Insertfunnyname Aug 2 @ 12:08pm
Early Access, why the hate?
I don't understand why people hate on Early Access.. would you rather get a game with tons of bugs in it, get a game free and then when it goes live having to buy it again, after wasting all that time on it (even worse with story-type games, as you won't have a reason to buy it again), or pay to play a game early and keep it even if the price goes up?
Not having Early Access would result in less players testing a game for bugs, which would then increase the amount of unfound bugs in the game, which would not be very good for business if they released a really buggy game.
I don't know about you, but getting a game free for Early Access, and then having to pay for it once it goes live sounds really stupid to me. Think of say... Minecraft. Would you like to build up a massive castle, gather all the diamonds in your world, and then the game is released and they say "And now you must pay for what you have collected! MUAHAHAHA!"?
Tbh, I think Early Access is a good thing, as it helps video game devs work out the kinks and people eventually get a better product. Sure, there are those games that don't work out, but those are casualties of war. I'd rather eventually having a better product than not being able to buy a game early and then buying a buggy mess.
Also, if you don't want to buy it, you don't have to, you can wait for it to come out. Unless, of course, someone is holding a gun to your head saying "YOU MUST BUY THIS EARLY ACCESS GAME OR I WILL BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT!"
Last edited by Insertfunnyname; Aug 2 @ 12:10pm
Showing 1-15 of 115 comments
< >
↑RiseOfTheWeeaboo↑ Aug 2 @ 12:32pm 
There are both pros and cons.

The biggest issue is with people not wanting to pay money for the risk of an incomplete product, hence why people want Early-Access to have it's own storefront as it's bogging down the current storefront for games that THEY want to see and may mislead common newbies to think they're buying a "ready" game (you'd be surprised at a lot of people who don't even read it's "early access").

However, I agree with the fact that Early-Access also allows for the developer to PROPERLY bug-test their game and get more useful feedback compare to internal bug testing. Most of the devs who release Early Access probably don't have the money and resources to bug test and optimize their game across hundreds of different hardware/software combinations, thus it may be a really strict and hard to run game. With EA, they have all the time they need to iron out the kinks which could result in a smoother product that will work for all users as they're recieving feedback from a wide-range of hardware combinations, etc that allows them to address some unusual issues.

But this isn't guaranteed. Some developers see Early Access as a scheme to promise ideas and not deliver with the sole intent of making cash and running. This has happened. Valve have reacted, but I'm not sure if the buyers have recieved reimbursments nor have the developers recieved any severe punishments rather than "you can't release anohter game on Steam". It caused Valve to change their terms with EA games that no longer promise a "complete product". So now it even pushes potential buyers further away as it seems Valve aren't interested in punishing developers for abandoning titles.

So yea, the risk is too big for a lot of users to think about the rewards of Early Access. Hence why a lot of people might be against it.
presto668 Aug 2 @ 12:34pm 
Because I can't get excited about paying to beta test someone else's game (that they might not ever finish).
Insertfunnyname Aug 2 @ 1:34pm 
Originally posted by ↑RiseOfTheReBOOT↑:
There are both pros and cons.

The biggest issue is with people not wanting to pay money for the risk of an incomplete product, hence why people want Early-Access to have it's own storefront as it's bogging down the current storefront for games that THEY want to see and may mislead common newbies to think they're buying a "ready" game (you'd be surprised at a lot of people who don't even read it's "early access").

However, I agree with the fact that Early-Access also allows for the developer to PROPERLY bug-test their game and get more useful feedback compare to internal bug testing. Most of the devs who release Early Access probably don't have the money and resources to bug test and optimize their game across hundreds of different hardware/software combinations, thus it may be a really strict and hard to run game. With EA, they have all the time they need to iron out the kinks which could result in a smoother product that will work for all users as they're recieving feedback from a wide-range of hardware combinations, etc that allows them to address some unusual issues.

But this isn't guaranteed. Some developers see Early Access as a scheme to promise ideas and not deliver with the sole intent of making cash and running. This has happened. Valve have reacted, but I'm not sure if the buyers have recieved reimbursments nor have the developers recieved any severe punishments rather than "you can't release anohter game on Steam". It caused Valve to change their terms with EA games that no longer promise a "complete product". So now it even pushes potential buyers further away as it seems Valve aren't interested in punishing developers for abandoning titles.

So yea, the risk is too big for a lot of users to think about the rewards of Early Access. Hence why a lot of people might be against it.

I guess that makes sense. Giving EA its own page would probably be a good thing, so people don't get confused.

Originally posted by presto668:
Because I can't get excited about paying to beta test someone else's game (that they might not ever finish). :nogo:

But nobody is forcing you to buy the game. Unless, as I said, someone is holding a pistol to your head saying "BUY THIS EARLY ACCESS GAME OR I WILL BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT!"
It makes sense that you don't want to buy a game that might not be finished. Let us risk-takers buy the game instead, and then when it's finished and the devs have ironed out all the bugs, then you can buy it yourself.
Hayden Aug 2 @ 1:49pm 
If you really want to know do a search of the forum as this one is like;y to be locked due to repeat topic. There are dozens of threads, including some with 100's of posts, debating the Early Access System.
Black Blade Aug 2 @ 3:01pm 
[/me looks a side at the guy holding the pistol and keep shouting something abut early access and buying, lucky his out of bullets by now ]

Over all i understand two of the sides, if EAG had there own store front i think its very likely they get less view and there for less will get them, as some complain abut changing the tab from Top sellers to New releases, so i do not think its likely they take the time to move to the new store front

On the other hand as pointed before many do not like the point of buying a game that may never get done
As well as some say they get fed up of playing the game by the time it comes out..
And there is also the risk of it been a scam all the time
Some just do not like the idea of buying a game that is not done, but i say that is some what like buying a Pre-Order, you do not know if the game is good, but here you get at least reviews to tell you the current state of the game


But to close these, i think you be best to join the existing treads abut these we had a time when a tread abut EAG come almost weekly.. and over all most points were all ready pointed so be best if you can just join in a existing one then open a new one for good or bad
MechRiderN ✦ Aug 2 @ 3:02pm 
This system is just terrible, the idea has some novelty but the way it's designed it's literally a factory of unfinished games. Look at Extra Credit's video about it, they have a really valid arguement about the subject (because I'm too lazy to explain it myself)
Last edited by MechRiderN ✦; Aug 2 @ 3:02pm
The Defiler Aug 2 @ 3:33pm 
I bought the broken, junky, overhyped Project Zomboid. 6 months later and it's even dumpier than when I first picked it up.
Hayden Aug 2 @ 3:38pm 
I'm just going to post my response from a similar thread so not all of it applies to you OP.,No offense intended but there are a couple of these threads with the same topic at least weekly.
If people cannot be bothered to read the EAG disclaimer than they need to be wearing a helmet and only have supervised internet time. Promised features are irrelevant as it cleary says you are buying the game as is and features can be changed or emoved at whim.

There are reviews and forum sections for actual users to voice whether the quality,speed, and promises of a developer is up to expectations.. If people Can't read the EAG disclaimer then they likely can't be bothered to read those vote talies. The mandatory two week updates is meaningless as each one could be something as simple as a typo fixed. The this game is going tobe finished button would be way too proned to abuse. Look at all the complaints about DayZ and its development, despite since being released last December with a warning that it would be at least a year at the earliest before it even enters beta, people still complain about it being buggy, slowly updated, and unfinished. Or look at Rust it was progressing decently and went through several design changes. Ultimately, it was not meeting developer expectations and rather than build on what they considered a sub-par base, they decided to scrap the game for the most part and rebuild it from the ground up for a better game/user experience. This will undoubtedly cost them a lot as well as keeping potential buyers waiting even longer to purchase. I'm sure both these games would have the its never going to be completed button pressed until it breaks.

Yeah refunds are a dicey issue, and I'm on the side of EAG games should be sold at a discount of the planned release price (as some already do). Steam should take action against any extremely misleading/exploitative titles and in some rare cases they do. The EAG system is less than a 1.5 years old. It takes awhile to develop games especially for these smaller developers that don't have an influx of cash from publishers or the staff and resources of the big name guys using the same engines and resources to pump out yearly franchise entries.

If anything Early Access has the oppurtunity to break the cycle of lackluster and uninventive games. I find the game market very similar to what the film market has become since videogames have become so mainstream.. You rarely see a big name quality title that is willing to break the mold and try something new. The big name studios want to minimize risk so they focus on tried and true formulas and sequels, while you see indie film/game makers experimenting/innovating but are obviously unable to match the high budget production values the major studios employ. With the sheer number of titles it seems harder and harder to do something that is new and amazes.

Early Access games have the potential to turn the system on its head. It gives the consumer even greater choice. New game ideas the big names wouldn't dare to try are a staple of indie games. Consumers can put their money where their mouths are and support new ideas that they accuse the industry of lacking. Early access allows those developers to not only get large amounts of valuable feedback ut also additional funding allowing them to enhance their titles to rival traditional developers and publishers. Yes the system is new and has the potential for abuse and failures, but like any successful system it will be refined over time and consumers will better learn how to choose which titles to support. If anything Early Access has the ability to bring in a renaissance for the game industry ushering a new age of opportunities once thought impossible.

Is an early access game right for you? The answer varies from person to person. I find the following to be a good formula:
1. Is the game in a state you would be interested in playing?
2. Has the developer been updating and implementing features at a pace that you find reasonable?
3. Is your financial situation in a state where you are not worried about having spent money on a game that may not be finished for a long time/Are you buying an EAG expecting it to be finished soon instead of buying a finished title and later down the road buying the EAG in question.
camerox Aug 2 @ 4:01pm 
Early accsess is awesome
The Defiler Aug 2 @ 7:43pm 
Originally posted by camerox:
Early accsess is awesome

Buying half finished crap is awesome. I'm sure hundreds of angry DayZ players would agree.
Satoru Aug 2 @ 7:48pm 
Originally posted by The Defiler:
Buying half finished crap is awesome. I'm sure hundreds of angry DayZ players would agree.

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

24,312 DayZ

And over 25k people would disagree with that sentiment
Hayden Aug 2 @ 7:49pm 
Originally posted by The Defiler:
Originally posted by camerox:
Early accsess is awesome

Buying half finished crap is awesome. I'm sure hundreds of angry DayZ players would agree.
They must be doing something right as the games is always in the top sellers and most played
The Defiler Aug 2 @ 8:03pm 
Originally posted by HLCinSC:
Originally posted by The Defiler:

Buying half finished crap is awesome. I'm sure hundreds of angry DayZ players would agree.
They must be doing something right as the games is always in the top sellers and most played

Open world + zombies will draw in sales no matter what. Even infestation survivor stories (WarZ) was rolling in the dough.

The engine is ancient, the controls are clunky, and the game runs like crap. Also, they released the game WAY ahead of when it should have in order to cash in on christmas. DayZ and Rust (Rust to a lesser extent) also enabled the CoD kiddie wave to migrate from consoles to PC becasue none of them could afford the shiny new consoles and they all wanted to play the overhyped, broken zombie game and league of legends. Watch, in 5 years DayZ will be the internet's new whipping boy instead of CoD becasue of it being overrated as ♥♥♥♥ and filled with degenerates (a trait inherent of the internet).

Ok, I'm sorry I went on that tangent. It's just that I freaking hate DayZ.

But anyways, if you want to see evidence of how cancerous crowdfunding can be just look at the yogscast adventure game. They stole half a million dollars from people by promising everything under the sun, handing development to an incredibly small team, and then reporting that the money was "good as spent" when all the suckers were wondering what the ♥♥♥♥ happened after the cancelled the game out of nowhere after half the development team left because they were too many demands.

This is crowdfunding at it's worst.
Satoru Aug 2 @ 8:11pm 
Originally posted by The Defiler:
Open world + zombies will draw in sales no matter what. Even infestation survivor stories (WarZ) was rolling in the dough.

The thing is WarZ is not nearly as bad as they 'negative hype' made it out to be.It wasn't particularly good. It was just kinda mediocre. It suffered from a massive PR disaster, but the game itself if you play it, isn't nearly as horrible as people make it out to be. That's why people play it, because it's actually 'ok'.
Dayton ツ Aug 2 @ 10:23pm 
Early acces is the best.
Showing 1-15 of 115 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Aug 2 @ 12:08pm
Posts: 115