The concept of EA…🤔

[Ramstar]

So.. two points re Early Access

1. Who actually does and does not test for the devs during EA when you buy their game? I try to give some feedback now and then but I’m really buying the game to play it and have fun. I’m quite patient and reasonable so not bothered about the odd bug etc.

2. The concept of paying devs so YOU can QA test THEIR product..? I guess the logic here is small indie teams and how else would they QA test to scale?

I just find it interesting- it’s like someone asking you for a favour then saying to do the favour in addition can you give me £20?

[Chika Ogiue]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ramstar:

So.. two points re Early Access
1. Who actually does and does not test for the devs during EA when you buy their game?

You'd have to ask each and every developer. There is no blanket answer here other than you buy Early Access with the understanding that the game will be in an unfinished and potentially unplayable state. You buy early access because you have enough interest in the title to put up with the aforementioned, and also to watch it grow (or not). If that, as the notice advises you, doesn't excite you, don't buy the game.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ramstar:

2. The concept of paying devs so YOU can QA test THEIR product..? I guess the logic here is small indie teams and how else would they QA test to scale?

You're not paying to test the game, you're paying to own a valid license to the game. And you do so with the understanding the game may never complete development. You also do it with the understanding that if the game does complete development, the price for the license in the future may differ. And while this trends to be more expensive, it can also go the other way, too. But you buy in early access because you're excited to support the project. If you're not excited to do so, don't buy Early Access.

[Selphea]

I see the value exchange like this.

I'm paying developers for their creative idea and the time they're putting in to make the game.

EA means it's not complete but there is an implicit commitment to complete it and payment is made upfront. Home renovations are sold that way. Same with corporate websites, artist commissions and generally, complex products where the customer needs to communicate their needs.

Usually, indie devs have an EA phase because they can't possibly test for the huge combinations of specs and player needs across OS, CPU, GPU, monitor specs, control schemes, accessibility etc by themselves. And that's not even getting into gameplay.

Yes, things can janky, but during EA developers are usually more hands-on about listening and understanding what players want and fixing issues or refining their idea. Usually, EA prices aren't as high as custom products unless it's one of those $1000++ Kickstarter super backer tiers so they can't accommodate everything but usually I find that bugs and reasonable requests are entertained.

[BJWyler]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ramstar:

So.. two points re Early Access

1. Who actually does and does not test for the devs during EA when you buy their game? I try to give some feedback now and then but I’m really buying the game to play it and have fun. I’m quite patient and reasonable so not bothered about the odd bug etc.

2. The concept of paying devs so YOU can QA test THEIR product..? I guess the logic here is small indie teams and how else would they QA test to scale?

I just find it interesting- it’s like someone asking you for a favour then saying to do the favour in addition can you give me £20?

Back in the day, I was fortunate enough to know a couple of people in the right places so got invites to a lot of Alpha and Beta testing. Proper QA is a whole different ball game that most "common" gamers have no clue about. The vast majority of "common" players get into EA, Open Betas, Stress Tests, et al. simply because they want to play the game, and that's all they really do. It isn't proper testing.

While I still have that QA mindset, and will still do some proper testing when I get a game in development, for the most part now, I am just doing it to play the game and see how it develops along, as well as support the devs in their efforts.

I don't necessarily agree with the paradigm shift in the industry where you can now buy your way into the early stages of a game. There are some advantages to getting as many eyeballs on the game as you can, and it helps to bring in an early influx of cash and gauge how popular your game is going to be, but like I said - most of what happens is nothing close to proper QA testing. And unfortunately, the gaming community being what it is, there are inherent problems with letting the "common" players in on your project in those early stages. We see this every time someone makes a post complaining about Early Access. At the end of the day, some people simply do not have the right mindset to be playing a game in development and should absolutely never buy a game until after the official launch. Unfortunately, many people simply don't have the wherewithal to understand that concept.

[ReBoot]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Crazy Tiger:

@ReBoot. What if "immersion and immediacy" isn't related to 1st or 3rd person but to other aspects for people? :p

... exactly my point. The nameless Commander can stop explaining that stuff because I'm not going to understand what they're explaining because this stuff means diffent things to me.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The nameless Commander:

It's simply a personal wish to be a part of a game's making and growth.

As I said earlier, if that works for you, fine. Others, i.e. me, may not be able to understand that because it doesn't matter to them. Different people fancying different aspects has been my point all along.

[Lithurge]

I'd ask why wouldn't you ask people playing the EA version to give feedback on bugs? The more you know the more you're able to prioritise and troubleshoot them.

You don't have to dip into too many discussion groups for newly released 'fully finished' games to pick up on bugs the professional QA testing either missed or chose to de-priotitse because they were deemed minor, but has a bigger impact in the real world.

[T9]

9 of 10 EAs are just utter trash but it is an easy way to make money with simpletons

[Start_Running]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ramstar:

So.. two points re Early Access

1. Who actually does and does not test for the devs during EA when you buy their game? I try to give some feedback now and then but I’m really buying the game to play it and have fun. I’m quite patient and reasonable so not bothered about the odd bug etc.

2. The concept of paying devs so YOU can QA test THEIR product..? I guess the logic here is small indie teams and how else would they QA test to scale?

I just find it interesting- it’s like someone asking you for a favour then saying to do the favour in addition can you give me £20?

If either of those concepts bother you.. don't buy. Some people like to see games evolve and get hands on with them. And no you aren't being QA... believe me when I say QA is an entirely differentg beast.

[Ramstar]

Very useful feedback and comments here.

The specs point is a great one. I would say most games I’ve played in EA are actually really good. Maybe that’s because I can ‘tell’ what is going to tickle my fancy more than not (over 30 years of gaming).

I also work for a software company and very familiar with QA. I think that’s where these Qs came from now I think about after one of you above touched on it.

The question wasn’t so much about not liking EA to point it out again.. it’s the concept of EA that is interesting to me in terms of the logistics of testing and finding bugs. “Normal” software you’d pilot it with a subset of users but this is after requirements gathering as the software is intended for them.

I wonder if an indie dev would consider that approach? So rather than make the game then ask, ask then make the game then you pay for EA? 🤔.

[JacquesPatat]

you can add a point to it as well. why buy a game which is out of early access but full of bugs and unfinished. There is a few games like which is not sorted but of course a few what is sorted. something to think about

[Crazy Tiger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von JacquesPatat:

you can add a point to it as well. why buy a game which is out of early access but full of bugs and unfinished. There is a few games like which is not sorted but of course a few what is sorted. something to think about

Good point, people put way too much focus on the label. Plenty of Early Access games are in a much better state than plenty of "finished" games. But just because the buggy "finished" games don't have that blue warning label on the store page, it's ok...

[Ramstar]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von JacquesPatat:

you can add a point to it as well. why buy a game which is out of early access but full of bugs and unfinished. There is a few games like which is not sorted but of course a few what is sorted. something to think about

I think whether gsme is in EA or not you have to use some general judgement and do some research, watch videos etc.

This feels like a separate conversation though around full releases and those expectations.

[Start_Running]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ramstar:

Very useful feedback and comments here.

The specs point is a great one. I would say most games I’ve played in EA are actually really good. Maybe that’s because I can ‘tell’ what is going to tickle my fancy more than not (over 30 years of gaming).

I also work for a software company and very familiar with QA. I think that’s where these Qs came from now I think about after one of you above touched on it.

The question wasn’t so much about not liking EA to point it out again.. it’s the concept of EA that is interesting to me in terms of the logistics of testing and finding bugs. “Normal” software you’d pilot it with a subset of users but this is after requirements gathering as the software is intended for them.

I wonder if an indie dev would consider that approach? So rather than make the game then ask, ask then make the game then you pay for EA? 🤔.

The problem with niormal software testing is that you sometimes wind up with your test group becoming too familiar. The sort of feed back you get from early access isn't merely about bugs but little look and feel type things. Like whether or notb the animation for an action is too long/short. Whether or notCertain button presses and keystrokes are 'sane'. Whether or not there's enough time spent intrioducing and encouraging a player to use a mechanic before gating progress behind proffeciency in said mechanic....little things like that whiuch in games can make the difference between the game being a smash hit, and a dud.

And with such things ,.. you do benefit from having HUNDREDS of diverse of feedback points as opposed to a few dozen.

Bugs are relatively easy to find and deal with. FIne tuning the windup and cooldown for an action's animation....that's hard.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ReBoot:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von C²C^Guyver |NZB|:

"I just find it interesting- it’s like someone asking you for a favour then saying to do the favour in addition can you give me £20?"

Also, yeah that is kind of bashing.

... which means you roughly share the OP's opinion so it makes even less sense for you to bash OP's posts. Please stop that.

No you misunderstand. That's what the OP said.

[Tito Shivan]

Repeat after me:
Playing an early access game is NOT the same as betatesting or QA'ing

[Low Standards]

The biggest problem with Early Access is early pay. Take a look at the big EA hit Palworld. It promises a lot in the future for a hamburger today. They never plan on finishing it. It would take too much time for the money the receive.

Take a look at the last game they made (Craftopia). Early access -- yes. Tons of promises -- yes. 1 year until full release -- yes. It has been many years and they still are in EA with almost nothing delivered.

Why, just tell me why would anyone who gets money before a game is finished has any reason to continue? None.