Early Access Is Ruining PC Gaming and Steam.

[Morisato]

So i've been thinking this for awhile So many Games now On Steam and we only get a Finished game Ocassionally, Developers sit in Early access for years On years and We Buy the game play it In A Pre alpha State get bored and Likely never ever touch it again.

Really Early Access is One of the few reasons I refuse to convert to PC fully At least My Cruddy Console games are Fully Finished and Not missing critical content.


So Folks weigh in Is Early Access the Bane of all pc gamers? has Steam made a huge error allowing so many? myself i think a game in early access should be in a Open Beta stage Anything not to that point Should not be allowed on steam as EA Perhaps we need a New Moniker for those kinda games... Say We Call it Prealpha? I mean I see people making game bones and tossing up crap that has like no Content and crashes half the time...

[VaLiuM]

The reasons may be very different from game to game but the majority cannot sustain core development with lower to no sales, something Steam always outlined pre-signup as being a main reason to not enter the Early Access program and that happens often. Yet they do it anyway and customers just can't sneak out of that like a developer can.

[Tsal Vlaxitov]

They do it anyway because they've seen others profit from that and they think they can do the same. Not realizing that the initial group of so called devs who profited from taking advantage of the system basically ruined early access's reputation. So what you mostly have now using early access to develop their games are deluded dreamers who still think they can pull off what the original wave of people were able to. That's why you don't even see as many games going EA anymore. Most of the developers who are still succesfully using EA are those who have built at least a mediocre reputation on their own despite the program's reputation.

[PsychoDino]

引用自 Ultralow^：

It's a valid point to be made, i mean, take The Forest for example, the game has been on greenlight for about 4 years and is still in alpha, and that's regardless of it being one of the most successful greenlight games. The game has 70k reviews, so let's be generous and make the outright WRONG assumption that every person who purchased the game left a review. At £11 per copy, that's 770k, take away steams 30% and you're left with 539k for 4 years of incredibly slow development in early access. The guy only just recently managed to finish implementing the story, which, going by the standard procedure of game devs, means that he is yet to go through the final polishing and bug fixing steps which could take him 2 years or more judging by the track record of his slow development speed. So we're looking at release by 2019 at the earliest, which is 6 years after it was announced, by which point he will have recieved probably 1 million dollars BEFORE any profits from the final release, and most of the people who bought the game in the first place will have become completely bored of the game from spending years playing the unfinished product.

Who on earth is going to bother playing a game for 6 years?

Early access is nice in theory, in that it encourages and supports independent developers, but in practice it just leaves us with a lot of money wasted on good ideas that got half finished and then dumped in the trash, the gamers left out of pocket.

The fact is, good indie developers don't need such large monetary support to make games, i've seen what amateur devs can do with unreal engine and a couple hundred hours. For him to take 5 years to make such a small and limited game world with only a handful of environments and a very basic crafting system, shows, to anyone who has seen what dedicated devs can do, that he has taken the money from the customers, and sat back enjoying it, rather than repaying that good faith with hard work. And that's what we're encouraging, lazy scammers with cool sounding ideas who never intend to follow through on their promises. I mean, EA might sell alot of DLC's and Ubisoft might downgrade the hell out of their games, but at least they manage to release a somewhat finished product, and you pay for the game AFTER its released.

and the fact that the game is not good

[Start_Running]

引用自 VaLiuM：

The reasons may be very different from game to game but the majority cannot sustain core development with lower to no sales, something Steam always outlined pre-signup as being a main reason to not enter the Early Access program and that happens often. Yet they do it anyway and customers just can't sneak out of that like a developer can.

Actually. if you applied some common sense you'd understand where your logic falls apart. Are you familiar with the Triangle of Fast, Cheap, and Good?

Pick 2.

Good + Fast = !Cheap
Cheap + Good = !Fast
Fast + Cheap = !Good

If sales are poor the development does not stop. It simply slows down. And yes the team will work on other items because when you have 14 hours in a given day you need to make the most profitable use of those hours. It's business.

Development will slow when funds are low. And considering very few EAcc games have even hit the lower part of the the development Average... Kinda early to be saying they've abused it.

More the case is that most PC gamers are ignorant of game development time. Because they keep thinking about it as some fancy name for Pre-Order. Those that understand what it means for a game to be in development. Have no such confusion or problem.

[BlackSpawn]

Both developers AND customers that understand the prevalence of misuses and abuses of Steam's Early Access, the preponderance of alphas for the cashgrab, misrepresented titles, the marketing of content and features that never make it to the actual game, scams, etc...

KNOW that early access on Steam is misused and abused in a myriad ways.
And that it hurts consumers and HONEST developers alike.

And it has NOTHING to do with development times.
More with time that is used NOT to develop.

If titles actually had to be ACCOUNTABLE and RESPONSIBLE to develop the marketed titlte to a stated basic degree of completion as marketed on the Steam store and updating customers / the Store entry on the development of the title, the story would be different.

As it stands, anything from alphas for the cashgrab to market tests, cutting the game down to episodic, adding DLC during Early Access, adding microtransactions and other bullcrappery on PAID early access games, until recently manipulating voting mechanisms on Steam....all kinds of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ is fair game, as there is ZERO control over all the shady moves that unscrupulous and / or incompetent developers / publishers are allowed to get away with under the guise of Early Access.

Early Acccess implies a playable game at launch.
If you are launching with a prototype / proof of concept you are doing it wrong.

[VaLiuM]

引用自 Start_Running：

Actually. if you applied some common sense you'd understand where your logic falls apart. Are you familiar with the Triangle of Fast, Cheap, and Good?

Pick 2.

Good + Fast = !Cheap
Cheap + Good = !Fast
Fast + Cheap = !Good

If sales are poor the development does not stop. It simply slows down. And yes the team will work on other items because when you have 14 hours in a given day you need to make the most profitable use of those hours. It's business.

Development will slow when funds are low. And considering very few EAcc games have even hit the lower part of the the development Average... Kinda early to be saying they've abused it.

More the case is that most PC gamers are ignorant of game development time. Because they keep thinking about it as some fancy name for Pre-Order. Those that understand what it means for a game to be in development. Have no such confusion or problem.

Fast, Cheap and Good doesn't really work for Early Access, not for those making the games and not for those wanting to see them finished at some point. Fun part is, i bought with full price slapped on most of them, not on any discount. You can't make a good game if you aren't willing to invest something into it and you can't invest what you don't have, there is no quota on Steam saying X amount of sold copies monthly are guaranteed so that you can definitely plan with, not for indies and not for any major publishers, it simply requires decent management, marketing and overall presentation. Or how about a starting budget, proper funding, no?

That aside, i've seen a handful of finished games but mostly developers breaking apart, fighting with each other in the public, disappearing over night, never updating anything, never communicating anything, promising a lot and delivering less to nothing, straight out lying, trolling, sabotaging their own game, adding fake content, censoring, mass-banning, the list can go infinite. That's the other side of the coin customers face, surrounding that program. Customers see it from their perspective, afterall and why should it be any different?

So it's not really money, development and progress in that alone that decides which games make it thru and which won't. It wasn't that rare also that games sold pretty good and development was okayish and there even was decent interest but the management was poorly done due to lack of experience or just being too arrogant to see the full picture, being too much into daily routines.

The only triangle i know of by now probably is

!Don't !Buy !EA

!

[TheStoryteller01]

引用自 BlazeMcNight：

引用自 BlackSpawn：

There is no basis on which to claim, establish or reasonably hope that this situation will improve unless Valve does something about it.

Steam Direct or not.
And the effects of Steam Direct on it are unknown and unable to be reasonably inferred with the scant info we have available about it.

I believe one of the reasons for the overhaul is to help rid/lessen the noise of problematic submissions. The very last section on the Steam Direct announcement is the basis on which I feel it's a step in the direction of "cleaning up" what is released.

We want to make sure Steam is a welcoming environment for all developers who are serious about treating customers fairly and making quality gaming experiences. The updates we’ve made over the past few years have been paving the way for improvements to how new titles get on to Steam, and Steam Direct represents just one more step in our ongoing process of making Steam better.

You enjoy the glass half empty, while I enjoy it half full and that's just fine.

His problem is not, that the glass of water is half-empty, but that the other half is filled with piss.

But hey, enjoy the water! ^^

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 TheStoryteller01：

His problem is not, that the glass of water is half-empty, but that the other half is filled with piss.

But hey, enjoy the water! ^^

Wonder how it is that some people see water when others see piss when looking at the same object

Maybe it's all about opinions and personal taste.

[BlackSpawn]

引用自 Tito Shivan：

引用自 TheStoryteller01：

His problem is not, that the glass of water is half-empty, but that the other half is filled with piss.

But hey, enjoy the water! ^^

Wonder how it is that some people see water when others see piss when looking at the same object

Maybe it's all about opinions and personal taste.

The underlying business practices are not a matter of taste.

The scams, misuses / abuses of the system, alphas abandonded for the cashgrab, misrepresented games / misleading marketing of features / content that never materializes, addition of paid DLC on incomplete PAID Early Access titles, etc IS NOT subject to taste.

Simply those are things that need to be addressed.

[Oointah_Duane]

引用自 Tsal Vlaxitov：

引用自 Start_Running：

Look as a dev, you understand that you have the choice between following the pack or breaking rank. Both have their downsides. follow the pack and you get lost in the crowd. Break from the herd and you are at the greatest risk.

The difference is this guy you're addressing is a dev who clearly has confidence in his work.

You're a "dev" who clearly doesn't, which is why you love it the way it is.

The big deal for me (the dev who has confidence apparently) is that I don't need a good product anymore to profit. I need to create a product that tricks you into believing you are having fun.

Early Access is a tiny problem in an ocean of problems when it comes to gaming.

I just believe we need more standards, not for consumer protection, but because the long term manipulation going on via games and the gaming media isn't healthy for anyone involved (people or industry).

[[Lethalvriend]]

引用自 BlackSpawn：

引用自 Tito Shivan：

Wonder how it is that some people see water when others see piss when looking at the same object

Maybe it's all about opinions and personal taste.

The underlying business practices are not a matter of taste.

The scams, misuses / abuses of the system, alphas abandonded for the cashgrab, misrepresented games / misleading marketing of features / content that never materializes, addition of paid DLC on incomplete PAID Early Access titles, etc IS NOT subject to taste.

Simply those are things that need to be addressed.

It should have been physically impossible for developers to add DLC to early access store pages to begin with. I had only a couple of EA titles myself, Don't Starve and Kerbal Space Program, both which were already big enough in the community and seem to have a competent development team. However I too have noticed the flood of terrible games added to steam in the past years and my steam queue currently has over 13,000 games marked as 'don't care' pretty much. I'd say in the case of EA titles I came across through it almost every single one I marked that way. Some games that are now on steam make me scratch my head, it seems Valve opened the floodgates making it harder to find the quality games, in exchange for giving only a few dozen good ones a chance that otherwise might not have. It's difficult to get a clear view on whether the whole EA and Greenlight was ever a good thing. I personally think it's not however.

[Oointah_Duane]

引用自 Start_Running：

引用自 VaLiuM：

The reasons may be very different from game to game but the majority cannot sustain core development with lower to no sales, something Steam always outlined pre-signup as being a main reason to not enter the Early Access program and that happens often. Yet they do it anyway and customers just can't sneak out of that like a developer can.

Actually. if you applied some common sense you'd understand where your logic falls apart. Are you familiar with the Triangle of Fast, Cheap, and Good?

Pick 2.

Good + Fast = !Cheap
Cheap + Good = !Fast
Fast + Cheap = !Good

If sales are poor the development does not stop. It simply slows down. And yes the team will work on other items because when you have 14 hours in a given day you need to make the most profitable use of those hours. It's business.

Development will slow when funds are low. And considering very few EAcc games have even hit the lower part of the the development Average... Kinda early to be saying they've abused it.

More the case is that most PC gamers are ignorant of game development time. Because they keep thinking about it as some fancy name for Pre-Order. Those that understand what it means for a game to be in development. Have no such confusion or problem.

Start_Running, I just want to highlight a few things:

Firstly, what point are you trying to make with the triangle? That barometer is dead. You can have good and fast now which was the whole point of that triangle theory in the first place. Good is subjective and without standards, my whole point early in this thread.

Secondly, if sales are poor and you've tried, I mean really tried (paid installs and bribes). Business dictates cut it off. Why sink more time into it? The market has decided and it's a dud. What would lead any sane person to believing going back in 6 months would result in success? Consumers move on. Heck, if you don't hook in 3m 41s it's over anyway!

Thirdly, consumers don't have to care about development time. They are the consumers. They have demands and the market if oversaturated. Ignoring them means you'll be repeating the second point a lot.


Now I'm guilty of #2. Hoping that if I go back to my failed Steam game with new patches there will be a spike in interest. 15 months later and I'm still suckering myself into that and each time I wonder if I'm sane...

So ignore this comment hehe.

[TheStoryteller01]

引用自 Tito Shivan：

引用自 TheStoryteller01：

His problem is not, that the glass of water is half-empty, but that the other half is filled with piss.

But hey, enjoy the water! ^^

Wonder how it is that some people see water when others see piss when looking at the same object

Maybe it's all about opinions and personal taste.

Exactly.

Some people just don't mind the taste of ♥♥♥♥ in their water.

But that doesn't mean, that everybody else will follow their example. ^^

[-OrLoK- Слава Україн]

引用自 Oointah_Duane：

I need to create a product that tricks you into believing you are having fun.

Hello there

Surely if you think you are having fun ...then you are having fun?

How does one trick someone in this way? Explain, if possible, please.

Rgds

LoK

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 TheStoryteller01：

But that doesn't mean, that everybody else will follow their example. ^^

It doesn't mean either the water taste I don't like should stop being sold.

引用自 secuda：

Or saying Second warfare is better then Call of duty hey it is an opinion right? yea no its not not by a mile.

Actually, it is.

引用自 Oointah_Duane：

The big deal for me (the dev who has confidence apparently) is that I don't need a good product anymore to profit. I need to create a product that tricks you into believing you are having fun.

It's been that way since the dawn of time. You're only seeing the entrails of the entertainment business now. (I don't know how something can trick me into thinking I'm having fun, either I have it or not.)

The irony of selling entertainment is that entertainment itself isn't directly proportional to product quality.

We don't buy entertainment (games/music/comics/movies/tv shows) because of the quality, we buy them because they're FUN.