Interesting thoughts about how to define success for video games in today’s market, particularly for those using early access. Lots of respect for Hooded Horse’s CEO, Tim Bender, he says all the right things and seems genuine.
He describes van Lierop’s post as “exactly the kind of distorted endless growth/burden of expectations/line must go up perspective that causes so much trouble in the games industry”. He’s also unconcerned by Manor Lords falling behind its initial vast popularity, poking fun at “the apparently dark reality that some people, after enjoying their purchase of a premium, single-player title, might decide to go on and play another game (The horror! The horror!).”
Headline is a little melodramatic though.
I bought the alpha version back in 2015. I was happy with my $15 purchase then and they have continually updated the game. Sure, it has taken a while to “complete” the game but I never really even expected a story mode.
I do kind of agree with the sentiment that games so not necessarily need to be constantly worked on. Another game I think of is No Man’s Sky. Yes, it was a shallow and incomplete game on release. But they kept working on it until it was far beyond what would be considered complete. And they are still doing pretty major updates. While I do appreciate it because they have added some great content, I also think they could call it good and possibly put their developers onto a new game. There is also the risk that a major update screws up the game that people thought they bought.
I also bought the Long Dark when it was still new in early access. Haven’t played it since, but it was fantastic even then and I felt I got my money’s worth.