SPAZ 2 Early Access

I hate early access. I have seen buggy crap hit early access and the devs fall upon their own swords. All it is, is paid for alpha or beta testing which publicizes buggy crap with the caveat "early Access"  Technically, Founders program can be looked at as the same thing. However with the founders program I get input from the inception until the end product, also having access to all the DLC in the future is worth the price and the time.  

Is that a generalization, or have you been following SPAZ2's development over the past 3 years?

Regarding the founder program... Have you made enough of a difference with this game to warrant that $99 investment? Many of you were shocked and outraged with the 3D iso or the cartoony aliens, and nothing appears to be changing... Would you have preferred monthly updates culminating in an early access or closed beta release?

(Disclaimer: I haven't been outraged yet with SCR's development. I feel like I payed my money and found everything going how I'd like it to go.)

That's a little...entitled. Like, I understand wanting to get your money's worth, but the entire point of early access is "Hey, we wouldn't normally let people in this early, but if you wanna play NOW, you totally can, just realize that it's still in development." Like, there's even an Early Access disclaimer that Valve itself puts on all titles. If you're not happy with the current state of a game that's in early access, don't buy it. And believe me, an intelligent consumer is already doing their research long before they hit "purchase". And if you hit purchase without hesitation? That is entirely your own responsibility at that point.

And there's a LOT of Early Access titles that have been as informative and frequent (actually some MORE frequent) than SCR's course of development. Space Engineers comes to mind. I would put Project Zomboid if they hadn't gone on a 2.5 year hiatus between updates at one point, followed by a 1.5 year hiatus. Subnautica is another great example. Admittedly, a lot of the more frequent ones are almost all survival/construction clones, but then again we have freaking SPAZ 2 as an example. So great, you should really try the original. Sunless Sea had a pretty successful Early Access campaign as well.

The answer regardless of an individual's participation would be yes, as everyone who paid the $99 for the founder's is going to be getting all the DLC for free. We are planning for many years of DLC. 

^ Just to put things in perspective.

Fallout 4 on its first "major" sale was only $44. Season pass - $24. That's $68 for the game's lifetime about 2 months after its release.

I didn't apply to be a founder under the delusion that I would be "making a difference" in how the game is developed.

Unlike other "early access" situations where people invest in titles before they're ready, we are a prequalified group of people who have been purposefully chosen to participate because we know the source material. We are basically an online focus group and they can take our opinions or leave them.

Being a founder is a privilege; being an early access participant is a right.

But you have to enjoy the main game in order to enjoy the DLC. Imagine paying $99 in advance for unlimited DLC for... Master of Orion 3.

(Again, don't read into that for SCR opinions, please.)

I'm generalizing.  I'm a big X fan. I paid for X-rebirth Early Access and the game tanked horrible game play, absolutely idiotic AI and it still hasn't gotten any better. There are several titles out there that are garbage because the devs half hearted a product into Early Access and have sat on the title leaving customers with at such a crap job.  As like everything else in this forum it MY opinion. It doesn't make me wrong as some of you would like to think. 

Volusianus: As for the entitled remark. I'm entitled to my opinion and at no time did I make a attack on IBNobody nor accuse him of anything. You can keep those remarks to yourself. FYI I don't blindly press buy without reviewing products. The implication that I do is insulting, because you know nothing about me. The point of these forums is to give feedback on subjects, not flame anyone because they don't agree with the general consensus.

The developer of MOO3 did not establish or promise the development of DLC.

I wasn't making a direct attack, I was making a generalization based on the common attitudes I've read in regards to early access for years.

It was a hypothetical example. Reread my post, please.

Fair enough... but weren't you tipped off by their other work to know that they were going to be trouble? That's why I skipped X, even though I love space sims.

Regarding Early access and SPAZ2...

Xenonauts started out in EA, but it was pretty solid. Torment is having a rough time of it, but that's because it is a massively text heavy RPG. From what I've seen, SPAZ2 is somewhere between them. Nearly all of the content is there, but there needs to be a few minor polishing points.

This is absolutely right on the mark. 

Haha, don't forget they hiked up the price of the season pass to a whooping 50$ after announcing it would include more content. At this point F4 + pass costs 90$ on sale!

Keep in mind, iirc at launch all speculation indicated that there would only be 4 dlcs total, as has been the Bethesda trend lately. Then they raised the price after announcing that there would be AT LEAST 9 total dlcs, which is pretty significant.

True. I'm not saying it's a bad deal. Like Hunam, I was merely responding to the notion that 99$ is an extreme amount for a game's lifetime. It's a lot, and it's a risk, no doubt about it, but depending on the game and the amount of planned DLC it can be very beneficial. Imagine Paradox offering an "all future DLC bundle" for Crusader Kings 2 or Stellaris (Right now the base cost of CK2 + all DLC is almost 250$, and they aren't even done yet). People would go insane for that.