Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[darkhog]

I mean, putting it there is really a no-brainer, and for just $100 with Steam Direct it's really easy. And launching it now in Early Access would provide a decent alternative to the Bugfield, another Early Access game by that other "Softworks" company.

[Dri]

This has come up many, many times. Starsector has been in development for a long, long time and that just isn't gonna fly on Steam Early Access. Alex does not develop with any semblance of high speed, after a decade of development the game would have been review bombed to hell and back about how slow it updates.

But, with the game finally drawing near to completion Alex might pull the trigger.

[darkhog]

Several other games I play that are in EA and are updated at a glacial pace (hello, Blockscape) aren't really review-bombed. As long as there's an update at least once a year, it would be fine.

I've learned about the game existing from The Spiffing Brit playtrough (that happened few years ago, but just was recommended to me on YT yesterday), wanted to buy it, but it wasn't on Steam. Would likely buy it, because I love the concept. But I'm not giving my card details to a random site, and it's not like I can pay for it with PayPal on your store (which still would suck, but at least I wouldn't give my card details to some stranger to do who knows what with, it would be at least acceptable).

[Dri]

I know it's not going to change your mind but BMT Micro has been around for a long time and is legit. It isn't a "random site".

[darkhog]

FTX has also been for a "long time" and we all know how it ended.

[Dri]

You want to split hairs, eh? Okay, I'm game.

BMT founded 1992.

FTX founded 2019. Come on dude.

[Alex]

... and it's not like I can pay for it with PayPal on your store

(Hi! You absolutely can, it's one of the options on the payment method dropdown. Edit: and, BMT Micro is a reputable payment processor! I've used them myself as a customer and never had any trouble.)

[darkhog]

Oh, didn't notice it was a dropdown. Silly me. The rest of my point still stands though, this would be better off as an EA title. Will be buying the game next week.

[Alex]

Thank you, much appreciated - I hope you enjoy it!

[Tempest]

Steam playerbase is a bit too toxic for it, I think.

[Nettle]

This has come up many, many times. Starsector has been in development for a long, long time and that just isn't gonna fly on Steam Early Access. Alex does not develop with any semblance of high speed, after a decade of development the game would have been review bombed to hell and back about how slow it updates.

Why wouldn't it fly? There is no shortage of sandbox projects on Steam that have been in development for ages, some of them released by now, some of them still have an indefinite amount of development ahead. A (somewhat) famous example on top of my head is Project Zomboid, and they aren't exactly known for rapid development cycle. Adding in multiplayer in one of their recent major updates took around 3 years alone, and the total development time is over 10 years by now. It is still a generally beloved sandbox experience, they also had an incredible surge of popularity last year.

Steam playerbase is a bit too toxic for it, I think.

Surely not every single of 150~ million Steam users is toxic? And even if we are talking only about the cumulative player base of sandbox genre, I still think you are a bit pessimistic here. Exposing your product to wider audience inevitably has possibility for gaining disappointed players among them, but I think its overall worth it.

I sure do want to see Starsector succeed, and I think when/if Alex decides to release it to wider audience, provided the game will get traction, it will mostly be a positive one. That being said, I'm not the one who spent well over 9 years on this project, and not exactly a game analyst either, its easy to make predictions when you personally don't have anything at stake. I completely understand if Alex is cautious about the entire notion.

[Grievous69]

I often see people make the mistake of cherry picking examples to prove a point. Ok so Project Zomboid also has a glacial update cycle and it does ok on Steam. For that one game, there's at least 50 more of the same quality that are lost to the void and nobody talks about them. Just imagine the amount of posts on steam forums about bugs and then seeing that the last update was a year ago. Obviously not everyone is an impatient toxic prick but you can understand why it might be smarter to just wait a bit more since the game already came so far.

Let's say the current version is put on Steam right now, I personally think that wouldn't be a bad thing for the game. Yet I completely understand how Alex feels about this and respect his decision to make the big entrance once the game is feature complete.

Imo the biggest problem with EA games (not that I find them problematic in general) is burnout. Show the game to enough people right now and they'll probably like it a lot. And you bet some won't be so eager to play 1.0 if they don't get hooked or sold on the premise. Show the game when it's done and the reception will be even more positive, plus you don't have to worry about update cycles and responding to a ton of Steam users giving feedback and reporting bugs.

The unofficial "Steam release" was Sseth's video, in a way. It brought a ton of attention to a hidden gem which was then kinda developed. Early days of YT coverage showed a more basic Starsector experience. Now imagine we didn't get Sseth's vid before, but after 1.0 came out. The result would be even more insane that the one we already seen. Hopefully this puts things into perspective a bit more clearly.

EDIT: Hypothetical scenario
If I was Alex and was hurting for cash and more eyes on the game, I'd put the game on Steam and charge 20 bucks for it, but keep the current price of 15 if you purchase it through the website. So those that only trust Steam and want the game badly there can have it + more visibility, and also keep the original way of getting the game if you don't care about Steam for a lower price. I know some devs do this and it seems like an elegant-please-all solution. Of course as I understand there's no need to do this, unless the development takes a nasty turn.

[Nettle]

I often see people make the mistake of cherry picking examples to prove a point. Ok so Project Zomboid also has a glacial update cycle and it does ok on Steam. For that one game, there's at least 50 more of the same quality that are lost to the void and nobody talks about them. Just imagine the amount of posts on steam forums about bugs and then seeing that the last update was a year ago. Obviously not everyone is an impatient toxic prick but you can understand why it might be smarter to just wait a bit more since the game already came so far.

That is a fair point, there is a colossal number of games that never made it, but not all of them necessarily the same quality. I like to think that Starsector has all the properties of a potential sandbox gem, and will inevitably find more audience in sandbox genre, but that being said I can't possibly know for certain.

[Drazan]

Absolutely agree that it should be steam early acces for years now. The game is faaar more playable and has faar more vontent than most early acces titles that are doing good.

I think older forum users are actually just afraid of the change and the influx of thousands of new players. With all their concern they are subconsiusly gatekeeping the game.

Edit: also Alex puts updates on Twitter every few month, he can just post those to steam as well so everybody sees that "yeah work is still ongoing, cool"

[Grievous69]

I think older forum users are actually just afraid of the change and the influx of thousands of new players. With all their concern they are subconsiusly gatekeeping the game.

What kind of world do you live in where you think users on a forum dictate Alex's thoughts? What a ridiculous claim.