Road Redemption Released For Linux, It's In Bad Shape

@titi: Valve didn't invent closed betas. Not even the paid access bit. I have no problem with them, just the way this is marketed and handled by Steam.

I'm with @beamboom on the Early Access issue. The concept is misleading at best. They should call it "pre-order with beta-access" or something, but that's admittedly quite a mouthful. In any case, these games are quite obviously not ready to be sold, and definitely would not be seen in a brick-and-mortar shop until out of beta. I don't get why reviewers tend to overlook that fact. It's a preview, not a review if the game is not finished. Your average gamer will obviously overlook this fact, which is why I think EA should not exist in the form it does right now.

It's not that hard when it comes to Early Access games like Road Redemption.

Here are the choices:
1 ) Take it
2 ) Leave it

At $20 to be part of the development and get a 50% -75% finished product the choice is up to each of us individually.

Very interesting, a developers comment on the Linux version:

QuoteThe linux version that was up was running a massive amount of algorithms related to debugging. That one was supposed to be on the experimental branch.

A new build just went live that runs about 50x better. If it doesn't say trial version in the corner then you have the correct build.

Also it includes an early version of the quick race mode and tunnels and a bunch of other stuff that we have been working on. So the linux build is actually the most up to date version of Road Redemption.

Quoting: titiSo if you want a lot of different and sometimes unusual games, you have to live with early access and you should think about supporting a game you like by testing it and give feedback to the developers.

Then go use a crowdsource service on it, imo. If it is unique enough it should gain attention.

There's so much junk coming from these low resource "indies" - and so much abuse of that program to milk the market - that to keep the Early Access system up because of the few, rare gems out there that seriously needed this funding is like shooting sparrows with cannons.
Plus, the mainstream never understood the concept of "beta testing" to begin with, and this "Early Access" feature only adds to that confusion.
Regular gamers - console or PC alike - expect a game they pay for to work. End of story. It's that simple.


Last edited by Beamboom on 20 November 2015 at 11:14 am UTC

Quoting: Beamboom

Quoting: TheBossI think people put too much power in the term "release". If it's available to purchase with real world money, and to download and play then it's released.

... and this is why they should stop selling pre-releases..

I rather they not stop early access just because some people are butthurt about the performance or glitches in a game that's meant for testing. Don't like them? Don't buy them. The rest of us is fine with it. Without early access, PC gaming wouldn't have gotten great games like Wasteland 2, Divinity: Original Sin, and Prison Architect.


Last edited by BillNyeTheBlackGuy on 20 November 2015 at 12:21 pm UTC

Quoting: BillNyeTheBlackGuyWithout early access, PC gaming wouldn't have gotten great games like Wasteland 2, Divinity: Original Sin, and Prison Architect.

Don't know about PA (not interested), but Wasteland 2 and Divinity: Original Sin were both crowdfunded on Kickstarter and would definitely have released without Steam's Early Access. We're not talking about crowdfunding in general.

Quoting: ShmerlI guess that's why it's not on GOG yet. They don't accept low quality games.

http://www.gog.com/game/daikatana

Riiiiiiight.

Quoting: TheBossLike i said earlier, a release is a release. Version numbers aside, it's a paid product, early access is not a get out clause.

No, but it should be a warning label to potential customers. When someone sees the words "early access" a warning should go off in their brain and they need to ask themselves "is going through potential issues and performance problems worth it for me to play this game early?"

Quoting: BillNyeTheBlackGuyWithout early access, PC gaming wouldn't have gotten great games like Wasteland 2, Divinity: Original Sin, and Prison Architect.

We STILL haven't gotten Divinity: Original Sin. :><:

Quoting: TheBossLike i said earlier, a release is a release. Version numbers aside, it's a paid product, early access is not a get out clause.

For me, release means it's a finished product, and subsequent updates are bug fixes, add-ons and expansions. Early Access is a weird method to provide unfinished / alpha / beta quality product for users to test. Except in the past people were paid for such testing, and today people pay themselves for this QA work. I don't call it a release.


Last edited by Shmerl on 20 November 2015 at 3:39 pm UTC

Regarding the game: Kudos to the developers for owning their mistake and correcting it quickly. Exemplary.

Regarding this article: As I write this, it's been 11 hours since the developers corrected their mistake. The sooner it is updated to reflect the above information, the better for the readers, the developers, the author, and GoL's reputation.

Regarding Early Access: There's absolutely nothing wrong with the EA. It allows players to become involved in the game development process and (this part's important) --- It's strictly voluntary. No one has to buy an EA game ever.

For those thinking about buying an EA game, Steam has placed a warning on every EA store page that clearly states, in a sky blue box, on a black background:

Quote"Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development."

[Italics and emboldening mine.-- p.boom.]

I cannot fathom how people buy games clearly labeled "not complete" (i.e., unfinished, incomplete, not-all-there) and then find the gumption to complain about it with a straight face, let alone try and feign some sort of moral high ground.

I'm even more flummoxed by those who say they are opposed to the very existence of EA on Steam. What are they afraid of? What are they opposing? Community? Collaboration? Creativity? Choice? That seems unlikely.

I can only guess they've made a bad EA purchase and now lack the character to admit their mistake, own it, learn from it, and move on.

Caveat emptor friends and neighbors. For the uninitiated, caveat emptor is Latin for "Let the buyer beware." To quote the OED:

Quote"The principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made."

So caveat emptor y'all. :)


Last edited by Nanobang on 20 November 2015 at 3:42 pm UTC

Just to be clear - I'm not against a concept of beta testing and pre-release access (though personally I avoid using unfinished versions of story intensive games), but it seems these ideas were perverted to turn them into substitute for real releases. Unless they claim some iterative development model (which is rather weird for consumer oriented games), such versions shouldn't be labeled as releases. If developers want to get funds before real release - let them turn to crowdfunding. If they want to have extra testing user force - let them open alpha / beta testing program and not claim that unfinished games are "released".


Last edited by Shmerl on 20 November 2015 at 3:43 pm UTC

Quoting: PicoboomRegarding this article: As I write this, it's been 11 hours since the developers corrected their mistake. The sooner it is updated to reflect the above information, the better for the readers, the developers, the author, and GoL's reputation.

Some of us are human, and you know, actually need to sleep overnight.

I'm more forgiving for early access titles so long as issues do get fixed. The next few weeks and months will tell the tale.

Quoting: PicoboomI'm even more flummoxed by those who say they are opposed to the very existence of EA on Steam. What are they afraid of? What are they opposing? Community? Collaboration? Creativity? Choice? That seems unlikely.

I don't think anyone is opposed to testing unfinished programs. Concept of alpha and beta testing is an established practice. What people are concerned about, is turning this into a revenue stream, which in practice can lead to lowering quality obligations and diluting the concept of proper releases.


Last edited by Shmerl on 20 November 2015 at 3:59 pm UTC

I feel like I am still playing the wrong build. A good 60+ FPS is obtained on my GTX970, but I have lots of crashes so far. Every so often in the middle of a match. None the less I can't wait for a more stable version. I was quiet the fan of Road Rash. (Now if someone could just make a Interstate '76 clone for Linux).

Quoting: Beamboom... and this is why they should stop selling pre-releases.

Quoting: BeamboomThen go use a crowdsource service on it, imo. If it is unique enough it should gain attention.

There's so much junk coming from these low resource "indies" - and so much abuse of that program to milk the market

I am fine with early access & the whole green light process for the most part. Yet I do think it could be improved so I am kind of with you. It would be fantastic if this system was more open access per se.

For example, Valve could make a section in the store page dedicated to nothing but early access and just remove Greenlight. Anyone can upload to it without a fee. Early access games are downloadable by all to play without purchase. On the uploaded game, the developer could turn on an optional time limit of play of 1-2 hours, but if a new build is released the 1-2 hour cap is auto reset. The individual likes the game after playing, they can fund it to receive a full license on said account or gift copy, a special piece content not found in free copy, & perhaps a small say in how the game should progress. Valve could add the purchased games to your profile in a new section called "Early Access Games" allowing advertisement away from the full release games to all your friends.

Once the game meets some Valve placed goal both in sales and votes (maybe something else) it could leave early access stage and be featured on the real store. The free copy might even be able to turn into the full releases demo fixing yet another problem of not having demo's.

In this system, early access games could maybe obtain special Steam keys so Greenlight Bundles could still happen, but it would be more for votes than sells. This way if you back a game in a bundle at least you know you obtained something instead of having that blank "Added when greenlit" in your bundle that may never happen.

To me this would be much easier on actually buying a game marked "Early Access". I tend to add these types of games to my wishlist to rot away until they are released. If I could test a game out for myself, I would likely buy more of these here and there. Instead I just see some possible horrid images or PR video that literally tells me nothing about the games.


Last edited by UnholyVision on 20 November 2015 at 6:43 pm UTC

Quoting: ShmerlI don't think anyone is opposed to testing unfinished programs.

Hi Shmerl. I absolutely agree here. I don't think anyone is opposed to testing unfinished programs/games either. I must have not been clear about the point I was making because I didn't mean to suggest anything remotely like that when I wrote about people opposing "the existence of EA on Steam." (Quite honestly, I'm at a bit of a loss to imagine how anyone might be able to misconstrue opposition to EA on Steam as meaning opposition to testing unfinished programs,) but, people being people, I'm sure such a thing could happen.

I also appreciate your pointing out how "people are concerned about . . . turning this into a revenue stream." I agree, there absolutely must be such concerns.

Quoting: PicoboomQuite honestly, I'm at a bit of a loss to imagine how anyone might be able to misconstrue opposition to EA on Steam as meaning opposition to testing unfinished programs,)

If you view early access program on Steam for what it really is - providing testing versions for people before the release, then opposing having such program could be mistaken for opposing testing, that's why I said it's not what people are opposing, and explained that the problem is not with testing, but with framing this testing like a release and purchase of a product, while it's really nothing of the sort.


Last edited by Shmerl on 20 November 2015 at 8:16 pm UTC

Quoting: ElectricPrismIt was doing at least 40 FPS @ 1080p on my 970. Devs published the wrong build.

I get random crashes in co-op races with 2 xbox controllers on linux.

I don't know if it's controller-related. My family just finished 7-8 races playing 4 player with no crashes, all xb360 controllers.