What do you think about "early release" games?

[Roland Schultz]

I notice a lot of new games coming out in "early release" or "early access." I tried some of them and ended up getting refunded because they were unplayable. I can accept that there may be bugs in a developing game but when I see these same bugs complained about over a year earlier and/or I see there is no instructions on how to play a complicated game 2 years later it makes me wonder. The reason given for "early release" by the game companies is to welcome feedback from us gamers, yet I see some of these unfinished games remaining in early release for years with the same unaddressed complaints. I can see that it makes sense to a game company to charge for an incomplete game as they develop it, but It seems that once a game is out there and a company charges for it many lose their incentive to actually finish the game.

[Brimzel]

Early Access? Was never unsatisfied with any I bought. You should buy them only if you're satisfied with their current state.

[Crazy Tiger]

Publicado originalmente por Roland Schultz:

I tried some of them and ended up getting refunded because they were unplayable.

Did you even read the blue notice and/or reviews? They're unfinished games, they can be pretty buggy, yes.

Publicado originalmente por Roland Schultz:

I can see that it makes sense to a game company to charge for an incomplete game as they develop it, but It seems that once a game is out there and a company charges for it many lose their incentive to actually finish the game.

Most don't, they simply don't go in the pace people somehow "expect" it to.

There have been quite some graduates from the Early Access program that are pretty good game. And plenty of games still in EAG that are better than many finished games.

[Snapjak]

I've been incredibly happy with at least two of the EA games I've got. Raft and 7 Days.

Now for some others... disgust and/or dis... no just disgust. Spacebase DF-9 and Edge of Space.

But I knew what I was getting into.

[nullable]

Publicado originalmente por Roland Schultz:

I notice a lot of new games coming out in "early release" or "early access." I tried some of them and ended up getting refunded because they were unplayable. The reason given for "early release" by the game companies is to welcome feedback from us gamers, yet I see some of these unfinished games remaining in early release for years with the same unaddressed complaints. I can see that it makes sense to a game company to charge for an incomplete game as they develop it, but It seems that once a game is out there and a company charges for it many lose their incentive to actually finish the game.

Well, only if you imagine everything lives in a vacuum. People review EA games just as harshly as anything. Bad games, get bad reviews. Bad games probably don't sell well. So maybe you might be overestimating how much money the games causing you the most concern are making.

But no one is being forced to review EA games nicely. No one is being forced to buy EA games.

Lots of people think the solution is to micromanage EA games according to their arbitrary values, timelines, etc. But that's not how software development works and it's not how Steam operates.

Yeah projects fail, projects struggle, some games just aren't going to be good no matter what. Money runs out. There's no demand. Teams lose members to better jobs. There's a million things that happen that impacts development. So boiling things down to laziness and greed is probably a bit oversimplified.

It's a rough gig and if you as the customer don't want to deal with those issues, don't buy EA games or games under active development. I generally don't buy EA games. But I think the EA system is great. But it's all a matter of perspective and managed expectations...

[Realigo Actual]

It seems to me a previously successful studio and/or a game more than 60-70% done in core features/buildout when it has its EA launch is what separates good EA from bad EA.

I think EA is a flawed paradigm. It seems less always gets done than they wanted and the money just disappears.

[Crazy Tiger]

Publicado originalmente por Actual Sprinkle Taters:

It seems less always gets done than they wanted

You just described general game development.

The thing that Early Access truly has done, is to make visual to the grand audience what the pitfalls of game development are.

[nullable]

Publicado originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

Publicado originalmente por Actual Sprinkle Taters:

It seems less always gets done than they wanted

You just described general game development.

The thing that Early Access truly has done, is to make visual to the grand audience what the pitfalls of game development are.

And surprise surprise it's not as magical or romantic as people would like. So surely there must be a way to fix that... more rules and arbitrary demands usually fix things.

[Nx Machina]

Are you willing to spend money and support a game in Early Access and understand very clearly it is in development, may never release or end up been a success such as Darkest Dungeon?

Only you can answer the question and only you can make that decision.

I personally support Early Access as a business model as Darkest Dungeon may never have seen the light of day, nor Dead Cells, Slay the Spire or Hades.

[Roland Schultz]

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. Those in favor of the system seem to be speaking largely from the viewpoint of the developers while recognizing that it is left to the customer to decide whether or not to buy an unfinished product, though there seems risk to both sides since developers risk losing customers disappointed with their early access experience regardless of how the game eventually turns out.
The 2 early access games I bought (beguiled by misleading marketing and my own foolish enthusiasm to find a new game) were a severe disappointment and made me question and distrust the whole idea. Calling it a business model says it all; “Come buy my vehicle; it doesn’t have an engine or tires but you’ll like it, and if you don’t it’s your own fault because I told you it didn’t have an engine or tires.” After reading negative reviews of other early access games I was considering this idiot is resolved to steer clear of early access in the future.

[cellphone t0wer gwest]

Early release, can't think of any complaints about that, maybe it's a waste of time if it's not the final draft. It will induce early re-scheduling of daily activities, though at the same time I don't even care enough about my life to follow an hour-to-hour schedule!

[nullable]

Publicado originalmente por Roland Schultz:

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. Those in favor of the system seem to be speaking largely from the viewpoint of the developers while recognizing that it is left to the customer to decide whether or not to buy an unfinished product, though there seems risk to both sides since developers risk losing customers disappointed with their early access experience regardless of how the game eventually turns out.

Sure there's risk. But there was risk before Early Access too. Games would still just be released in various states of quality or disrepair. And if you bought the game based on the marketing alone and didn't read any reviews you could be disappointed just the same.

I don't think EA increases risks. It does make things more transparent as you should have some slightly different expectations from a game still in Early Access. And having that option available means developers don't really need to publish an in progress project as a full release yet. You take EA away and a lot of games that are EA only now are sudden release quality, ready or not. There's no real concrete definition, and certainly not one Steam will enforce that defines when a game is done. But I am sure developers who feel a game is ready are tickled pink to move it out of Early Access. Knowing that I tend to be willing to trust their judgement about the state of the game beforehand.

[Roland Schultz]

Hey Brockenstein, You seem to know a lot about this subject. Are you a game developer? I know nothing about it or how Steam works. I just want to play games that work and it frustrates me when they don't, and it baffles me that it seems such a rare thing for a game to come out complete and ready to play. I just don't understand why a company that wants to be successful would allow so much of that to happen. Where is pride of product?
I love sub games and tried all the Silent Hunters but found every one of them to be unfinished in some way. It drives me crazy that such amazing graphic creativity that made SH-5 look so beautiful and realistic became irrelevant because a programming glitch wouldn't let you complete the campaign or the destroyers or planes never attacked you, such simple things that if fixed would make SH-5 the best sub game ever. The best sub game ever made, in my opinion, was Aces of the Deep. A '95 game, its graphics are way outdated but the cat and mouse contest between sub and escorts was perfectly balanced and the main reason for playing a sub game in the first place. Give that knuckle-biting experience to SH-5 and you'd have a perfect game. Instead Ubisoft just leaves their game behind. Is there little incentive to make a game actually work or little to lose to leave them unfinished?

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Early access are obviously a bigger risk because there's an implicit if not an explicit promise that more will be done. Sometimes it is, frequently it isn't.

I only took the gamble once - with Ark: Survival Evolved which at that stage was well into the top 10 of most played games. And from the little I've played of it - other than finding a space to start - it's good.

Steam has a good 15 years worth of game releases. There's more than enough games of proven quality to play than gambling your money on half finished titles.

S.x.

[Crazy Tiger]

Publicado originalmente por Roland Schultz:

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. Those in favor of the system seem to be speaking largely from the viewpoint of the developers while recognizing that it is left to the customer to decide whether or not to buy an unfinished product, though there seems risk to both sides since developers risk losing customers disappointed with their early access experience regardless of how the game eventually turns out.

Early access products are marketed as unfinished products that may or may not get finished. The warning says to only purchase it if you are happy with the product as-is. In that, they're the most honest products you'll find on Steam.

I talk from the point of the customer. However, I feel the customer also has a responsibility, namely to research their purchases. I find it too easy to blame Early Access for a bad purchase.

You are right that there is a risk for both parties. However, customers can minimise the risk by doing proper research (reviews and the forums help in that) and developers can minimise the risk by communicating properly.

As said, there have been quite some successful games from the program. Games like Darkest Dungeon, Slay the Spire, Factorio, Rimworld, Dead Cells, Kenshi, Subnautica, Tower of Time, Oxygen Not Included, My Time in Portia, Littlewood, etc.

Publicado originalmente por Roland Schultz:

I just want to play games that work and it frustrates me when they don't, and it baffles me that it seems such a rare thing for a game to come out complete and ready to play.

If you want games that work, why do you purchase Early Access products? As said, they're clearly unfinished games.

Personally I wishlist such games and wait til they're far enough in development that the game is worth my money.

[nullable]

Publicado originalmente por Roland Schultz:

Hey Brockenstein, You seem to know a lot about this subject. Are you a game developer?

I'm not a game developer, but I am a software developer. I just work on boring business applications.

Publicado originalmente por Roland Schultz:

I know nothing about it or how Steam works. I just want to play games that work and it frustrates me when they don't, and it baffles me that it seems such a rare thing for a game to come out complete and ready to play. I just don't understand why a company that wants to be successful would allow so much of that to happen. Where is pride of product?

https://arstechnica.com/video/series/war-stories this is actually a pretty good series that gives you some insights into successes and failures both.

https://arstechnica.com/video/watch/war-stories-elemental-war-of-magic (this episode specifically might be a good place to start with your questions)

And the people writing the code aren't usually making all the decisions. There's issues with time, money, design, shifting requirements, feature and scope creep. Projects fall behind, teams struggle, people come and go, budgets and demands change. And on top of that the work itself even under optimal conditions where most of the things mentioned previously are removed is still immensely difficult and can go off the rails in all sorts of ways.

Everyone wants to make a great game. But it's easier said than done. Take Cyberpunk 2077, highly anticipated, and then it was delayed and people pitched a fit about it. And if CD Projekt had released the game unfinished people would have had a fit about that. How do you make everyone happy? Who should be trying to make happy?

Publicado originalmente por Roland Schultz:

Instead Ubisoft just leaves their game behind. Is there little incentive to make a game actually work or little to lose to leave them unfinished?

Projects can fail. And determining whether a failed or failing project can be salvaged is a challenge. As unsatisfactory as it may be when you have skin in the game sometimes abandoning a project and not wasting money trying to put lipstick on a pig is the right thing to do. Not every project can turn around like No Man's Sky... that is the rare exception in reality.

And you pick any year you want there's piles of mediocre and bad games. It's because making games has always been a challenge. You've always had to avoid bad games. Digital distribution just makes it a bit easier to get your hands on bad games. You have way way more options to choose from now than browsing the shelves of every shop that sold games within 50 miles in 1995. So you have to be careful in ways that didn't exist 25 years ago. Welcome to the future. The upsides generally outweigh the bad.