EAcc Developers need to be held responsible

[Scorcher24]

I am a fan of the idea of Early Access, but like many other ideas it fails at the most basic ingredient: Humans.

I understand that development is not always going how you want it, but I have not much of an understanding for some of the companies out there, that abuse the Early Access System in the way they do. Most recent examples for this would be Timber&Stone as well as Godus.
Both Games are in development limbo and nobody knows if they will ever continue. In case of T&S it is even a blatant Violation of the rules since the dev relied on EAcc sales to fund the game, despite having a successfull kickstarter over roughly 90k USD. Yet, both games are still being sold.

Valve, please put into action, what you laid out. Hold all funds from Early Access sales until the game is released in a working state, so people have the opportunity to refund if the development just ceases at some point or a broken Product gets released.

As it is right now, many developers are hiding behind the Early Access FAQ and the involved risk that is laid out there. But that is not very consumer friendly and it invites people to pull scams. T&S has never been updated since it hit EAcc. That should raise some red flags somewhere in your office. Yes, I know, over 4k Games on Steam and such, but still. And the worst: the game is still being sold.

I mean, what are we supposed to do? If you take Timber and Stone as an example, you do your research and you see a kickstarter for nearly 90k USD and you think "well, he got the funds, must be safe". And then he stops making it all out of a sudden. I also cannot just go on the forum and ask the dev for his account balance with his bank and a proof of such.

Yes, I do own Early Access Games, but I always have to do extensive internet searches about the game before I decide to buy it. There are also games that stand out, such as Empyrion (the recent weekend deal) or 7 Days to die, which are updated constantly and get better every month.

But the amount of failed games rises and it will get to a point where nobody can trust EAcc anymore and that cannot be what Valve wants.
Thanks for reading and have a nice day.

edit: a few typos

[Tux]

kholtby の投稿を引用：

Zetikla の投稿を引用：

with this logic Kickstarter is also a scam

Kickstarter is early access without even offering access. Note I am not saying it is always a scam, just that it is amazing that it is so accepted as a business model given its nature.

agreed. On paper in my mind its the most ridiculous thing ever but its working very well. Not for me, if I give money I want product, product does not have to be finished i just want something.

[cinedine]

kholtby の投稿を引用：

What exactly do you think a publisher is? A book publisher does not write the books they publish. The writers do that. The publisher prints and distrubutes them. With conventional game distribution, the publisher handles packaging and distribution.

A good publisher does basically everything besides writing the book. Providing funding for research (or at all), marketing, editing, translations, counseling, ...
None of which Steam does nor wants to. They provide a platform for you to use.

kholtby の投稿を引用：

By the way the word is 'ceases' not 'siezes.' If the project fails, yes the employees are out of a job but until if fails, they are not and if it fails, they can still find other employment. If they were working for a conventional studio they could be laid off just as quickly at the end of any given project. For the most part (other than patches, expansions, etc) their jobs are done at the end of the project. These are digital goods. The only employees involved in post development production are those involved on the distribution side, i.e. Steam.

Yes, it's incredible easy to find a new job. Especially if the last - or even only - project you were working on failed miserably. Makes me always want to live in whatever country you live in ... if it weren't for the ease people can be laid of there. One of the main ideas behind DLC is to keep employees occupied so you don't waste money on them doing nothing. Not everyone is a contractor.

kholtby の投稿を引用：

The fact that there are 'hundreds of projects' does not mean that there should be no screening. There are millions of conventional products on the market. That has never been an argument against the existance of consumer protection laws.

No one argues the existence or usefulness of consumer protection laws. You are the only one bringing that up.

[kholtby]

cinedine の投稿を引用：

A good publisher does basically everything besides writing the book. Providing funding for research (or at all), marketing, editing, translations, counseling, ...
None of which Steam does nor wants to. They provide a platform for you to use.

That is financing, usually in the form of advances. Instead of that, early access has consumers providing the advances. Steam DOES marketing. The splash page is on their store is put together by Steam not by any sort of developer council. Promotional sales are as often at Steam's discretion rather than the developer. Steam also offers counselling.

Heck, you don't seem to even know what services Steam provides or offers.

Yes, it's incredible easy to find a new job. Especially if the last - or even only - project you were working on failed miserably. Makes me always want to live in whatever country you live in ... if it weren't for the ease people can be laid of there. One of the main ideas behind DLC is to keep employees occupied so you don't waste money on them doing nothing. Not everyone is a contractor.

Again that risk is there no matter the financing model. And someone can be laid off before a project is even completed, regardless of financing model. You NEVER waste money on employees doing nothing. These are not salaried positions, not in any sane workplace. You are paid based on production hours. If there is nothing for the employees to do, you lay them off until there is, ESPECIALLY in small start ups the likes of which early access is intended to support.

No one argues the existence or usefulness of consumer protection laws. You are the only one bringing that up.

And yet your arguments also hold against the existence of consumer protection laws. If you buy something as a finished product, paying exactly the same as you would for 'early access' why wouldn't you expect the same or less protection? These sales are usually not discounted. They are asking the full purchase price for not yet finished product with no recourse if it is never finished.

Again in what world is that a good business model?

[Tux]

the level of lack of knowledge in this thread lately is amazing.

But regarding funding an interesting true story I heard

'so this developer had a proof of concept game and could not get funding because all the publishers (and yes...'banks') said that they liked the game but would not invest because its not a proven forumla, so he when to kickstaters and people where throwing money at him, got started no problem'

anyway


1. Valve is not a publisher in the sense that people are thinking
2. Banks do not typically do loans for gaming projects
3. Publishers do funding for gaming projects but they their understanding of creativity is that of an asshat troll poster.

[kaboomboom]

<YAWN>

Oh...sorry...I fell asleep.

The EAG apologists and defenders keep repeating the same mantra, blame the victim of the scam. That is basically what their arguments amount to.

The consumer should have: known better, been better in informed, did more research, been smarter, looked at more reviews, blah blah blah blah.

Same old song and dance.

How about the developer should have: Finished the game! Kept their promise, been held accountable!

I understand most of you insiders like things just the way they are, and I certainly understand why. After all, you are profiting from it.

However, the rest of us mere consumers are left wondering 'how is this good for us'?

Aside from the rare freaks that enjoy playing broken incomplete games and the one in 20 EAG titles that is a hit, most consumers will get burned in the EAG program.

[Sunscreen Addict]

kaboomboom の投稿を引用：

<YAWN>

Oh...sorry...I fell asleep.

The EAG apologists and defenders keep repeating the same mantra, blame the victim of the scam. That is basically what their arguments amount to.

The consumer should have: known better, been better in informed, did more research, been smarter, looked at more reviews, blah blah blah blah.

Same old song and dance.

How about the developer should have: Finished the game! Kept their promise, been held accountable!

I understand most of you insiders like things just the way they are, and I certainly understand why. After all, you are profiting from it.

However, the rest of us mere consumers are left wondering 'how is this good for us'?

Aside from the rare freaks that enjoy playing broken incomplete games and the one in 20 EAG titles that is a hit, most consumers will get burned in the EAG program.

finaly someone that gets it !!!!!

[kholtby]

Tux の投稿を引用：

the level of lack of knowledge in this thread lately is amazing.

But regarding funding an interesting true story I heard

'so this developer had a proof of concept game and could not get funding because all the publishers (and yes...'banks') said that they liked the game but would not invest because its not a proven forumla, so he when to kickstaters and people where throwing money at him, got started no problem'

anyway


1. Valve is not a publisher in the sense that people are thinking
2. Banks do not typically do loans for gaming projects
3. Publishers do funding for gaming projects but they their understanding of creativity is that of an asshat troll poster.

And then if/when the banks and publishers turn out to be right because sometimes experience actually does matter?

I am still waiting for someone to provide examples of significant success stories from early access projects.

[Pheace]

kholtby の投稿を引用：

I am still waiting for someone to provide examples of significant success stories from early access projects.

As in games that handled Early Access well?

[Tito Shivan]

kholtby の投稿を引用：

I am still waiting for someone to provide examples of significant success stories from early access projects.

KSP, Don't Starve Together, Prison Architect, Crypt of the NecroDancer, Broforce...

[riggz666]

are high sales a measure of an early access 'success story'?

sales figures from steamdb:

Don't Starve- 3,404,626
ARMA 3- 2,408,090
Prison Architect- 1,578,225
Plague Inc: Evolved- 832,826
Assetto Corsa- 310,699
Darkest Dungeon- 824,467
Dirt Rally- 312,789

there are plenty of others. i still can't find significant numbers of 'scams', 'blatant violations of the rules', 'abandoned', 'cash grabs' and all the other things EA is apparently drowning in.

[BlackSpawn]

The most heinous Early Access scam, to my knowledge, which netted over $3 million USD and involved over 100,000 victims is The Stomping Land. You can still see the change.org petitions and forum thread requests about denied refunds for involved individuals.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150503073417/http://whatsyourtagblog.com/2014/09/02/steam-removes-the-stomping-land-shows-why-early-access-is-a-major-gamble

Only about 1/4 to 1/3 of ALL GAMES launched into Early Access have been finished (as per the best data presented to date).
That is enough of a statistic to suggest that the system needs to be tweaked and reworked; the platform was launched in late 2012/early 2013.

Early Access data:

https://medium.com/steam-spy/on-early-access-games-39aed2b8f82d#.mqlw7xjbo

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-11-13-early-access-popularity-growing-but-only-25-percent-have-released-as-a-full-game

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PaulAllen/20160211/265598/Is_Steams_Early_Access_a_ticking_time_bomb.php

I already presented an article on the legal perspective on EAG that demonstrates many EAG that have seemingly "gone quiet":
http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/05/steam-early-access-rights/

I will list a few examples from the curation groups below; if you care to look you will find many, many more:


http://steamcommunity.com/groups/dissenters-anonymous#curation
http://store.steampowered.com/app/246940
http://store.steampowered.com/app/227160
http://store.steampowered.com/app/363490

http://store.steampowered.com/curator/10451722-Anti-Consumer-Practice-Report/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/393390
http://store.steampowered.com/app/311980
http://store.steampowered.com/app/252210

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-early-access-games-that-completely-screwed-customers/
("Towns" was launched on the precursor to Early Access, as something called "Game in Development")


There are MANY, MANY, MANY other examples.
There are many ways to "game" the platform, be it via unscrupulous practices, via inexperience/incompetence and/or happenstance.
From no updates in an inordinate amount of time (seemingly abandoned), to official abandonment, to EAG drops to Early access --> Full Release change with barely a functional game in place, to significant changes in monetization from release and/or description in store, to failure to implement features/modes/mechanics that were used to market the game on the steam store/developer website.

The crux of the matter is that neither Steam nor devs are held accountable for when the sold product fails to be worked on or the marketed content isn't even produced. There are ZERO punitive or disincentivizing mechanisms to deter this practice/behavior. Some minimal basic level of completion and requirements to meet may serve to benefit both customers and honest developers. IMHO said "requirements" should be things that projects that aim to do EAG well should intend to meet anyway. However, they should serve to disincentivize projects that exhibit practices that go counter to the stated aims and goals of the platform.


Early Access goodness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-9YbJEpy_Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tygMqQNNWUo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11irrs2MnOA

http://armedgamer.com/2015/01/current-state-steam-early-access/

[kaboomboom]

Don't get me wrong, there have been some great early access games. I also love the fact that early access allows devs to create many more games that are much different from the mainstream formulaic games we see regurgitated from the AAA studios.

However, it is not right to allow devs to make statements, not follow through, and the consumer ends up the only loser in the deal. THAT IS NOT RIGHT!

I can see the potential for early access, but I can not support a program that is so potentially bad for the consumer.

My advice, and it is my practice, is to not buy early access. I see dozens of early access games that have grabbed my attention. BUT I DO NOT BUY.

I WAIT. I WATCH.

I WAIT FOR FULL RELEASE PLUS THREE MONTHS.

THEN READ LOTS OF REVIEWS.

If it looks good and the price is right, then I buy.

[Pheace]

BlackSpawn の投稿を引用：

Only about 1/4 to 1/3 of ALL GAMES launched into Early Access have been finished (as per the best data presented to date).
That is enough of a statistic to suggest that the system needs to be tweaked and reworked; the platform was launched in late 2012/early 2013.

I know we went over this already and the fact that you're still pushing these numbers really makes it seem you're pushing an agenda here. EA has only been around for 3 years and didn't pick up a decent number of EA entries till the second one.

Developing games takes time. If that's too hard to grasp I really don't know what to tell you. Argue the EA failures (and I'm not saying there aren't any) all you want but using the number of released EA games so far as a measure of failure is just ignorant.

[BlackSpawn]

Feel free to post your information if you have more accurate data.
The fact that you feel you have put your stamp on the conversation and information doesnt really have any bearing on what is being presented here.

EAG games launch in a playable state.
They are not projects starting from scratch; if this is the case, EAG is being misused/abused in that scenario.

And yes, completion rates of EAG matter; because it demonstrates the present issue that there are no basic requirements for completion or timeline.
Allowing for "unlimited development time" is not conducive to product completion.

[Pheace]

BlackSpawn の投稿を引用：

And yes, completion rates of EAG matter; because it demonstrates the present issue that there are no basic requirements for completion or timeline.
Allowing for "unlimited development time" is not conducive to product completion.

Sure, completion rates matter if say, 5 years later a game is still not out of EA *and* little progress has been made. (If progress has been made and it's become a good/great game but it's still in EA it's hardly that big of a problem).

You're complaining about ~1/4th completion rate on a system that's barely 3 years old, and where significantly more games have released in the last year than in the two before that. The majority of the titles released in the first 2 years of EA have actually released, the percentage doesn't drop to 1/4th until you take into account last years EA releases. That's a result of growth, not a failure of the system.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-03-11-steam-early-access-is-hitting-its-stride-eedar