My opinion about Early Access games

[Sir Prometeus]

I know this is a nice way to develop games, having feedback from the community, and giving the players a taste of what the game will be in the future. However, this system is quite abused by some developers. Let's talk about it:

Many new developers, as enthusiastic as they are, think their product is going to be the next "Minecraft" in the market. But let's face it, 90% of early access games are not minecraft, nor will be in the future. So here it comes a tip for you, the developers: don't try to sell a game in early access, allow the playerbase to invest on it. This may be a tricky concept but I will elaborate with some examples:

Game A
- The videos look awesome
- It has several unique features
- It has the best of several genres
- Early access (it is a beta, so it works more or less)
- Price: 15-30 euros
- User review: This game is fantastic and the price is neat

Game B
- The same, except it is in alpha stage, some of the content of the videos is not implemented yet, and the price is the same
- User review: Mmm, I want to know more about it, let's ask other players because I'm not sure

Game C
- Like 90% of the early access games, it has a lot of features of many other games, but it is not a great success, although it has potential
- Alpha or Beta early access
- Price: 10 - 30 euros
- User review: Lot's of complains about bugs, lack of content, and not constructive opinions.

Game D
- Like game C but the price is 10 euros or less, and some users buy it during holidays so it gets a discount of 50 - 75%
- User review: Not as negative, many constructive opinions, and the players don't feel cheated since the low price is an acceptable risky investment. It can develop into a good game over the years, or not. Many will forget about the game after a month or two, but once the game is playable with few bugs and has some good features, they will come back, they will praise your game and maybe they will upload some videos to youtube with positive reviews. Once this happens, more people will be interested in the game and you will be able to raise the price a bit. This will not be seen as a greedy maneuver and your first clients will think they have done a good purchase in the past.

[Tux]

Publicado originalmente por Scopsion:

Early access should be completely removed from steam. It just gives them an excuse to sell a broken product.

completely disagree.

I think nearly all the games I have played this year and have enjoyed are Early Access or a result of kickstarter.

I think EA and KS are the best thing to happen in gaming in several decades.

[Sir Prometeus]

Publicado originalmente por Tux:

Publicado originalmente por Scopsion:

Early access should be completely removed from steam. It just gives them an excuse to sell a broken product.

completely disagree.

I think nearly all the games I have played this year and have enjoyed are Early Access or a result of kickstarter.

I think EA and KS are the best thing to happen in gaming in several decades.

Not to mention the amount of "finished AAA games" that weren't finished at all (you know, a free patch with your purchase)

[McRed]

Publicado originalmente por Sir Prome:

Publicado originalmente por Tux:

completely disagree.

I think nearly all the games I have played this year and have enjoyed are Early Access or a result of kickstarter.

I think EA and KS are the best thing to happen in gaming in several decades.

Not to mention the amount of "finished AAA games" that weren't finished at all (you know, a free patch with your purchase)

Haha exactly Sir Prome! Couldn't agree more. Top Drawer!

[kdodds]

I've gone witha few Early access games. The ones I've gone with are mostly major releases, though, like Wasteland 2, where you know the finished product will be forthcoming. The remainder really are only if there's a steep discount. Major publishers' beta policies are usually closed beta, but also usually involve the testers receiving a free finished copy. This is the only real problem I have with Early Access, paying for the "privilege" of "testing" a game, usually in pre-beta, sometimes pre-alpha, state. For devs/pubs truly engaged in community response, this is not really a terrible thing in and of itself. But for the (many) EA releases where the devs/pubs have a hard set plan that will not deviate regardless of response, there really seems to be no point but to "fund". And there, you really have to question the committment, from the top down, of a group of people that seem, from EA versus open/closed beta, to be struggling to meet payroll. As the consumer/end user, there's no wool being pulled over your eyes, though. You are NOT being given a contract of guaranteed completion upon purchase of an EA title. And Valve/Steam, not being the publishing agents, have no business in production of those games where they are not. So Steam can put the game up, or not, but they can not dictate how the devs/pubs run their respective companies. If anyone is looking for money back, refunds, percentages, what not, therefore, I have to ask, "Why?" You very clearly got what you paid for. And no one is obligated to provide you with more than that.

[WhiteKnight77]

Publicado originalmente por Sir Prome:

I know this is a nice way to develop games, having feedback from the community, and giving the players a taste of what the game will be in the future. However, this system is quite abused by some developers. *snip*

So who are these developers who are using Early Access that are abusing the system? The fact that typical game development cycles last two or more years (using legacy code), how long would you expect those starting with no code to take?

You admit that even AAA publishers have trouble releasing finished games. That being the case, would you not expect some Early Access games to be unfinished the same way and need patches?

[Sir Prometeus]

Basically those who stop updating their game or lose interest on it, making the process of developing a game much longer than it should. Or those who actively lie about the features of their game manipulating the trailers.

[tmwfte]

Double Fine.

[tramazi]

Publicado originalmente por Tux:

here are a few items to consider.

1. There are likely a lot of failed game projects we never know about. its not as if the success rate of game development is likely any higher using traditional approaches. I think everyone knows most games in EA and Kickstarter are going to fail, that is fairly obvious.

the failed game projects were never paid for by the public, they were funded by a company who needed to make money, hence have to make a good game, it is their money after all! EA and KS games use other peoples money and hence dont have the same financial risk/incentive to make a good game.

2. People who invest in a KS or an EA project know what they are doing (or at least for the love of god should know by now). They are spending money on an idea and a game in its current state They are not assuming becuase they give money that it means the game should be finished.

I dont agree, people who are new to the gaming world dont know that.
also the videos and game descriptions sell the game to the maximum and tbh the claims they make border on lying. some of these games look brilliant until you buy them and play them. user reviews are concocted in favour of the game too.

3. 'finished;. as anyone who plays kerbal space program knows a 'finished' game is actually not that exciting. In fact its a bit concerning because it means the updates might stop happening. gaming as a service instead of a product.

kerbal is a playable game, there are games on steam and i probably cant mention them, that are not playable at all and have no fun value just a ripped off feeling. Games as a service shoud have a SERVICE

4. thus far at least for KS, it has proven to work reallly well

It has also proved to be a rip off - Search it



No brainer really - Who would you trust with OUR money, a company with a proven track record for creating games, or some fat bloke who cant be bothered with more coding after he gets is first £50k

[Tux]

Publicado originalmente por tramazi:

Publicado originalmente por Tux:

here are a few items to consider.

1. There are likely a lot of failed game projects we never know about. its not as if the success rate of game development is likely any higher using traditional approaches. I think everyone knows most games in EA and Kickstarter are going to fail, that is fairly obvious.

the failed game projects were never paid for by the public, they were funded by a company who needed to make money, hence have to make a good game, it is their money after all! EA and KS games use other peoples money and hence dont have the same financial risk/incentive to make a good game.

2. People who invest in a KS or an EA project know what they are doing (or at least for the love of god should know by now). They are spending money on an idea and a game in its current state They are not assuming becuase they give money that it means the game should be finished.

I dont agree, people who are new to the gaming world dont know that.
also the videos and game descriptions sell the game to the maximum and tbh the claims they make border on lying. some of these games look brilliant until you buy them and play them. user reviews are concocted in favour of the game too.

3. 'finished;. as anyone who plays kerbal space program knows a 'finished' game is actually not that exciting. In fact its a bit concerning because it means the updates might stop happening. gaming as a service instead of a product.

kerbal is a playable game, there are games on steam and i probably cant mention them, that are not playable at all and have no fun value just a ripped off feeling. Games as a service shoud have a SERVICE

4. thus far at least for KS, it has proven to work reallly well

It has also proved to be a rip off - Search it



No brainer really - Who would you trust with OUR money, a company with a proven track record for creating games, or some fat bloke who cant be bothered with more coding after he gets is first £50k

sorry but no.

if a customer doesnt bother to look a little bit into what early access is then they deserve what they get. We can not create an economic market that works only with the lowest of intelligence. If we did that we couldnt even have cars.

EA/KS is an option, if you dont trust it then dont buy a game from it.

again as I have been saying many times my best gaming year since 2002 has been 2014 COMPLETELY because of EA/KS so do not be surprised if I perfer you not try and take it away from me

[Raziel]

this is an interesting thread, i personally wont buiy any early Access * Please stop using the abbhreviation EA !!!!!! cos they are fools!

i *( my opinion my offend) invested in Day Z. and .... i didnt like it, it isnt very polished, and didnt like the gameplay and for my opinion ( which i am allowed ) i got the impression that it wont ever be finished ( by finished i mean walk into game and buy out of a box).

as for the interestiong comment above, about looking into what early access is and what they are buying into, then my suggestion, which i think would satisy the for and against crowd.

create a double store tab at the top, that you can switch off, finished release titles one side, EA the other,

i also found that the info on the store page on Early access agems needs to have more info, i would loved to have played into some of them, but the info was sparse enough to leave doubts.

and the comment about there is nothign stopping these people F***ing off with a stack of other peoples money and closing doors is a fair one, just look at flappy birds or whatever it was called.

hell im fairly sure a couple of briefcases of money walked out the development studio fro colonial marines.

good night all,

please accept that i have opinions that may differ, i like my opinions and tastes and do not wish to be corrected

cheers and happy new year.

[Jamie Catto]

I kickstarted two games in want, I will never touch this style of funding again...

[kdodds]

Publicado originalmente por Kainochi:

Publicado originalmente por widowmaker:

Day Z

Weren't they the ones who were incredibly rude to thier "investors"? I remember reading about an early access zombie game where all the developers were basically being ♥♥♥♥♥ to anyone who dare didn't shower them in blind praise.

I think that was Dead State. Still on my wishlist, but haven't bought it due to crowd response.

[EucaliptoBoy]

i think no so much games are going to have the popularity of minecraft

[Tux]

Elite Dangerous? check
Kerbal Space Program? check
Space Engineers? check
From the Depths? check
even Blockscape? check

yeah I am happy with kickstarters and early access. clearly better than traditional model of game development where the choice of what gets made or not gets made is in the hands of a few people who may or may not know much about games

[Pali ratnik]

Well if u think u will have fun, lets say it 20+ hrs for 10-15 euros thats not bad deal. If u get out once a week to bar/pub/club u will spend like 10-15-30euros depends on where u live. In my case i spend at least 10e for the weekend in town. So if u think u will have fun with some game and it has high chances to get out of early access and go to beta why not to spend some money?