Oddly enough - I do agree. Though, if it was any more than that I never would have bought it in the first place. What this game really needs (and deserves, in my opinion) is the publicity that No Man's Sky has received. I have no friends on steam playing this game and, looking at the online map on the community page,m the majority of players do not reside in my country (the UK), so perhaps the devs are missing a trick?
Oddly enough - I do agree. Though, if it was any more than that I never would have bought it in the first place. What this game really needs (and deserves, in my opinion) is the publicity that No Man's Sky has received. I have no friends on steam playing this game and, looking at the online map on the community page,m the majority of players do not reside in my country (the UK), so perhaps the devs are missing a trick?
I agree some advertisements should go out there for it for more "testers" finding bugs and stuff like that and more people giving feedback (that is all i agree on sorry but i think the price is fine for now and i think the devs are not "missing a trick")
Oddly enough - I do agree. Though, if it was any more than that I never would have bought it in the first place. What this game really needs (and deserves, in my opinion) is the publicity that No Man's Sky has received. I have no friends on steam playing this game and, looking at the online map on the community page,m the majority of players do not reside in my country (the UK), so perhaps the devs are missing a trick?
while I agree with you to an extent (except for the UK bit - I am limey bastard too), I think the intensely burning underwater flare oxygen of publicity would be too hasty. I have hugely enjoyed myself but I think it better for the game to get a highly polished (and accordingly, it will be without a doubt overwhelming) reception to stimulate future addons/DLC/sequels. I think publicity should hold off a bit (as long as the devs have enough capital to invest in the game launch to their hearts desires) and then when the time comes publicise and hike the price to a suitable level (£15 is ridiculously low for a game this fun, though Factorio - the ultimate crack - is also £15 (and also too cheap imo)). I would think a price of £25 is suitable. Triple-A (whatever they are - haven't looked forward to one since Skyrim) go for £40-50 nowadays, which is clearly too high for Subnautica but £20-30 would represent a very strong indy game.
I think others in this thread are on the mark saying Subnautica will get some more advertising once 1.0 lands. No Man's Sky has been on a lot of radars for a long time, it's true, but I certainly see a lot more now that the official release is out. Subnautica will probably be the same way.
As for the price, I most certainly agree this game, even in its current state, is worth more than $20. I've already gotten more enjoyment out of it than I have from games I paid $60 for. Seriously devs, bravo. But right now, I actually think the low price is a really good marketing move for the game at this stage. I heard a review of it very recently that made the excellent point that as soon as most people hear "early access survival game," they're out. That market is very badly saturated right now. Subnautica is a beautiful game, but I'd be a liar if I said the low price wasn't a big incentive for me to give it try. I figured if it was as clunky and ultimately dull as most crafting/survival games, I wouldn't lose much.
Once the game's in 1.0 and maybe has a newer, more complete trailer to autoplay on steam, people will be more willing to risk a higher price for it. It's still a great deal at $30.
As an aside, I'm honestly surprised by how often folks are comparing Subnautica and No Man's Sky, even in the press. I mean, nothing wrong with that, I can see the similarities. They are much more different than alike in my mind though.
If it was more then $20 I wouldn't of bought the preview. I normally don't spend money on previews, but the game looked like a must have. Just hoping the final product is what I was hoping for.
Yea, I feel the game should lay low and get a bit further in development before the price rises and advertising begins. Right now if the price rose people probably wouldn't buy until the game is complete.
Yea, I feel the game should lay low and get a bit further in development before the price rises and advertising begins. Right now if the price rose people probably wouldn't buy until the game is complete.
Not really, the game looks and is great for an Early Access title. That, along with the very positive steam reviews, would mean a higher price is certainly acceptable.
to be fair, it doesn't have to be the prettiest thing (look at minecraft), but it has to be highly optimized to run on most if not as much as possible, computers. though the low power of the xbox does make it a bit easier on lower end computers... in short what they need to fix: draw distance, model drop in, and fill up the codex with some more pictures. (you scan things, the odd lack of imagery is actually bewildering. maybe less than a quarter of all objects lack drawing[reffering to flora, fauna and coral section being quiet bare])
Gonna say this again because the forums rolled back...
Only a foolish developer would focus on optimization this early in development. I don't know why you are expecting great performance from a game that has not been released yet. Most major optimization is usually done during the later stages of development.
Not really, they have a bunch of other stuff to do in between all that (and you make the last 2 sound so simple). Optimization/bug-fixing is most efficiently done when all systems are in place, no point in rushing it.
People need to understand that Early Access is NOT primarily for playing a game early. It's main purpose is for supporting development and helping them test out the game. If you buy a game before release, expect bugs, poor optimization, and lack of content. It is quite disappointing that I even have to explain this.
Not really, they have a bunch of other stuff to do in between all that (and you make the last 2 sound so simple). Optimization/bug-fixing is most efficiently done when all systems are in place, no point in rushing it.
People need to understand that Early Access is NOT primarily for playing a game early. It's main purpose is for supporting development and helping them test out the game. If you buy a game before release, expect bugs, poor optimization, and lack of content. It is quite disappointing that I even have to explain this.
actually, I didn't care; I had interest in subnautica since I first saw markiplier play it. and I am glad its being made, the optimizations part is extremely conducive to game longevity and should be finished to the best extent before launch.
Comments
I agree some advertisements should go out there for it for more "testers" finding bugs and stuff like that and more people giving feedback (that is all i agree on sorry but i think the price is fine for now and i think the devs are not "missing a trick")
while I agree with you to an extent (except for the UK bit - I am limey bastard too), I think the intensely burning underwater flare oxygen of publicity would be too hasty. I have hugely enjoyed myself but I think it better for the game to get a highly polished (and accordingly, it will be without a doubt overwhelming) reception to stimulate future addons/DLC/sequels. I think publicity should hold off a bit (as long as the devs have enough capital to invest in the game launch to their hearts desires) and then when the time comes publicise and hike the price to a suitable level (£15 is ridiculously low for a game this fun, though Factorio - the ultimate crack - is also £15 (and also too cheap imo)). I would think a price of £25 is suitable. Triple-A (whatever they are - haven't looked forward to one since Skyrim) go for £40-50 nowadays, which is clearly too high for Subnautica but £20-30 would represent a very strong indy game.
As for the price, I most certainly agree this game, even in its current state, is worth more than $20. I've already gotten more enjoyment out of it than I have from games I paid $60 for. Seriously devs, bravo. But right now, I actually think the low price is a really good marketing move for the game at this stage. I heard a review of it very recently that made the excellent point that as soon as most people hear "early access survival game," they're out. That market is very badly saturated right now. Subnautica is a beautiful game, but I'd be a liar if I said the low price wasn't a big incentive for me to give it try. I figured if it was as clunky and ultimately dull as most crafting/survival games, I wouldn't lose much.
Once the game's in 1.0 and maybe has a newer, more complete trailer to autoplay on steam, people will be more willing to risk a higher price for it. It's still a great deal at $30.
As an aside, I'm honestly surprised by how often folks are comparing Subnautica and No Man's Sky, even in the press. I mean, nothing wrong with that, I can see the similarities. They are much more different than alike in my mind though.
Xbox 1 player
Not really, the game looks and is great for an Early Access title. That, along with the very positive steam reviews, would mean a higher price is certainly acceptable.
Only a foolish developer would focus on optimization this early in development. I don't know why you are expecting great performance from a game that has not been released yet. Most major optimization is usually done during the later stages of development.
People need to understand that Early Access is NOT primarily for playing a game early. It's main purpose is for supporting development and helping them test out the game. If you buy a game before release, expect bugs, poor optimization, and lack of content. It is quite disappointing that I even have to explain this.
actually, I didn't care; I had interest in subnautica since I first saw markiplier play it. and I am glad its being made, the optimizations part is extremely conducive to game longevity and should be finished to the best extent before launch.