyberpunk, from a dev people used trust as implicitly as you trust Larian.

Yeah look Cyberpunk2077 wasn't early access they just had pre-orders. BG3 is a fantastic game and the Dev. is solid. Many people myself included have had a blast playing BG3 in beta and have gotten moneys worth, maybe not the whole lot worth. You do you but don't be such a negative downer.

I've had a great time with BG3 and look forward to when it is finished. Larian is a great studio and I have enjoyed their game immensely regardless of your autistic screeching.

No. The problems of Cyberpunk came from a very different source. A very large budget and a very complex production, and management and a dev culture rooted from the time of The Witcher 3 that lead to inefficiency and bad planning. Crunching was to be the last resort and actually they promised to avoid it, but instead, it seems like it was the first resort. When it was not enough, there was nothing else to do for them.

So hire/promote better experienced devs for middle management, some who do not foster a toxic culture, and maybe you will start seeing more efficiency. However, in this industry that is a bit of a joke. Older devs are not generally valued (wrong) and it might be due to their resistance to crunching for ever (while a younger one might agree at the start of their career).

With the customer base not really becoming larger, the competition between AAA is ever more fierce, they try to make them ever more spectacular, therefore, larger budgets. The complexity for managing the resources scales exponentially. Again, change the management and dev culture, focus on efficiency on the long term, maybe then the industry would change for the better.

...Trying to relate the problems of Cyberpunk to blame it on people supporting games in the making... Makes no sense.

I'm talking about buying finished/unfinished games in general. InDev, pre order, whatever.

Nah, thanks, I think I'll keep being negative. You see, I believe you. I believe it's a fine game. But you seem to be completely missing the point. I'm not arguing against Larian or BG3. I'm arguing about buying unfinished games in general. And, as a principle, I believe it has to apply to every dev and game, or it won't effectivly apply to anything.

No, they don't. When all is said and done, they knowingly released an unfinished game because they knew they could afford it. They knew they already made their money back and then some before releasing it. If the financial success relied on selling the finished product, they would have postponed the launch untill the game was ready.

luxury? :O nope
Yep, they couldn't release it at all, if customers wouldn't throw their money out so easily.
Just imagine if they would had to pay back everyone. Which company would try to test their luck with this next time? Probably not many.

^This. Playing games is all about having fun, maybe making interesting discoveries, maybe even learning something on the way, but first and foremost is about fun. They ought to be approached to with a light heart. But it might be that some people behave towards games like others towards sports: projecting their own selves on them.

...

...

No system is flawless I don't like Kick starters as I'm not an investor just a consumer, as another member said I play games to have fun, adventure, experience things, enjoy. There's no need to be so serious. I like Larins early access system because they look at the data they collect such as the locations people die and improve the games based on the results.

If one does talk about responsiblity, it´s all about other people; espacially future generations. Regarding gaming it´s about other people as well, espacially future generations. That´s the case when we are talking about DRM, that´s the case when we are talking about which games should be made. Should future generations be able to get back to game as glorious as FTL or shouldn´t they, because it was never made?

BTW:
People wanted crowdfunding models (and some sort of EarlyAccess) for media productions for generations.They dreamed of them. Now that they finally became viable, other people tend to hold these two down...
...that´s not nice!


Edit: The thing is that people didn´t only accepted to buy unfinished stuff, they fought for being able to buy unfinished stuff before.
In some cases media production without customer feedback is simply a really bad idea...
...of cause, in many other cases the opposite is true as well. But that doesn´t matter here.

We have a comparable situation with remasters: For years over years gamers wished that we would get more and better crafted remasters. (preferably in the new engine remake-style)

In both cases, it was a righteos fight for something that was lacking before.