Walletary Annihilation: Planetary Annihilation Early Access

Ultra-handsome Kickstarted Total Annihilation spiritual successor Planetary Annihilation is now available on Steam Early Access, and bwuuuuh it weighs in at a soul-collapsing £67.99. This is the price because it is equivalent to this Kickstarter tier: “June through August: $90 for early alpha access, during the time where we’re still locking down features and making tweaks to the flow of the game. This access is permanent access – you will be able to play through alpha, beta and on through retail.”

Hmm! I’ve posted the most recent videos below to see if that coaxes $90 out of your wallet.


  1. FurryLippedSquid says:

    I’ll pass.

    • staberas says:

      Thats what i said after i saw the price and then stopped caring . Btw the final product (no alpha/beta access is 40$ which is still a pass)

      • MayhemMike says:

        40$/90$ does it include taxes?
        Because here in con Europe it costs 83€ = 110$

      • DatonKallandor says:

        Why the hell would 40$ be too much for a high budget TA-like with an all-star team of TA and Supreme Commander devs? They’ve got the best TA-like designers, AI writers (Sorian) and systems coders in the industry and you don’t wanna pay 20 bucks LESS than full price? Huh?

        • Bishop says:

          They’re sitting on an infinite stock has a little bit to do with the sour taste of $40, but also compared to other games that’s still pretty steep.

        • Liudeius says:

          I got in at $20 in the Kickstarter, and I was starting to regret it based on some of their statements, but yeah, $40 is a bit absurd. Especially when their claim is that the Kickstarter funds the game. If the Kickstarter was a reasonable estimation of funds,everything is profit now. (I’m sure that’s not the case)

        • Luckz says:

          An all-star team of greedy greedballs and arrogant arrows.

      • mLocke says:

        Everyone that has posted in this thread wants everyone who bought the game on Kickstarter or the Uber store for the same price to eat a giant alien dick. You are not somehow entitled to games at a lower price just because it is on Steam.

        Perhaps you would prefer a pre-order price of $40USD and no chance of distributing the Alpha and Beta through Steam at all, cause that’s what it sounds like you’re asking for.

        By the way, I haven’t bought the game so don’t label me with that “buyer’s remorse” bullshit, I just think that RPS is full of self entitled pricks that feel game prices are parallel to space nazis raping their dead grandmother.

        • mondomau says:

          When you’ve finished frothing at the mouth, look up the terms ‘hyperbolic drivel’ and ‘sweeping generalisations’

    • C0llic says:

      That price is just outrageous. I don’t know anyone who is prepared to pay that for a retail pc game these days. I’m sure it’s that price due to parity with kickstarter, but that’s no excuse really. That just means their kickstarter tiers are just as misguided.

      • Teovald says:

        I pledged for 100 $, which corresponds to this tiers :
        Special commemorative limited edition full size game box, PA backer T-shirt and a digital art book showcasing the units and concept art from PA. In addition, special thanks in the in-game credits highlighting your contribution. You also get access to the game at Alpha stage. Includes all previous tiers.
        The price is reasonable imho. Physical goods cost a lot to manufacture & ship at small volumes and they need to make a good margin to finance the development (the first goal of this kickstarter).

        I agree that the Steam price is insane though. They probably did this in order to do not piss off the backers and just put the game on Steam at the same price in order to render it available to the backers without having to install uber own client.

        They make many updates and you can see their progress on the game. So far it is very impressive (and still in alpha stage : not all features are in) but they can also suck at communication.
        For example they did not communicate on the fact that the alpha in windows only at the moment with Linux & MacOsX in a couple of weeks. As a result I spent a lot of time looking for the other OSes clients before hitting the forums and learning that they don’t exist yet…

        • Liudeius says:

          Personally, while I get paying more than the minimum to help the Kickstarter, I just don’t get the higher tiers.

          It’s pretty funny how they have made all of the normal commanders and the preorder one look like garbage just so the $270 “Delta Commander” buyers can look even cooler.
          When you are INTENTIONALLY making your character models look stupid so you can get more money, you are doing something wrong.

          • Teovald says:

            I don’t think it is the case here.
            I think that the delta commander looks like shit and largely prefer the other, lower tiers, designs.
            Personally, I backed that tiers because I wanted to support strongly a TA/supcom successor and for the soundtrack & art book.

          • Liudeius says:

            Well I suppose it comes down to preference, but whether you like it or not, I’m sure you can agree the Delta looks more “gundam” while the concept for the Theta looks more “construction.”
            Personally I like the look of a fighter mech more than a construction robot.

      • Mctittles says:

        I imagine anyone who did pay that price will blindly defend this game to their death.

        Buyer guilt and all that…

        • mouton says:

          I did not pay and I do not intend to but I will defend their decision. High-price early access makes sure that only really dedicated people will help test your game. Prison Architect does the same.

          • MayhemMike says:

            @Prison Architect: Yeah right, that’s why they have ads all over the place, sometimes even here on RPS, just to attract the real fans. Mhm

          • mouton says:

            How are both of those things even mutually exclusive? There is an ad. If you are hyped about it, you might pay a lot of cash to get in early. If not, then you don’t. Why do people make it seem as if they were cheated or something?

          • C0llic says:

            I bought into the PA alpha. I don’t think it’s comparable really. They are charging a normal price for a pc game at retail, the only difference is it isn’t alpha discounted. These guys are charging much, much more. Quite an astounding amount more really.

          • MayhemMike says:

            I’m just saying that their argument is hollow. You can be almost certain, that at least 5$ of that 30$ went into marketing, depending on their campaigns maybe even more.

          • limimi says:

            @C0llic I too bought the PA alpha and I thought it was reasonably priced. Likewise, I have no interest in the PA alpha, which is far too expensive.

      • PopeRatzo says:

        If you go to the Steam forum, you’ll see that indeed there are people who will pay this much.

        I tried to dissuade them, telling them that if they buy a pre-beta at this price, they’re asking the game industry to start kicking prices WAY up, but some people dropped the dough.

        • mouton says:

          Except it is all consistent with their kickstarter. Are you one of those people who think kickstarter is, uh, harmful and killing pc gaming or somesuch? Asking because one fellow I know does think like that, go figure.

          • Nalum says:

            It might be consistent with the cost of the alpha/beta tier on kickstarter but it shouldn’t be unless they also plan to send the steam purchasers the physical goods the kickstarter backers got. If they don’t plan to do that then the cost should have be dropped.

            And FYI I don’t think kickstarter is bad, I have backed some games on it and spent quite a bit of money on Star Citizen, happy to do so for the things that I am getting out of it and for giving more funds to the project.

            Reading the $90 tier I see it doesn’t include any physical goods…

          • Doganpc says:

            @Nalum The thing is, why buy it through steam when you can do it directly through their site via paypal and get the goods with it. The steam price is high so as not to piss off the people who already paid to get the game developed to begin with.

            WIsh people would realize that if it wasn’t for kickstarter folks paying 100’s of dollars (and what not converted) there would be NO Planetary Annihilation for them to bitch about on here to begin with!

          • Premium User Badge

            Maltose says:

            The $90 kickstarter alpha backers didn’t get any physical goods. The only thing the Steam alpha buy-ins aren’t getting are the kickstarter-only commanders.

        • Deadly Sinner says:

          The game industry will increase prices for alphas? Uh, so? I’ll just wait for release, then, like every other game I buy.

  2. HypercaneSanvu says:

    I saw this come up as a special sale on Steam. I’ve been conditioned to expect Steam sales to have rock bottom prices, and had to read “$90” a few times before the reality of the situation set in.

    • bstard says:

      Whats this $ sign and why does it have a 90? Come on this is getting worse and worse. Can I get a special Steam account where all the early access, half arshed DLCed,pre-ordering and season card nonsense games are filtered out?

  3. Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

    Honestly, I can see why they did it (matching the relevant KS tier, even if that tier was itself very expensive), and I can see why they put it on Early Access (an unusually high price point is no reason not to expose your product to as many people as possible, and oh the publicity) – I just can’t figure out why Valve thought it was a good idea.

    • Low Life says:

      Why would Valve need to think it was a good idea? They don’t have any say on the price.

      • Aninhumer says:

        Well, given that they control access to the site, I’m pretty sure they could require a certain price if they wanted. I’m pretty sure they at least give guidance on pricing, as I remember an article here about someone being told their game would do better at a lower price point, so I’d imagine they probably said something about this.

        • Grey Poupon says:

          The day Valve starts dictating prices on the products in their store is the day publishers start looking elsewhere for e-tail.

          • Snakejuice says:

            And I honestly can’t see why that is. I mean they are fine with RL retail stores setting their own prices, why deny Steam (and other digital retailers) that same option?

      • AlienMind says:

        Newsflash: Valve has a say in anything that goes on in their store.

        • Didden says:

          But they still do not set the price…

          • mouton says:

            They do have standard price guidelines and most developers conform to them. Incidentally, that is why I stopped buying non-crazy-sale games on Steam ever since they converted from USD to EURO and jacked the price levels up.

      • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

        I meant in so far as Valve allowed it into the Early Access scheme which is, presumably, filtered to some degree – it’s a program of theirs with aims and an image, so I imagine there’s some discussion/control over what gets on there. Obviously I wouldn’t suggest that Valve interject over the pricing or its appearance on Steam’s regular storefront at any price.

        A $90 alpha access title doesn’t seem to do much good at all for Early Access as a brand – although I guess it’s weighing up the benefits (to Valve) from putting it on there at such a price (which I’m in no position to assess), the difficulties of telling a client “Ehm, I’m not sure this is what we’re looking for” (which I’m also in no position to assess), and how damaging this subsequent shitstorm actually is in any meaningful way (also no real clue).

        • KDR_11k says:

          Early Access looks fairly expensive across the board compared to Desura’s Alphafunding section.

        • wengart says:

          I don’t see how this hurts the brand at all. Early Access just means that you get a game before it is completed.

  4. Stirbelwurm says:

    Oh boy. I like the game and I’m really looking forward to this, but I think this was a big mistake for them to put this on steam for this price. They started a real shitstorm with this. There are thousands of comments within the first day, that complain about the price.

    Since its already available on steam, people can rate it on metacritic. As you’d expect, they don’t like it (link to metacritic.com)

    Apparantly, uber thinks this is a good way for pr (link to reddit.com).

    There are already a lot of people, that are turned down by the pricing policy. Although it most likely will get better, it’s a rather bad start for such a game.

    • ix says:

      A little sad that people are rating it like that, but yeah, they should probably have expected that. On the other hand, it’s only about 50 people right now. Likely that won’t really inconvenience them much in the long run.

    • mouton says:

      It is publicity all right. Also lol metacritic.

      • KDR_11k says:

        Yeah, Metacritic loves to put alphas and betas on the list for some reason, as if anybody serious would review it then. doubly stupid with their “only the first review counts” policy so any preliminary reviews (to say “should you buy into this yet?”) would prevent the site from getting a review for the final version listed.

    • Hmm-Hmm. says:

      Yeah, but it was either this, kick their backers in their teeth (not an option) or decide not to allow non-backers early-access. Perhaps the last option would’ve been wisest. It’s certainly the one which seems most reasonable.

    • Doganpc says:

      on the flip side, all of us who kick started the game don’t give a fuck about what those steam bitches are complaining about. No, it probably wasn’t a good idea to put it out there but developer wanted the exposure. Not entirely surprising considering some of the past cock ups gas powered games pulled.

    • BubuIIC says:

      Huh? I really can’t understand what those people are complaining about. I… just don’t get it. It’s an alpha version of the game. It’s in the steam alpha funding section (or whatever it’s called).
      It can’t be that hard to just read the steam page before complaining all over the internet.

      If you don’t like paying $90 for early alpha access. Then how about you simply don’t do it? Just wait for the final game to be released and pay $40.

      Can somebody explain to me what seems to be the problem here?

      I mean this can only be an obvious troll attempt… or is it?

      Played for 4 hours and the game is average at best. Don’t get me started on the price they have for the game on steam either.

      Just stay away from this game, period. Nothing but greedy developers. It is sad to see good developers make such a dumb mistake as this.

      e: I backed the game at the $40 level.

      • hotmaildidntwork says:

        Mark my words. At some point before the end of this development cycle John Mavor will be found rotating slowly in his office chair, mumbling incoherently, the words “it’s still in alpha” written all over his walls in what we can only hope is paint.

      • Amun says:

        I’m with you. If they want a mountain of cash for early access, who cares? The release price is all that matters, and that’s not going to be unusually high

  5. Cryptoshrimp says:

    When I first saw it in the Steam list, I was sure they’d made a typo, perhaps switched a three for an eight. No way I’m going to pay triple the price of a standard game for the ‘privilege’ of having it early.

    • Sardaukar says:

      Then don’t, that’s the idea. Want to test and participate meaningfully? This isn’t a publicity “alpha” or lottery. Passionate fans will pay, the rest of us will politely wait until it’s more complete and pay less.

      • Gap Gen says:

        I’d be fascinated to see whether this market segmentation strategy generates enough ill will to offset the money they make from it. That said, I have no idea if you can measure how many people *don’t* buy a game because of something. It’s a little at odds with how developers market preorders, but then they have a right to set whatever price they want and people have a right to walk away if it’s too high, so eh.

        • Grey Poupon says:

          It’s not about making money, it’s about not screwing over the kickstarter pledgers. The other decent option would have been not to sell it at all before it’s out. When it does come out, it’ll cost $40 and if the reviews are good, people will still buy it.

          • Gap Gen says:

            Well, sure, but like you say they’re still selling it at this price. To be honest I’m unsure painting yourself into a corner with Kickstarter is ideal, but then begging the public for money comes with its price. And it’s better than saying “we’ll let you design our game OH GOD THE CONTENT YOU CAME UP WITH IS TERRIBLE but we promised so we’ll put it in anyway”.

          • trooperwally says:

            I agree it’s not about the money, which is just as well as it will doubtless not make any (at this stage). So why did they do it at all? Putting it out there is clearly attracting negative publicity and ill will.

        • Sarfus says:

          I think it may be interesting to see if it goes in the opposite direction. Despite the tribalism and hyper-informed nature of many online gamers/consumers, pricing yourself out of the market and then drastically reducing your price is not necessarily a recipe for economic failure. On the other hand, only on the internet would a company charging a non-standardized price receive a reaction along the lines of: *sniff* “Uppity!”

      • fish99 says:

        The ‘passionate fans’ who wanted to play Minecraft early got it for a third of the retail price. Just saying.

  6. Thurgret says:

    That was such an incredibly stupid call– with regard to the reaction it was obviously going to get– that I rather think I’ll just stay clear of the game (for a while, at least) because of brain-achingly painful stupidity on the developer’s part. The other issues seem insignificant, by comparison.

    • ahac says:

      Imagine you could pay to see the Hobbit 2 right now… as some kind of working cut with missing effects… Would that make it any less worth seeing when it’s actually released?

      • chackosan says:

        Depends on your approach to consuming media. A friend of mine doesn’t care about spoilers when it comes to movies – you could tell him all the twists and reveals of a film, and it wouldn’t make any difference to him. If he feels the movie handles what it’s trying to do well enough, he gets a kick out of it while experiencing it, and that’s enough for him.

        I, on the other hand, try to know as little about a movie as possible before I go see it. I rarely even watch trailers these days. If the movie is from a writer/director whose previous work I’ve enjoyed, or if friends whose tastes are compatible with mine speak well of it, I give it a shot when I have the time.

        So, watching a ‘before it’s done’ version of the Hobbit would sour the final experience for me, but probably not for my friend. That said, the half-finished version of Wolverine: Origins that leaked was probably the best thing that came out of that movie.

        • mouton says:

          I have similar approach to films, really – I only watch trailers of films I never planned to go and see, never touch the ones I intend to see anyway. But that’s partly due to how horrible trailers are, with all the spoiling and putting all the action sequences in them.

          With games, my approach is similar, even though the reason is slightly different. I generally (but not always) shy away from development blogs and media not only due to spoilers but because of how development process can cut content or change old features. I know quite a few people who hate some genuinely great games with passion simply because it was not what they were “promised”.

  7. GeminiathXL says:

    This is basically a kickstarter through steam. Nothing more, nothing less.

    People complaining about the price….well…..whatever?

    • Aninhumer says:

      The problem is that most people will be seeing it for the first time on Steam, and all they’re going to take away is that this game is expensive, possibly without even looking to see why. By the time they release properly at a sensible price, they’ll have already scared away lots of people.

      • wengart says:

        Presumably the game just won’t suddenly become released.

        They’ll probably get a front page spread and a few other cool things going on just like any other game. That includes listing the price.

        I mean people buy games on sale all the time. They obviously check prices repeatedly. No reason to think this woould be any different.

    • grechzoo says:

      do you know what a kickstarter is for?

      to raise funds, so you can develop a game to completion. which they did to an astounding success.

      it is NOT a kickstarter in steam, because they do not NEED the money they are asking for. they want it like greedy little pigs.

      they are using the userbase on steam to try and rake more from the community, instead of thanking their lucky stars with the 2.4 mill they already raised and getting on with the god damn game.

      its just greedy.

      • misterT0AST says:

        “do you know what a kickstarter is for?”

        Do you know what the developers don’t care about? Someone else’s idea of what a kickstarter should be for.
        Everyone has their own personal way of conceiving what a kickstarter is, everyone does as they please.
        Trying to dismiss something for not being “in the spirit” of a kickstarter is as pointless as arguing that “confetti” is supposed to be candy rather than paper. Pointless definitions of principles and logic just don’t matter in an evolving world. What matters is what people do and what people don’t.

      • Tacroy says:

        … no? They priced it at $90 on Steam in order to not screw over Kickstarter backers. The Kickstarter alpha tier was on the order of $90. If they’d put the alpha out for a “reasonable” price, then people who ponied up for the Kickstarter alpha tier would be raging. As of right now it’s just a bunch of entitled idiots who are bitching about “wah this is expensive”; you would not believe the shitstorm that would go down if they’d fucked over their high-tier backers.

        • Machinations says:

          Well, I’ll just venture a little guess here and say charging 90 bucks for alpha access was idiotic, and greedy. If they needed the price point because everyone needed a second car before the game ships, they should have refrained from going to steam. but hey, they can get access because theyve published on steam before, lucky them. Stupid, stupid marketing move.

  8. Avera says:

    Alpha is 90$ (with its additional goodies)
    Beta is 60$ (with its additional goodies)
    Full release is 40$ (with no goodies)

    If you can’t wait, you pay more. Getting a game early isn’t supposed to be about getting it cheaper. If you want a game cheaper, wait for it to go on sale.

    And yes, they wanted that pricing structure on steam but valve didn’t allow it. So there you go.

    • Tidz says:

      That’s a way of seeing it, but a fair amount of people who get Alpha access actually do report bugs/give a lot of feedback and deal with a buggy game in the hope of ending with a great final retail product.

      I would expect this and the fact that you are putting faith in the developers, investing in a game that you can’t know for sure is going to be decent to be rewarded by a cheaper game to start with (yes even on kickstarter), not by having to pay more for an unfinished buggy product just for the sake of early access.

      The way the Arma 3 alpha works makes a lot more sense, pay cheaper for the early access alpha and supporting/putting faith in devs early on, a bit more for beta and full price for retail.

      • Gurrah says:

        Well the way Arma works is, they were funded by a publisher to develop the game. They don’t have to answer to 44.000 people who backed their project and made it a reality, their answering starts when the game goes live and the publisher isn’t happy with the numbers that are coming out.

        PA on the other hand has to respect and honour their backers, because those are the people that funded the game in the first place. They have lots of people who are in the alpha because they wanted to, because they believed in the project. If they were to offer alpha-access now for the launch-price, people would be gutted. As it stands it’s just an option for people who missed the kickstarter and still want in on the development process, nothing else.

        I do understand why people are appaled at the price at first sight, but reading up on the reasoning behind it makes perfect sense. Just wait a couple of months and you’ll get a polished game for much less.

        • Tidz says:

          I might be wrong but I believe ChuckleFish is also following a model similar to Arma 3’s, which means it is possible even without being funded by a publisher.

          I feel believing in the promises of a developer and their project with no assurances whatsoever to the quality of the final product should be rewarded and that the game should have been cheaper for the early kickstarter supporters (and higher tiers rewarded with goodies), which would have meant they could’ve had the game on steam and bumped the price up slightly for steam buyers alpha access so very early KS adopters did not feel offended. Then bump up the price some more for beta and again for retail. It makes sense to me at least.

          In the end I’m not appalled by their steam price, I think it is the fairest it could be considering how unfair it would have been to the people who funded it on KS. However part of me feel like they shouldn’t have put the game on steam as early as they did, using kickstarter as the excuse for their price, mostly because steam is not kickstarter and shouldn’t be used in the same fashion as kickstarter is.

      • Low Life says:

        Yeah, it is quite common for games to climb up in price as it gets closer to release. At the same time we’ve never seen a game on Kickstarter having tiers priced like that. In fact, having a $20 tier for beta + release versions and a $30 tier for only the release version sounds quite silly.

        I wonder what causes the difference in people’s perception?

        • Tidz says:

          I guess both ways of doing this make sense, to be fair. I think people’s perception of it depends on what they consider the alpha/beta releases to be. In my opinion it is either the opportunity to give feedback/find bugs and participate in the making (which I guess can add value to the game in some way) OR it is a sneak peak to what the game might actually become once development has finished.

          As such I feel like I would rather pay less for an unfinished product and supporting the developers early on despite not actually seeing any of their work (at least until videos appear).

          But then some other people might see it as getting the privilege of playing the game early on and enjoying it longer than others.

  9. riadsala says:

    It’s still depressing that people react like that: the game is clearly going to be a LOT cheaper when it’s actually finished. Seems like such a petty thing to make complaints over.

    Saying that, yes, the developers should know how petty and entitled the internet is, and just stuck with releasing the early access to the people who paid up in the kickstarter.

    • dE says:

      It’s still really quite depressing that Testing went from a paid job, to a job you pay for.

  10. Low Life says:

    The shitstorm caused by people thinking they are somehow entitled to play an alpha version of a game is in every way (future of crowdfunding, PR for the developers) less damaging than the shitstorm that would’ve been caused by them selling this cheaper than the original backing tier.

    • RedViv says:

      I am in agreement with this position.

      • Mstrymt says:


        • apocraphyn says:

          Yup, basically. They’re kicking up a whole load o’fuss over nothing. (Whereas charging a ton less for the same access that people paid $90 for would be something actually worth kicking a fuss over).

          • abandonhope says:

            Exactly. Born Ready caught a ton of flak for discounting Strike Suit Zero on Steam to less than what most backers paid, and only by a few dollars. It pisses people off. If the Kickstarter model is to remain viable, that can’t happen.

            That said, PA shouldn’t be on Steam at all right now. This was a really stupid move.

          • Teovald says:

            I think it is just on Steam in order to provide a convenient option to the backers that want to try the alpha.

    • frightlever says:

      You nailed it.

    • Premium User Badge

      Earl-Grey says:

      We are in agreement. The current so called shitstorm has brought the worst entitled shits out from underneath their bridges.
      The pricing makes perfect sense.
      Can you imagine the outrage from early backers if access to the alpha and beta was now cheaper?

      On a side note, I have never understood the appeal of playing alphas or betas.
      Surely it is preferable to wait for the finished game?

      • Syphus says:

        A side answer: I played so much TA in High School that I wanted to play this game as quickly, and make it as good as I could.

        • Premium User Badge

          Earl-Grey says:

          While on the sidelines:
          I can see the appeal if you consider yourself a tester of sorts and the developers are open to feedback from their customers.
          Access to alphas and betas are definitely a good thing if the developers take good feedback to heart.

      • mike2R says:


        I like alpha/beta access for some games – ones with a great deal of replayability and where the game is built up around a sound and playable core concept. Minecraft for example.

        I can’t really see the appeal for more linear games that you typically would play through and then leave for a time before replaying, if you do so at all. I bought alpha access to Xenonauts after being hugely impressed with the demo, but ended up deciding that was a pretty dumb idea and I’m leaving it until its finished for my first playthrough. (although I don’t regret paying for it at all since I’m really happy that someone is making that game)

        • Premium User Badge

          Earl-Grey says:

          Dang, I keep forgetting about the likes of Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress!
          God knows I’ve spent hundreds of hours in those, especially DF.
          -a game that I’m certain will remain in perpetual alpha or until the machines gain sentience, enslave us and upload our minds into Dwarf Fortress 1.0.

          Well when you put it like that, I can certainly see the appeal of early versions of more open and comprehensive games.

    • MaXimillion says:

      But they’d have had the smallest shitstorm by not allowing you to buy it on steam until beta at least. Or having both the preorder and alpha-access listed separately on the steam page.

      • epmode says:

        This exactly. It should have been hidden from the Steam store until release.

        • Teovald says:

          Is it possible to do this though ? Steam does not really strike me as a very flexible platform..

          • Xocrates says:

            I’ve been on developer closed Steam betas before. It’s certainly possible.

    • Excelle says:

      I think what has been missed is this is truly an alpha in every sense of the word. And more – unlikely other alphas where you’re just testing – alpha and KS backers have had chance to have a real and meaningful impact on the design of the game, and continue to. Uber regularly pop in and discuss issues and features in the Backers and Alpha forums, and sometimes poll people as to the approach to take.

      Of course, as an original backer, the whole ‘well why should they get it cheaper’ part holds, but I don’t think that’s the only thing.

      Personally I’m quite glad as the community that are testing at the moment is quite strong rather than having a huge influx of Steam peoples to muddy the waters.

    • Premium User Badge

      samsharp99 says:

      Actually – I kind of disagree but see where you’re coming from and it’s because of the whole Kickstarter “I’m giving you money, so I’m buying/pre-purchasing your game” culture rather than “I’m giving you money because I like/support what you’re doing and am willing to take a small financial risk to help you achieve it. And hey – cool stuff as thanks is good!”.

      That is the only reason people would be upset that the game is then available cheaper elsewhere. If you’re upset that you gave $90 to support a developer (irrespective of potential rewards) then you probably shouldn’t have backed it. It’s a widely used pricing strategy to price the same thing differently (think of air travel seat prices!).

      On Kickstarter this works because of the whole raising capital to develop the game via crowd-funding but on Steam it’s buying access to the game (which is more like buying a product rather than funding a developer) so I don’t think the tiers/pricing/access have to be the same.

    • FriendlyFire says:

      So much this. They couldn’t have done anything else, really, beyond not releasing it at all.

      Apparently there’s a lot of people who think that not having access to a game is preferable to having access to it, which I find utterly backwards, but whatever.

    • Machinations says:

      True, of course they could have simply not released on steam early access if this was what they had to do. Time will tell which approach was right, but Id say they have long odds to any mass market success.. The game is already paid for, really, so they cant lose. They got jobs now for another year anyway..

  11. LuNatic says:

    So, the game gets cheaper as it gets more feature-complete? I’m not seeing the logic here…

    • Low Life says:

      They don’t take the game away from you as it gets more complete. You get the same game as people who buy it at release AND additional content before the release (the alpha and beta versions). In which logic does the latter being more expensive not make sense?

      Of course there’s the whole “charging for testing” aspect, but beta and alpha tiers being more expensive on Kickstarter is pretty much the norm at this point, so I guess no one cares about that.

    • luukdeman111 says:

      You’re not to bright then are you? It is explained in this very article!

      In the kickstarter campaign you payed more for alpha access and the same applies in the pre orders… Not sure what other way there is to do it..

      Because if you made alpha access cheaper than the full game in a kickstarter noone would pay for the full game…. It’s all about creating incentives

      • mrmalodor says:

        It makes no fucking sense! You can’t charge MORE for a product that’s not complete.

        • Low Life says:

          They’re not charging for a product that’s not complete, they’re charging for a product that’s complete AND a product that’s not complete.

          • PopeRatzo says:

            Don’t forget, they’re also charging for you to beta-test their game, which actually used to be a job that developers paid people to do.

            If you like the idea of paying $89 to beta test a game, I’m willing to let you wash my car if you pay me $25.

          • mickygor says:

            cue reminders of the subjective theory of value

          • hotmaildidntwork says:

            And the wildly varying definitions of “beta test” at play here.

        • Optimaximal says:

          They’re charging you more to allow you through the doors earlier. You’d be surprised how often that happens in day-to-day life.

        • -Spooky- says:

          *sigh* You buy the same way like a Ubr Coll. Edt – but only vice versa since alpha status. What da heck is not to understand? And you will help the studio to develop / PR the game (oh, they have their PR already ).

          Guys. Do you understand the whole thing about “industry”?

        • MaXimillion says:

          Do you also think that putting a game on sale a few months after release makes no sense? Because the exact same thing applies there, the longer you wait for it, the cheaper it’ll be.

  12. Correa says:

    Those that are having a hissy fit are the types that a Alpha release does not need. There level of maturity shows just how great there input would be. So I am glad there not going to be present and annoying the hell out of everyone else on the PA forums, that can use there brain to read and understand why the price is so.

    • Aninhumer says:

      It’s almost as if they’re releasing on a major game store’s website alongside sensibly priced games with no immediate distinction, instead of on one dedicated to supporting new projects…

      • Malibu Stacey says:

        Apparently the “Early Access” section on Steam isn’t a thing in your world. You should try ours, has all sorts of nice things.

        • Aninhumer says:

          And the most expensive game on early access other than this is Arma III at £20. Regardless of the reasoning, it looks stupidly overpriced, and they should have known that.

          (Dota 2 doesn’t count, you can get it much cheaper)

          • The First Door says:

            Sorry, but it isn’t quite as clear cut as you are trying to make it. Arma III is £20 if you ignore the special edition at £35. Plus there is a £55 version of StarForge available.

            The only difference is that PA hasn’t offered the lower tiers as they didn’t get access to the alpha in the Kickstarter. Hell, you could just go buy the £25(ish) tier off their website, for example…

  13. Keasar says:

    Just watching people go down on Uber for this infuriates me. The reasoning is clear, there is a motivation behind it and it is perfectly fine but still those spoiled brats of the Steam community whines like this.

    • Deadly Habit says:

      The reasoning may be clear, but it’s not good business sense. Most devs release early access or alpha/beta versions at a discount compared to the full release. Just because they don’t want to upset their Kickstarter backers they’ve put themselves in a bad PR position by placing it publicly for sale on Steam early access. They could have just done a closed version not for sale for the Kickstarter backers while still using Steam, but instead they’re facing a public backlash for their decision.
      Nothing about being spoiled brats though the Steam community forums are on the same level as Youtube comments most of the time, this just doesn’t seem to be the best laid out plan.

    • Aninhumer says:

      Kickstarter is a site dedicated to supporting new projects, people expect things to cost more than usual there. Steam is a mainstream game store which is well known for relatively low pricing, and exceptionally cheap sales. Releasing a game at that price point on Steam was obviously going to provoke a reaction. Just because it’s technically fair doesn’t mean it wasn’t a stupid decision in terms of marketing.

  14. mrmalodor says:

    What a brain-dead idea. You don’t charge an insane price for an incomplete product and then drop the price as it nears completion. It makes no sense. I don’t care what an innovative independent team you’re trying to be, this is just plain retarded.

    • RedViv says:

      I’m sorry that everybody is pushing you into buying this if you disagree so much. Deeply sorry.

      • mrmalodor says:

        I’m deeply sorry that the truth bothers you so much.

        • RedViv says:

          The truth being that digital goods, their production, and support for it, are to be handled equal to physical ones in exclusively all cases?

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      You don’t charge an insane price for an incomplete product and then drop the price as it nears completion. It makes no sense.

      Prison Architect & Kerbal Space Program to give 2 high profile examples disagree pretty strongly with you.

      Funny how they’ve been selling pretty well so far too.

      • Aninhumer says:

        Except that those are both £20, the price of a normal second tier release. Perhaps it’s a little higher than one might expect, but it looks reasonable. £68 just looks ludicrous.

  15. Jimbo says:

    It might not be the smart thing to do, but it is the right thing to do. Good on them for respecting their kickstarters.

  16. SkittleDiddler says:

    Hey, if you’re dumb enough to pay $90 for the honor of QA testing an unfinished product, go right ahead. The only thing I’m concerned about here is what kind of precedent this is going to set for the Early Access program.

    • GeminiathXL says:

      You’re giving them money so that they can eventually deliver a product. And you get to test it out pre-release as a bonus.

      Why do I even have to explain this……unless you’re used to “beta-testing” MMOs. Then I understand.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        The only thing you need to explain is how they can justify charging $90.

        • DodgyG33za says:

          Over here in Australia we have seen retail games priced at $90 or more for ages. Of course for most of that time her maj’s sterling and the greenback were worth much more than our Pacific pesos but your governments have been printing money like there was no tomorrow so we are now getting close to parity. The point is that your filthy lucre ain’t worth what it once was.

          BF4 still costs $80 here though.

        • mickygor says:

          It’s been explained over and over again. That’s what the pricing of the alpha access tier was on kickstarter. To undermine that would throw their reputation into jeopardy far more than upholding it is.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            Explaining something over and over again doesn’t necessarily make it any more coherent. One of the pitfalls of investing in a Kickstarter project is that you’re eventually going to lose some of the exclusivity that comes with that investment — I don’t see why PA’s Early Access version should be an exception.

            Of course, I’m under the impression that PA had backer-accessible content before it made its way onto Steam. If this isn’t the case, then I guess everything I wrote in the paragraph above is meaningless.

            Regardless, the developers could have avoided this whole controversy by simply ignoring Steam altogether for the time being and making all of PA’s current alpha content exclusive to its Kickstarter backers. Why were they in such a rush to get the game onto Steam without considering the consequences of pricing it so high?

  17. Deeon says:

    Horrid idea. I understand their need to respect KS, but putting it on Steam for such price is asking to be spat on. Also (this has nothing to do with PA), isn’t it funny how they managed to trick us in to PAYING to be their alpha/beta testers. So funny. Even funnier in case of PA where they think it’s a privilege to be able to play buggy unfinished software. Ha!

    • luukdeman111 says:

      yeah fuck them man they totally TRICKED us into paying money for something that is clearly an unfinished product by saying that it is an unfinished product and honestly saying that it is $90….

      Nobody tricked you into paying anything, if you think the devs don’t deserve your $90 (and that would be completely understandable) don’t give it to them…. It’s weird that people think this is perfectly fine when it’s a kickstarter but hate it when it’s done through a platfrom like steam…

      • Deeon says:

        I don’t think devs deserve $90. Even $20 is stretching it for PA. So I don’t give em money, simple. Am I not allowed to opinion away my opinion? Just because you wasted $90 on this is no reason to be mad at those of us who actually value our money.

        • c-Row says:

          Calling $20 for a game like PA a stretch certainly shows that money is apparently all you value.

        • mickygor says:

          That $20 is a waste to you does not mean that $90 is a waste to anyone else.

        • Deadly Sinner says:

          You can have your opinion, but it’s still a dumb opinion. You still haven’t explained how they tricked anyone.

  18. BurningPet says:

    i just hate the stupid, idiotic argument, that higher paying costumers are better testers.
    they are not better testers, they are just richer testers.

    Kickstarter turning out to be a risk-free pre-order scheme is a thing that’s happening because developers treat it as such.

    The “reward” for backing 90$ for a kickstarter is not the alpha access or an avatar, its the game reaching its goal and getting developed.

    • GeminiathXL says:

      “The “reward” for backing 90$ for a kickstarter is not the alpha access or an avatar, its the game reaching its goal and getting developed.”

      Here’s our winner. people seem to forget this. they just want to be able to play early for 10, maybe 20 bucks. Anyone dishing out the 90 is effectively backing the developers, rather than just “play urly lolz”.

      People are so….stupid.

    • AlienMind says:

      Still testers. I’m glad that they are the ones keeping the dev engine flowing. If i really want to take part of the beta, I sure could cough up the money of four meals.

      • BurningPet says:

        Four meals for you, 45 minutes of work for me, less than a minute work for notch and a quarter or sometime even half of a month worth salary for someone’s else.

        No problem, state that you are charging more to keep testers out, just don’t even dare to state that you are keeping the worse testers out, explicitly state what you are doing: keeping the poor testers out.

        • AlienMind says:

          As much as I’d like it, games are mostly not products created by communism and freely given to the masses. So, yeah, you poor, you no legally playing modern games.

  19. Gap Gen says:

    I wonder whether Planetary Annihilation will have buildable Bitcoin Extractors, which mine bitcoins for the devs from the planets you’re on with the spare cycles on your GPU.

    But yes, Uber seem to be good at innovative/slightly dubious ways to make money from their customers. I don’t think there’s anything awfully wrong with this – it’s fairly up-front that you’ll be paying stupid money to play early (read: broken and incomplete) builds, but it’s still a little offputting to have people fronting preorders at several times the release price.

  20. Didden says:

    Kind of bummed I backed this, but only at the base level – I’m not that crazy. It doesn’t look the same as the concept videos, there is a lack of depth and fidelity to the graphics and the worlds look far too flat. Where there should be valleys and hills, its… just flat. It is something they could fix, and I hope they do.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Yeah, I guess it’s still just alpha, so will see. It’s certainly interesting to see features from Total Annihilation that died in Supreme Commander (such as flying constructors) making a comeback.

  21. Moni says:

    Heh, I wonder if when it releases at £30 it’ll say “44% discount!” on Steam.

  22. abremms says:

    they had a simple choice:
    1. Don’t offer early access at all, Unfortunately, a LOT of people who missed the KS have been asking for it…
    2. Offer alpha access at a more reasonable price, and royally piss off the folks who supported them at the $90 tier early on when no one was really sure if this would happen. People who by and large have been active in the community and vocal with feedback.
    3. Offer early access to people who want it under the understanding that it would cost as much as the KS backers paid. It would keep out people who don’t wholeheartedly support the project, but for an alpha (and this is an alpha in the truest sense of the word), it’s best to have people in there who want to hunt down bugs and give feedback. not people who just want to pick up a new game on the cheap.

    IMO, they made the right choice. the internet just needs to chill out, read past the price and realize it will get cheaper as it gets closer to launch. if a $90 price point upsets them, then it isn’t for them.

    • yoenit says:

      There is nothing wrong with offering early acces to people who missed the kickstarter, but they should have done so through their own site rather than steam. It is the sheer contrast in price between this game and other games in steam’s early acces which is responsible for the shitstorm. Had they just done an “extended kickstarter” through their own site (like a lot of other kickstarted games are doing) nobody would have blinked twice.

      • maximiZe says:

        link to store.uberent.com

        Why would they not put it on Steam for the people who prefer it? Because, as with any other huge forum/comment thingy on the internet, the Steam forums got a bunch of morons who are unable to read?

  23. Ein0r says:

    40€ is too expensive for my taste and what i saw up til now. Maybe some later footage will be more interesting.

    Valve wont stop this “Early Access” selling since it brings in easy money, but they should definitely make it clear in big red letters which may burst your monitor, that you pay for something that is nowhere near complete, crashes very often, lacks most of the promised features, and so on.

    60-90€ to not piss of the Kickstarters? Well this seems somewhat fair as long as the 90€ Early Accessors gain the same goodies and rights to help creating this game as the Kickstarters. But many people see this “Early Access” just as some sort of “Tiny Demo where i might have the chance – as an entitled customer – to give advice and propose changes.” The Buyers on Steam behave as mere customers most of the time and not as benefactor with own interests as the Kickstarters do.

  24. Cei says:

    I think the whole “Early Access” system on Steam is stupid. Gamers are now being conditioned that they can buy a game at the Alpha stage, for less then the RRP, and get the full retail copy at the end of it. Basically, they’re not in it to actually test the game, but to get a cheaper pre-order.

  25. scorcher24 says:

    I’d really like to know why people defend this Bullshit.

    Kickstarter and everything related to it, has become a problem in my eyes. I agree that those games would not exist without this platform, but is that worth it? 5000$ to have a dinner with Tim Schaefer or 10.000$ to have your name in the game are morally highly questionable to me. But, okay, it is a funding platform let them have their little exclusive club.

    But, once a game is funded, like PA, they have no business of continuing this price strategy. It is called ethics. You don’t sell a 10$ Shirt for 100$. You sell it for 15$ if you need to make a profit. But this is just ridiculous.

    The use people as Alpha Testers, which saves them a lot of money and then they have to pay even higher prices. What makes me even more sad is the amount of people defending this bullshit. Quite frankly, I am disgusted by it. If you bought it, thanks, you are part of the problem.

    If you need financial help during development, you can sell your game, but sell it at a discount. Hell, I thought even the Arma 3 discount was way too much. I’d have paid good 40€ for it. But they have some ethics and give me a strong discount for my help in alpha testing the game and providing feedback.

    90$ for an indie game makes EA look like Saints in my eyes.
    I want this whole industry to crash already, so developers learn some business ethics.

    • Surlywombat says:

      What are the ethics of saying backers get exclusive access to the alpha if they put in $90 then offering the same access later for $20? That sounds far more unethical to me.

      This is a computer game, we aren’t talking about price gouging on medical supplies or food here. Its a luxury item. They are being open an honest about what is being offered and why it is the price it is.

      Their activity is certainly not unethical. Misguided perhaps. Personally I feel they made a mistake going into early access like they did. But early access is new, it didn’t exist when the kickstarter happened, there is no “best practice” to follow. So there will be stumbles along the way.

      • All is Well says:

        Precisely this. Uber did this to avoid angering their funders, which is a valid reason as any. But really, regardless of reason they are allowed to sell this game at any price they want. Over-pricing is neither illegal nor immoral unless the products are necessities of life and/or unavailable elsewhere. You don’t actually need this game and can easily just get another one, so they aren’t obliged to give it to you, at any price. If you don’t think $90 is a fair price, don’t buy it.

        Wanting thousands of people to lose their jobs so you can get a game for less money sounds a bit more unethical, don’t you think?

      • Deeon says:

        I’m sorry, but games are NOT luxury commodity. In my life I need food, water, gaming and sex. And I can even live without sex for a week or two. Games are my basic needs and a God given right as a human being and if you disagree than I call you a nazi. Yes, a nazi. Or at least somewhat of a n00b.

        Give me games or give me death!

    • mike2R says:

      It isn’t defending this as a good idea. I don’t know or care if its a good idea from a business point of view.

      What I’m doing is expressing utter incomprehension that people are getting genuinely upset over this. I know gamers get annoyed at being called “entitled”, but to be frank they need to stop behaving like this, since that is exactly how they are acting.

      Don’t want it, don’t buy it. I’m certainly not going to buy it at this price, and probably not on release at the quoted release price either. But this isn’t a fucking human rights issue.

      • Deadly Sinner says:

        “It is called ethics. You don’t sell a 10$ Shirt for 100$. You sell it for 15$ if you need to make a profit. But this is just ridiculous.”

        I hate the word entitled because it is misused so often, but this seems like a textbook case to me. Companies are only allowed to make as much profit as Scorcher deems necessary?

        I could understand complaining if Steam was forcing Early Access games to charge a high price or something, but this affects absolutely nothing except Planetary Annihilation.

    • mickygor says:

      Actually, if a shirt costs $10 to make if you don’t sell it at $40 you’re probably gonna wind up bust.

    • Methodric says:

      The game is not “funded” when it ends kickstarter… perhaps with smaller studios and games… They raised 2.2Million on KS, 10% of which goes to KS/Amazon .. and the game is LIKELY to cost over 4-8Million, possibly a lot more, by the time it’s released. 2 million would support a 40-50 man company for MAYBE 2 months.. a 25 man company would likely only survive for about 3-4 months. I would not be surprised if ALL the KS money is gone, plus more. It’s not cheap making games, don’t know why people have this belief.. I guess all these f2p games have confused the brains of many.

      But hey, if you want to assume that you know all about the game industry, just cause you have bought some games and play games.. well you go ahead thinking that..

  26. Cei says:

    But this isn’t just Alpha access you’re buying. You’re getting Alpha, Beta and the final retail release, plus a bunch of bonus content.

    Sure, if you were paying for just Alpha access, and nothing else, then it should be cheap. If you’re getting the actual game at the end of it, it should cost the same or more than the retail release, otherwise it is just a cheap way of pre-ordering.

    • bstard says:

      Potential beta and potential final, given the world does not end or the devs get bored or go broke. (which is less likely now with these prices).

  27. guygodbois00 says:

    Walletary Annihilation. Mr Rossignol you’ve outdone yourself again – I will stole this line, as a matter of course.

  28. berzerk404 says:

    I have to laugh at everyone complaining about the price. If you got it on Kickstarter, you could get the final game for $20 ($15 if you were in early). However, you won’t get it until it’s out in December.

    Why would anyone support another Uber Kickstarter if they launched Steam Early Access in June for $20? The people who were willing to support them would feel scammed, rather than those who only care about the final price.

  29. FriendlyPsicopath says:

    I found funny that people rage about this, everyone seems like a spoiled brat, you don’t have to buy early access, you can get the game later complete, or don’t get it at all, if you can’t wait or think you have to be able to get this or your life is over, i think you need to rethink the way you look at life.

    They have the right to charge what they want it is their product and they choose that pricing to respect the backers which is fare and logical since the game is being made because of the backers, they own them respect before everyone else.

    If you find this absurd or whatever fell free to it, you are enlighten to your opinions, just hope you realize that they have the right to charge the price they think it is fare, and yeah they are going for profit like a company that wants to grow will do it, they seems one of the most committed and open kickstarter projects out there, with updates really interesting showing the inner workings of the game, and i think i will buy this when i find the pricing reasonable to my financial needs, keep in mind that there’s a lot of rich people that love exclusivity and they are aiming for that market right now, it is smart business strategy, facebook started with a exclusivity business model and look how that worked for them.

  30. wodin says:

    Weren’t people paid once to play alphas and betas for a developer??? Great how they managed to turn that around…crazy.

    It’s gone from..why are we paying people to do this..bet they will do it for free…to why are we letting people playtest the game for free..bet we can make them pay for it..

    Go ahead and pay $90 for an alpha..by the time it gets to working properly and fully featured you’ll be sick of i..then realise you spent $90 to play a game that wasn’t finished and now it is your bored.

  31. Methodric says:

    I kickstarted this game with 150$. I do not regret my decision at all. When I bought into the kickstarter I was buying early access, I was buying a bunch of perks. When I saw the game listed on steam early access I actually felt really bad.. Why did I buy into this early access when other people are going to pay pennies to what I did, and still get access.. it didn’t seem right, untill I saw the price. When I saw 90$ my heart began to pump again and I was happy. The game is not going to be released for many months from now, and over that time, the price will drop.

    There seems to be a whole hell of a lot of expectation of “buying the game for 90$.. ” but you are not. You’re buying into the same KS and paypal tiers that are listed on their site. You can buy through steam, or through their site. If you don’t think it’s worth your money at the moment, it likely isn’t. But there are a lot of people who do think it’s worth their money. They are trying to fund a game development, and somehow people seem to think they can do that if they don’t make any money. They aren’t working to solve world hunger here guys, their trying to make a game, sell it, and make money.

    I put 150$ towards this game months ago; and I finally feel like I’m starting to get something in return. If you chaps don’t like it, MOVE ON. That’s why it’s ALPHA. TBH with the high price point, I’m thankful I won’t be swamped in the game with a bunch of people raging the game isn’t good yet. ..

    I will concede to one point though… They shouldn’t have listed it on their “New Releases” .. had it have been opened up quietly, there would have been waaaaay less hub-bub

  32. Yosharian says:

    People crying about price, don’t you realise that they did this because they only want a small number of alpha/beta testers? If they put the price at $10 they’d have floods of people.

    If you don’t think it’s worth that price, then don’t fucking buy it? Wait for the release?

  33. ocelot113 says:

    Ultimately, selling alpha and beta access to a game as a Kickstarter goal and pushing the same access to another platform is an awful idea. Any KS that I’ve seen has been, KS only have access to alpha + beta OR alpha + beta is offered to everyone that donates on KS giving all donors admission, therefore giving leeway on extending access in other venues (essentially not using “alpha + beta” as a cost to the donation but a bonus to donating).

    They just did an abysmal job planning their marketing and pricing. Steam seemed like a tacked on thing and not something that was planned since the KS.

  34. Commissar Choy says:

    I really don’t understand the hate here. If you don’t agree with the price, then you don’t have to buy it. Wait until it’s closer to release or for a sale. The reason I backed alpha in the KS is because I wanted access to the forums and to have a say in the development of the game. That’s the privilege you’re paying for. If you have no interest in that, then come back later when it’s closer to release.

  35. casavirx says:

    Why would anyone think it logical that PA would want to limit their visibility? Steam happens to be one of the best medias to promote PC games. This game needs to be sold in order to “prove” it’s worth: you can make a great game, but if it doesn’t sell (ex: Enslaved: Odyssey to the West), no one is going to make additional content or sequels for it, and if a game is good, that’s what you’ll want to see.

    The issue here is that Steam just puts everything in the same bucket. If alphas and betas stood apart from other products in a way that both serves to help promote them and mark their current state (let’s be honest, most pre-releases aren’t triple A publisher-supported titles and can use a bit of help as far as promotion is concerned), that could help fulfill the needs of both consumers (those who want early access can get it and those who want the finished product can wait) and developers who can use the money and visibility to help their studio out.

    Now, which ever way you might feel, the best thing you can actually do is to vote with your wallet. If you really feel like they are greedy pigs, just don’t pay 90$ right now for the game, no one is holding a gun to your head.

    On the other hand, if you missed the kickstarter (WHAT? People missed a Kickstarter, how dare they?!), would like an opportunity to play the game early and maybe contribute to it in some way (bug reporting, suggestions, etc.) and are ready to pay up exactly what EVERYONE ELSE with early access payed (being fair to all your consumers is just so damn despicable, really) then guess what: you can buy it for 90$ today!

    • Machinations says:

      There is such a thing as negative publicity, honest. As example, say i like rts games – i dont but thats not the point. I can play the CoH2 beta for free. It seems well made. Then i check steam and see uber wants nigh-100$ for the privilege of trying the game before release. Which do i, the non TA fan, do?

      Its just bad marketing. The game may do ok,, at a mimimum it will not lose money since they crowdsourced their costs..

      • Correa says:

        This is nothing about paying for Alpha access here…

        Seriously do people even bother reading the information that is gladly put out on why this is the price?
        There offering the same deal as us on Kickstarter got and were glad to pay for it. For once it is good to see the dev’s being ethical to there backers than pleasing entitled brats that can’t even be bothered to read past the $90 price…

  36. belgand says:

    Meh… it’s not the money that’s keeping me away (I mean, it would, just not in this case) so much as it being multiplayer-only. I just don’t have any interest in a multiplayer RTS.

  37. FatOak says:

    Unfortunately, $90 for a game is not that unusual a sight here in Australia.

  38. hogey74 says:

    The negative commenters here just don’t get it. This isn’t a normal game rollout. This is a unique, extended version of crowd sourced funding to get access to the successor of a much-loved niche game. TA was one of my favourite games ever and I was happy, as a more cashed-up adult, to chip in to fund it’s successor. After all the games I pirated for free back when I was a poor student, paying extra for something like this now is kind of fair. Interested in RTSs but don’t want to pay $90? Fine, wait for the actual complete game and pay a completely reasonable $40. Think $40 is unreasonable? If your main source of income is pocket money from taking out the trash, maybe it is. For anyone else, stop being silly.

    The Alpha is rough but shows the potential of the game engine. For anyone who actually understands the potential of a successor to TA, $40 is a tiny amount of money.

  39. iTzCascadexX says:

    What i really do not understand is how people complain that the price gets reduced upon completion, yes people pay £68 for this game but you would STILL shitstorm if the price went up upon completion. There is more logic behind it but you would complain still the same.

    And what annoys me the most is when people complain that £68 is WAYYYYYYY to expensive, if not, backers would be raging, so it’s equally ridiculous.

    Not being biased but its crazy how the price is that high but also crazy how you want the price to go up upon release. WEIRD!

  40. RocknRollah says:

    I can’t stand the actions of those who are developing Planetary Annihilation. Please let me share with you my reasons. I’d like to be clear about my conflict with the makers of the Planetary Annihilation. When they were charging $90 for their pre-release software in Alpha, I posted a statement to the effect that I thought what they were charging was hilarious. My comment was deleted by their moderators and I was banned for a period of several days from posting in the Steam forum for the game. I believe my actual comment was something like “$90? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!” It wasn’t just my comment that got deleted, as others found their objections deleted as well. I suppose they are within their right to do so, but it’s the banning and reporting to Steam that truly upset me. Ask yourself if someone should lose access to all of their Steam purchases because they posted a comment on the forum essentially laughing at the outrageous price of $90 for a Steam game in alpha pre-release. You see, when they banned and reported me for laughing at them publicly on their own forum, I was threatened as a result to lose permanent access to my Steam account. I have posted many comments in Steam forums, but this is the only developer that ever found it necessary to ban and report my actions to Valve/Steam.

    They also claimed they needed to charge $90 to Steam players so their Kickstarter funders wouldn’t feel slighted. This was a lie concocted to leverage Steam into allowing them to charge such an exorbitant fee in the Steam store. Steam has final say on all pricing. They allowed these people to overcharge for their game because of the precedent established on Kickstarter, but this was a blatantly greedy money-grab. There was no necessity to charge so much to Steam players as nobody was forcing them to put their game on Steam at that time. They simply wanted as much money as possible for as long as possible before people got over the initial fanboy phase and woke up to reality. They now are asking $50 and have players posting comments on their forums to the effect that the game ought to be sold for $25. These individuals (who have purchased the game) are not receiving bans for expressing their opinions about the pricing of the game. I find their actions as game developers reprehensible.