"Early Access" is a disease. "Selling" incomplete games is obscene.

[Etra]

I just saw that Bannerlord 2, a game in early access that I have already paid for, is having a sale. That I bought a game at full price that was later discounted doesn't bother me; what bothers me is the game is in the full marketing swing of sales incentives and seasonal swings one would only associate with a post-release marketing schedule.

"Early Access" has become the new "release it now, fix it later" that gamers hate about all the new releases. Cyberpunk 2077 is only the latest example of rushed development; if it hadn't "released" and instead was in "Early Access" - but still charging full price - would the game be any better? Any less complete? Any less buggy?

"Early Access" was an experiment and my judgment is that it is a failure. The result may have been an aid for smaller or solo teams to develop more ambitious projects than otherwise possible, but it has also created a new pseudo-release paradigm where developers are comfortable collecting profits on sub-standard products - under this pre-release fig leaf.

Reform or abolition of the "Early Access" program is needed. I propose that "Early Access" be no more costly than $10 and the "investor" be granted full release rights to the game when it does release. This cap on what an "Early Access" can cost would do two things:
a) deter a development team from cashing in on their incomplete project, which only harms the greater gaming ecosystem while
b) small or solo development teams that only ever had modest sales goals for their first release anyway still have a financing tool.

[cinedine]

引用自 Irene💕：

引用自 cinedine：

Nope. They are a distributor and service provider.

Yes I know. It's because I see the meaning of "publisher" as a comic book publisher. A printing service and also a delivering to store service. In addition I don't recognize a nobody who made mediocre games a publisher. I see them as editors and valve as a publisher for them.

You guys see publisher as the company that makes the game and I agree with it.

Steam is the comic book store in your case.
The publisher is the one striking the deal with Steam for the product to be sold there, maintain the storepage, deciding on prices and sales and do the marketing.
The developer is the one making the game.

[Wampum Biskit]

引用自 cinedine：

引用自 Irene💕：

Yes I know. It's because I see the meaning of "publisher" as a comic book publisher. A printing service and also a delivering to store service. In addition I don't recognize a nobody who made mediocre games a publisher. I see them as editors and valve as a publisher for them.

You guys see publisher as the company that makes the game and I agree with it.

Steam is the comic book store in your case.
The publisher is the one striking the deal with Steam for the product to be sold there, maintain the storepage, deciding on prices and sales and do the marketing.
The developer is the one making the game.

not entirely true , steam doesn't dictate prices nor sales prices, the publishers do , steam can't arbitrarily change the price on a game thru a "sale" or any other means.They can only change the prices in agreement with said publisher and we know certain ones hardly EVER have sales.. even games from said publisher that are 5+ years old only get 10% discount.

[cinedine]

引用自 Wampum Biskit：

引用自 cinedine：

Steam is the comic book store in your case.
The publisher is the one striking the deal with Steam for the product to be sold there, maintain the storepage, deciding on prices and sales and do the marketing.
The developer is the one making the game.

not entirely true , steam doesn't dictate prices nor sales prices, the publishers do , steam can't arbitrarily change the price on a game thru a "sale" or any other means.They can only change the prices in agreement with said publisher and we know certain ones hardly EVER have sales.. even games from said publisher that are 5+ years old only get 10% discount.

Uhm ... were did I say they could? Do you mean the part where I said that's the responsibility of the *publisher*?

[Irene ❤]

If steam is just a store, then OP is wrong that the store should limit early access games to a small price. The programmer or programmer's company is the publisher, they are the ones who decide on the price.

[Crashed]

引用自 cinedine：

引用自 Wampum Biskit：

not entirely true , steam doesn't dictate prices nor sales prices, the publishers do , steam can't arbitrarily change the price on a game thru a "sale" or any other means.They can only change the prices in agreement with said publisher and we know certain ones hardly EVER have sales.. even games from said publisher that are 5+ years old only get 10% discount.

Uhm ... were did I say they could? Do you mean the part where I said that's the responsibility of the *publisher*?

I do notice threads like this now get awards.

[Start_Running]

引用自 Crashed：

引用自 cinedine：

Uhm ... were did I say they could? Do you mean the part where I said that's the responsibility of the *publisher*?

I do notice threads like this now get awards.

Yup...hurts your faith in 'gamers' doesn't it?

[Crashed]

引用自 Start_Running：

引用自 Crashed：

I do notice threads like this now get awards.

Yup...hurts your faith in 'gamers' doesn't it?

I see the most trollish posts, reviews, guides, etc. tend to have the most awards.

For Guides I believe the ones most deserving are the ones that get me through a hard point in the game, or help me improve stability or performance, or enhance the game. Not the troll post about not being depressed in CSGo with nothing more than "You can't" and a Pepe head. Those deserve to be reported, not awarded.

[crunchyfrog]

引用自 Irene💕：

引用自 Count_Dandyman：

Your first mistake there is calling Steam a publisher

Your second mistake is saying its not easy to resist being greedy because you don't want to accept the reality that self control is possible

Your third mistake is thinking Steam is the one setting prices when it isn't and acting like customers don't have the freedom

You could have word it differently, e.g. "Irene you might want to rethink" "or allow me to try change your mind with my other better reasons". Definitely not "your first mistake, your second mistake, etc.." It's... very rude. Who enjoys coming online to read those negative text. It's also jumping into conclusion and defeating the purpose of a forum where people exchange ideas and opinions.

I thank you for trying to be negative, acting all high up while making a debate and using such disrespectful words, but steam is more than just a game developer since they also publish. They published half life games. New developers require their platform to publish their games. Like a comic book publisher that supplies paper, steam supplied servers, player reviews and more. The publisher therefore charged companies a big % of their product. They are not just a store because they don't purchase and set a price to sell games. They work as a publisher and content makers can decide a price.

Next it is easily said than done to not support big and popular early access titles. Your claim that self control is possible only works in theory. Of course a few people could do that, but when given a population of one million, can you ensure 0 people will stop buying early access? You idea is good but that's only common sense logic that self control is possible. You're naïve and ignorant to believe it will work. There is a big marketing campaign and many other factors. Similar to psychology elements in a loot box. "Oh as long as we don't buy it" yes, we can do it, but not everybody can do it.

Finally I did not say steam is the one setting prices. I said users can decide if an early access game is worth the price and they have freedom.

I have already ended my debate, yet you embarrass yourself for no reason by trying hard to roast people, fighting on the most mediocre and pointless details, all along giving such common sense, childish ideas to support your claim. It's as if you think nobody has common sense here.

Granted he may have been blunt, but NOWHERE in that was he rude.

I'm often blunt on here, and over-sensitive (and dishonest) people often try to use it against me.

What you need to remember is that many people here commenting are regular users, who have been doing this for years. We long ago learned that over-flowery or embellished sentences can mislead. So we keep it clipped and straightforward, soemtimes blunt because it WORKS.

For example, the music festival I work at is massive; Glastonbury Festival. It has a certain legacy and because of this people will come and get lost, or drunk, or both. So, the obvious question us staff ALWAYS get asked is "how do I get to x stage?"

Now, we could go into an elaborate or detailed description, but you do that and you WILL see the person again within about 5 minutes going the other way or returning to you again.

So we do this:
"x minutes, that direction" and point.


So do you see why things can be seen as blunt now?

If you still don't believe me, go and read any of the many threads we get on here along the lines of "help, my account's been stolen". Watch what happens as explain what to do and the person is so strung out they aren't paying attention.

Then you'll see. I hope this explains things further,.

[Mononymouse]

I agree, only Indy games, or Development teams, under a certain Threshold, should be allowed to release, "Early access" titles, as larger publishers, are now doing it, which instead of giving us a proper product, and then giving it 2-3 years of development time, they give us a bare bones product... and get it to where it would have been upon release over those 2-3 years... then stop development.

This is just as scummy, as cereal companies, shrinking the Box, but charging the same price.

[Mononymouse]

引用自 davidb11：

引用自 Golden Snowflake ❄：

I agree, only Indy games, or Development teams, under a certain Threshold, should be allowed to release, "Early access" titles, as larger publishers, are now doing it, which instead of giving us a proper product, and then giving it 2-3 years of development time, they give us a bare bones product... and get it to where it would have been upon release over those 2-3 years... then stop development.

This is just as scummy, as cereal companies, shrinking the Box, but charging the same price.

Please pay attention to the thread and don't agree with the idea presented in the OP.
Please.

It makes no sense to claim what you're saying.

I disagree, a company should not get a free pass, to cut, the actual amount, of effort, required to get my money, by simply throwing "Early access" on any game they like.

It is just just as scummy, as cereal companies, shrinking the Box, but charging the same price.

They literally, stop working on the game, substantially sooner, than in the past, and they are STILL trying to increase the cost of a game from 60$ to more.

Small Indy Companies, make sense, though Companies, like EA or Bethesda, should have their "Early access" abilities, cut.

"Either its complete, as it should be, since you have the funding, or you can't release it here."

[crunchyfrog]

引用自 Golden Snowflake ❄：

I agree, only Indy games, or Development teams, under a certain Threshold, should be allowed to release, "Early access" titles, as larger publishers, are now doing it, which instead of giving us a proper product, and then giving it 2-3 years of development time, they give us a bare bones product... and get it to where it would have been upon release over those 2-3 years... then stop development.

This is just as scummy, as cereal companies, shrinking the Box, but charging the same price.

This is ridiculously unworkable, and defeats the entire point.

The very games that you claim the line should be drawn at are those that least need the early access system.

The fact remains that Early Access terms are VERY clear right above the "add to cart" button, but as you can see from this thread, many people refuse to read, because they're complianing against things they've already agreed to.

[cinedine]

引用自 Golden Snowflake ❄：

I agree, only Indy games, or Development teams, under a certain Threshold, should be allowed to release, "Early access" titles, as larger publishers, are now doing it, which instead of giving us a proper product, and then giving it 2-3 years of development time, they give us a bare bones product... and get it to where it would have been upon release over those 2-3 years... then stop development.

This is just as scummy, as cereal companies, shrinking the Box, but charging the same price.

Please name one big publisher who did this?
There are only two I remember using EAcc. Codemasters and Bohemia Interactive.
Most bigger publishers don't because they don't want you to see how the sausage is made and want to control the information (read: hype).

[Mononymouse]

引用自 crunchyfrog：

引用自 Golden Snowflake ❄：

I agree, only Indy games, or Development teams, under a certain Threshold, should be allowed to release, "Early access" titles, as larger publishers, are now doing it, which instead of giving us a proper product, and then giving it 2-3 years of development time, they give us a bare bones product... and get it to where it would have been upon release over those 2-3 years... then stop development.

This is just as scummy, as cereal companies, shrinking the Box, but charging the same price.

This is ridiculously unworkable, and defeats the entire point.

The very games that you claim the line should be drawn at are those that least need the early access system.

The fact remains that Early Access terms are VERY clear right above the "add to cart" button, but as you can see from this thread, many people refuse to read, because they're complianing against things they've already agreed to.

I think you misunderstood, i fully agree, Indy games, and those at a certain Threshold, deserve the ability to claim an "Early Access" "stipend" however, publishers, with Billions, that could easily fund a Complete game, should not be able to do this practice.

[crunchyfrog]

引用自 Golden Snowflake ❄：

引用自 crunchyfrog：

This is ridiculously unworkable, and defeats the entire point.

The very games that you claim the line should be drawn at are those that least need the early access system.

The fact remains that Early Access terms are VERY clear right above the "add to cart" button, but as you can see from this thread, many people refuse to read, because they're complianing against things they've already agreed to.

I think you misunderstood, i fully agree, Indy games, and those at a certain Threshold, deserve the ability to claim an "Early Access" "stipend" however, publishers, with Billions, that could easily fund a Complete game, should not be able to do this practice.

Nope, wrong.

Again utterly unworkable. You can't set up rules like that because it's dead easy to break them. So it serves no purpose.

And does it suck and should they fund their own games, sure. But that does NOT mean they can't.

I'm grateful that even major studios who are risk averse these days will opt to take this route - you could vierw it the other way too - a more experienced studio stands a better chance of success.

See, the things you are claiming about don't actually solve anything.

[Mononymouse]

引用自 cinedine：

引用自 Golden Snowflake ❄：

I agree, only Indy games, or Development teams, under a certain Threshold, should be allowed to release, "Early access" titles, as larger publishers, are now doing it, which instead of giving us a proper product, and then giving it 2-3 years of development time, they give us a bare bones product... and get it to where it would have been upon release over those 2-3 years... then stop development.

This is just as scummy, as cereal companies, shrinking the Box, but charging the same price.

Please name one big publisher who did this?
There are only two I remember using EAcc. Codemasters and Bohemia Interactive.
Most bigger publishers don't because they don't want you to see how the sausage is made and want to control the information (read: hype).

Just look for any studio, with more than 25-50 employees, and see if those folks, have early access titles.

There needs to be a maximum, to those who should be able to call games Early Access.

Baldurs Gate 3, is Early access, for gods sake.