Early Access/Beta Games

[Gro]

Just a quick comment about these kickstarter or early access games. I'm not sure if these games are worth investing in.

I've read a lot of reviews by people which base their views on these unfinished or in development games, and while a lot of these games are great or have great potential, isn't the real problem that by the time these games have been tweeked, updated, bug improvements etc.. you've played the game so much that you get tired of it before it's a finished product.

I may be in the minority (who knows), but I tend to play a game for a few months and then move on to aother game.

I just think that you can never really play these games at their best.

So, I'm not sure if beta games are a good thing or not, what do you think?

[Tux]

#Let Girls Learn #Sunshine Week님이 먼저 게시:

Grosvenor님이 먼저 게시:

If the game ends up being very popular I agree with what you say, getting a head start on multiplayer etc.. is a good thing. I don't think all beta/early access games are bad.

One reason I originally posted the question was from reading lots of reviews from people who have paid and where initally excited about a game only to become disheartend and I wondered it was fair and I think 'Romulas NImbus' post above had some valid comments.

Partital review picked at random.

snip
Now I ask, would you pay for a service like that anywhere else?

No and that's where the problem lies. The problem really is a mix of lack of customer education by Steam (despite the warning box and faq as well as the customer's ability to research before buying) on the purpose of EAG, consumer research, and a low bar/vetting of acceptance into the EAG program.

very honestly I think the amount of people getting taken by not reading the rules is greatly exaggerated. In fact I am willing to bet that most people who post on complaining never REALLY got a bad experience on Early Access unless they were expllctly looking to create one just so they can complain about it.

I dont have evidence on this, its justa hunch

[Start_Running]

10 GOTO 30
30 GOTO 10

Seriously..., Also your technically not paying to ebta test. You're paying for a beta version . The devs may or may not use your feedback to improve the game.


That said....OP you summed up the biggest issue with Early Access. The consumer, You basically think in terms of 'months when it comes to Game development. THink in terms of years.

It's one of the reasons I'm particularly miffed to see Black Mesa on Early Access.. Seriously I tried that sucka 2 years ago and now with the big EA release the only thing new they have to offer is a couple multiplayer maps? Really, not the missing 15% of the game?

[Gro]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

10 GOTO 30
30 GOTO 10

Seriously..., Also your technically not paying to ebta test. You're paying for a beta version . The devs may or may not use your feedback to improve the game.


That said....OP you summed up the biggest issue with Early Access. The consumer, You basically think in terms of 'months when it comes to Game development. THink in terms of years.

It's one of the reasons I'm particularly miffed to see Black Mesa on Early Access.. Seriously I tried that sucka 2 years ago and now with the big EA release the only thing new they have to offer is a couple multiplayer maps? Really, not the missing 15% of the game?

So I take it you won't be buying it then? :)

I'm going to read the last few posts tomorrow, but I don't think I've got much left to say. I think it's been a great discussion and I've learnt a few things as well. That's always a good thing!

[Start_Running]

Grosvenor님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

10 GOTO 30
30 GOTO 10

Seriously..., Also your technically not paying to ebta test. You're paying for a beta version . The devs may or may not use your feedback to improve the game.


That said....OP you summed up the biggest issue with Early Access. The consumer, You basically think in terms of 'months when it comes to Game development. THink in terms of years.

It's one of the reasons I'm particularly miffed to see Black Mesa on Early Access.. Seriously I tried that sucka 2 years ago and now with the big EA release the only thing new they have to offer is a couple multiplayer maps? Really, not the missing 15% of the game?

So I take it you won't be buying it then? :)

I'm going to read the last few posts tomorrow, but I don't think I've got much left to say. I think it's been a great discussion and I've learnt a few things as well. That's always a good thing!

Nope.. I mean.. if they'd come out with Xen and then said the multiplayer was gonna be added later... I'd be all over that. But this is not good and worse it says a lot about the devs. and not things I like.

[Lady Warden]

I like having beta games to try out, because they can really only get better and that means I can get a leg up on how to play the game before hand. For you, perhaps it's not such a good idea since you tend to only play games for a short time. However, I can be the same way with certain games, but I usually circle back to my games to play them again. With certain games, I can play them and play them and never get bored. Like Left 4 Dead 2 for example. There are so many add ons that I can have hours of endless fun with different campaigns.

[WhiteKnight77]

Grosvenor님이 먼저 게시:

WhiteKnight77님이 먼저 게시:

Ubi even had a tournament with just that one map that was a pretty big hit. Said map was able to be incorporated into the game at a later date and guess what, it was still a popular map. It never got stale.

Some things may get stale for you, but others have no issues. Each game has its favorite or most played maps and are popular for a reason. If said maps got stale, they would not remain popular for as long as they do and we are talking years.

Point taken, I may not have the stuff needed to help bring a game to full development as some others. I haven't played Ghost Recon and by all accounts I'm missing out, but did the beta map have bugs or had it already passed quality control.

It was my understanding that video game testing is a job, seems that software companies have swtiched the role. People are actually paying to do the software testing process for quality control of video games, instead of companies paying for testers.

I suppose it's down to the sort of individual you are. I've bought a few early access games and won't be buying anymore. Others will continue to enjoy ironing out the bugs for others and I reckon we should thank them for it, after all they've helped pay for the development of the game.

The demo that I referred to most likely went through testing and it wasn't a beta map. This is one of the areas where the developers at Red Storm Entertainment shined (before being bought by Ubi) is that they created a game that didn't need massive (at that time) patches to fix things. The demo map was ready to play as is due to it being an altered map (reduced in size) from the full game. It was designed as an MP map for TvT and PvP, but could handle Coop also. This is why when they released the demo (this was back when studios actually released demos and not betas) it was ready to go due to testing.

Game development has changed over the years. Back in the 80s, it was guys in their "garage" or "basement" writing code that would fit on a 5 1/4" floppy disk that could be passed around. Then it was guys doing the same and would give you part of it and if you liked it, you paid for the rest of it (shareware in both instances). Then development studios formed.

Studios would develop the game (with investor's money) and get it tested by hiring people to do beta testing, but they also had to buy many computers to test with or with the tester's own hardware (which is actually better), but they only got a small area to test to find bugs. As we got large publishers (not like we have now), game development changed in that publishers would find investors and would fund all stages of development including testing and all of the other necessities.

Now we have super publishers like Ubi, EA, Activision and 2K that bought up studios (and closed many of them but kept the franchises). They also funded small and independent developers (and got to keep the IPs) so we could get something other than what they were churning out year after year. Then with the recent recession, things changed again and the super publishers changed how they did business.

The super publishers stopped funding the small studios and started releasing fewer games themselves and concentrating on known sellers, in other words, a yearly version of CoD or Assassin's Creed (as examples).

That left small and independent studios to find alternative funding sources and Kickstarter saw an upswing in crowd funding for games. Now remember that large publishers and studios have been releasing open betas for people to play over the years, though they never required people to report bugs and that is really want beta testing is about, but people used it as a way to play games early.

Well, Valve decided to do something to help small studios and started Greenlight originally and eventually started Early Access as a way to help the small studios receive some funding somehow. Game development has changed drastically over the last 25-30 years from when I played that 3d Tetris vector graphics game my brother had on a big floppy disk that he got from someone.

The studios using Early Access still need a way to get their games tested as well as have money to finish the game. While the way funding game development has changed and that is really what has changed, game development is still pretty much the same.

Oh, beta testing used to be just a small section of a map that one would be given to test and you might play just that little area looking for any and all bugs that affected just that area. At least with Early Access, you get a complete level even if all the features are not in the game. Game mechanics are what take the longest to get worked out compared to art assets and levels which can be whipped up in a week or less if the level creator is good.

[Gro]

WhiteKnight77. That's very interesting and informative. I actually remember shareware but I seem to remember (in my case) most of them where utility programs.

As you say game development has moved on and ultimately it's down to the user to decide how they spend there hard earned cash - on Early Access games or not.

However, personally I'm dubious about Early Access. Some hear have suggested that these games aren't supposed to be finished, they are constantly upgraded. Maybe they shouldn’t be called early access. Early access by its very nature implies it will be finished.

[YoWutSup]

Some early access games are good and worth the money. A good number of them are bad. It just so happens I chose one where the developer, in this case, the head of the company (Sandswept) couldn't care less about its community.

https://twitter.com/geoffkeene/status/588125055395180544

This is regarding The Dead Linger that I purchased back in 2013 which was around the time it was introduced on Steam. Unfortunately, this project is one of the rotten apples of EA games.

[Gro]

Tthat is the sort of thing I was trying to get at.

I think Early Access is great for smaller studios to start making the money they need for development. What I'm worried about are studios that could release an “Early Access” game, but just can't be bothered updating their game.

You could say “Well those games won't be popular!” but it's not about them becoming popular. The danger, (for me) is It’s about making money and ripping people off who have taken a chance on the game.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Is it not the nature of "taking a chance" that sometimes it doesn't work out? If you want a guarantee of a "finished" game, you can just wait and buy that. You want to play it early? Well, okay, you can, but the fact that development is ongoing means that there is inherently a risk that it might take a direction you don't like (including nowhere) from that point on.

[Start_Running]

Grosvenor님이 먼저 게시:

WhiteKnight77. That's very interesting and informative. I actually remember shareware but I seem to remember (in my case) most of them where utility programs.

As you say game development has moved on and ultimately it's down to the user to decide how they spend there hard earned cash - on Early Access games or not.

However, personally I'm dubious about Early Access. Some hear have suggested that these games aren't supposed to be finished, they are constantly upgraded. Maybe they shouldn’t be called early access. Early access by its very nature implies it will be finished.

Now hears a point. This is something that the Early Access FUnding/Development model allows that the traditional model doesn't. See when you work with a fixed budget and a fixed deadline, you generally are forced to keep within the budget and make the deadline.

For the majority of traditionally produced games. This means that the end game usually has features and content cut out in order to make it under budget and on time. Early Access creates a new scenario where a game that finds itself doing very well on Early Access may wind up with a surplus of funds. WIth no set deadliune and a surplus many developers choose to add a more features to their creation.

COnversely, when a game does poorly on Early Access the devs have to secure funding from other avenues, which means things will progress more slowly

[WhiteKnight77]

Grosvenor님이 먼저 게시:

WhiteKnight77. That's very interesting and informative. I actually remember shareware but I seem to remember (in my case) most of them where utility programs.

As you say game development has moved on and ultimately it's down to the user to decide how they spend there hard earned cash - on Early Access games or not.

However, personally I'm dubious about Early Access. Some hear have suggested that these games aren't supposed to be finished, they are constantly upgraded. Maybe they shouldn’t be called early access. Early access by its very nature implies it will be finished.

No sweat.

Whether or not an Early Access game gets "finished" depends on how well sales go. There was one game that was on Early Access that didn't sell well and the devs finally stated it was finished, even with missing features and the like. Is that the fault of the devs? Maybe, maybe not, but if no one likes the game, it will not sell well. On the other hand, if people love what has been released and people continue to buy it and the devs might have a bit of spare cash.

Game development is expensive, more expensive than people realize. Can it be done on a shoestring budget? sure, but don't expect much in features.

One thing that people need to remember is that if you buy into Early Access, you are buying the game as is at the time you click the buy now button. If there are updates, you get them, as they are released and eventually end up with a "complete" game.

Some of what I know about game development processes is due to having access to a developer (the one mentioned above that worked for RSE and now owns his own studio). He hasn't shied away from questions about development that anyone has asked.

[Gro]

I understand what your saying and can see the advantages for the studio and the customer from a game that has a good following.

Maybe I should put my skeptism aside and put my negativity down to just buying the wrong games. After all there's always been good and bad games, and I've chosen some bad games in the passed!

One thing I will stick to though, is the replayability factor, I still think it can suffer. Especially if the servers are wiped or constant crashes occur. That would just grind me down.

[WhiteKnight77]

I can guarantee that as soon as there is some direct IP functionality in Ground Branch, people will be playing the daylights out of the Airplane Takedown Training map, the Nature Map and The Depot map (there has been a hint of another map being released when it goes Early Access). This guy knows how to make maps that has great replayability.

As you noted, there have been good and bad games released over the years. We gamers win some and lose some. That will never change.

[Achelon]

I only buy E.A. games that have a high degree of replayability, e.g. rogue-likes, RPGs etc. and avoid those that are campaign- or story-based.

E.g. I've got 90+ hours in Nuclear Throne and I doubt I'll be letting it go anytime soon, the content updates can honestly also help to get you drawn back in.

But anyway, if you're the type who plays a game through once and then lets it go, yeah, you probably ought to wait till they're out of E.A.