安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
9 
举报此帖
If you have an issue with the price of Early Access games or any other issues with them, then simply stay away from Early Access games, wait until they are fully released but remember the price of the game normally goes up if and when it gets fully released.
Early Access is just a warning label on a game telling you that it is not at the release version the game developer wants. they can remove the Early Access label any time the want. early access is not some magic system. it just a big blue box being added to the store page for a game telling you "DO NOT BUY UNLESS YOU ARE HAPPY WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF THE GAME BECAUSE IT MAY NOT CHANGE"
your suggestion doesnt put the risk onto the game developers, it puts the financial risk of a game being abandoned onto steam. at some point, steam has to send the money to the game developers. they dont get to hold it forever. if you want this to actually happen, talk to your lawmakers. dont come back whining when you get what you asked for but it was not what you wanted.
The system doesn't need to work that way. Steam can eliminate its risk by adjusting the developer payout structure for Early Access. By mandating a Contract of Transparency, Steam would simply hold a small, accountable percentage of the developer's share 10-15% in escrow until the game graduates or the 6 to12 month activity contract is fulfilled. This Escrow Fund acts as the Refund Guarantee. If the developer abandons the project, that held money is used to issue refunds, and if the escrow runs short, the developer is barred from selling new EA titles until the debt is repaid. The goal is to create a true financial consequence for abandonment, injected transparency into the market, and ensuring the risk remains with the developer, not Valve or their costumers.
There's no such contract, and withholding money in a way that was not agreed upon is theft.
And if you add such a contract to any game in the future that opts into having a warning label on its store page, nobody will take the risk of using the "warning label that steals from developers" option.
The "theft" claim is legally inaccurate because the escrow fund is contractual. By choosing to enter EA, developers would be voluntarily signing a new Contract of Transparency that explicitly defines the delayed 10-15% payment as an Escrow Refund Guarantee. This is a standard performance bond used across software and construction to manage risk. Developers who intend to finish their game will gladly accept this term, as the 10-15% is released upon completion, earning them back the full revenue. The risk only falls on developers who fail to uphold their end of a transparent contract, which is precisely the point, and as I said before the risk must be with the seller, not the customer.
I would not accept any amount of risk in exchange for a negative amount of money, and I'm pretty sure no other developer would either. Your proposal just means games that would have had the Early Access disclaimers would simply be released as full games.
The escrow is not a negative amount of money. it's called a "deferred payment"
The only ones that wouldn't sign would be the ones that are not willing to be transparent about their products, so that's a good thing it keeps them in check exactly were they need to be.
The Contract of Transparency is the only way to introduce a controlled, pre-funded safeguard against abandonment, which is why any developer serious about their project would sign it. You've simply confirmed that the only people who would object are those who plan to fail and abandon their customers. The escrow acts as a filter, its that simple ;)
The choice is between putting up a warning and having some (imaginary?) group of people withhold money from you until you meet some quota that nobody can define with the threat of taking even more money from you in fines they aren't legally allowed to issue but are still going to issue anyway if you don't meet that mystery quota,
or,
just releasing the game on Steam without the warning.
The choice (in the fictional world where Valve implements your proposal) is pretty clear.
Your continued misrepresentation of the proposal as some "mystery quota" with illegal "fines" is simply debating in bad faith and ignores the established legal and business context. The quota is not a mystery because it is entirely defined by the developer through their self imposed Development Roadmap, which Valve merely enforces contractually. Furthermore, there are no illegal fines, the risk of being barred from selling future games is a standard legal and contractual consequence for failing to uphold market terms, and the withheld 10–15% is simply the Escrow Refund Guarantee that the developer voluntarily agrees to lose if they abandon their obligations. Finally, the idea that developers would just release unfinished games as "full games" to avoid the escrow ignores the devastating financial risk, as no developer can survive the massive review bombing and loss of sales that comes from launching a visibly incomplete product, a consequence far worse than the minor inconvenience of the 15% escrow.