"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.

[crunchyfrog]

Publicado originalmente por Golden Snowflake ❄:

Publicado originalmente por crunchyfrog:

I'm not arguing about anything.

The fact remains, as I demonstrated, your claim of drawing a line in the sand CANNOT solve the issue.

And we're done.

You're just whining because you don't like being proved wrong.

If you're not wrong, have at it and present some better evidence.

I was never proved wrong, show me when i stated anything about "hostilities" and make sure you keep the context. ;)

You, have yet, to make any statement, that wasn't an elaborate "Nothing".

You stated that some devs should be allowed early acces and others not.

I gave you the exlpanation from hisotry of Atari and Kee games exposing the same sort of procedure. This demonstrates how easy it would be to circumvent and prove it useless.

That's all.

Come back with tackling the point in question and we'll continue. Any more poor attempts to deflect will be ignored.

[Mononymouse]

Publicado originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Publicado originalmente por Golden Snowflake ❄:

I was never proved wrong, show me when i stated anything about "hostilities" and make sure you keep the context. ;)

You, have yet, to make any statement, that wasn't an elaborate "Nothing".

You stated that some devs should be allowed early acces and others not.

I gave you the exlpanation from hisotry of Atari and Kee games exposing the same sort of procedure. This demonstrates how easy it would be to circumvent and prove it useless.

That's all.

Come back with tackling the point in question and we'll continue. Any more poor attempts to deflect will be ignored.

Either be honest, or stop arguing with me.

There is a clear record in the past, of what i have, and have not stated... you really need to realize, you are mistaken.

as your beef has nothing to do with anything i am actually saying.

You have already Clearly, stated, you will offer no solutions, your points are dead in the water.

Your entire argument, can be summed up with

"You are not allowed to talk, stop talking, i disagree with you, my opinion is that you are wrong, stop talking, i win i win i win stop talking now."

And that's not how conversation, or discussions work there buddy.

[crunchyfrog]

When you offer any counter evidence to counter my points about Atari and Kee games, then we'll talk and not before.

I do not bow to dirty tricks like yours. Step up to provide counter evidence or leave it.

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por Killuario:

still upset about worlds adrift and I'm surprised steam never did anything about it. It's one thing going into it knowing that if a project gets abandoned you can play it in its last released state but because Worlds Adrift required a server its just completely inaccessible to those of us who bought early access.

Thems the breaks. All onlline games get shut down ... thats why you shiould always be carefull with that.

[FOXDUDE69]

Publicado originalmente por nGreedia Official Scalper:

Torchlight 3 was Early Access.

But thing about the game was that it was never supposed to be Torchlight anyway. It was supposed to be an original IP MMO on a ARPG mechanical foundation. It was later that they basically backported it to being Torchlight.

It was supposed to be a Torchlight MMO which is something the devs have been talking about since Torchlight 1 was released. They would have never needed early access if they hadn't botched the development so bad that they had to fully restructure the game.

I'd argue they didn't even need early access at all considering the fact that Perfect World Entertainment was behind the game.

Which brings the question, should established publishers that have no real need for crowdfunding have access to Early Access?

[Tito Shivan]

Publicado originalmente por Foxdude:

Which brings the question, should established publishers that have no real need for crowdfunding have access to Early Access?

Because some people like to jump into a game in such state. And because it provides them metadata they wouldn't have with a closed alpha/beta development.

Choosing to be Early Access is not a purely economical reason.

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por Tito Shivan:

Publicado originalmente por Foxdude:

Which brings the question, should established publishers that have no real need for crowdfunding have access to Early Access?

Because some people like to jump into a game in such state. And because it provides them metadata they wouldn't have with a closed alpha/beta development.

Choosing to be Early Access is not a purely economical reason.

Yup. In face Earlly Access can be a bit of a gambe for a deveoper. Most people in the audience will not buy a game in Early Access so you're reducing your initia sales, and byuy the time you finish your game mightt ell be 'olld news' and you'll bnver get those missed sales opportunities back.

[FOXDUDE69]

Publicado originalmente por Tito Shivan:

Publicado originalmente por Foxdude:

Which brings the question, should established publishers that have no real need for crowdfunding have access to Early Access?

Because some people like to jump into a game in such state. And because it provides them metadata they wouldn't have with a closed alpha/beta development.

Choosing to be Early Access is not a purely economical reason.

But they could have gathered that data just as easily from a game on open beta.
And open betas don't limit user access either, so anyone interested can jump in just as easily.

With this in mind, it looks like the distinction between something on open beta and something on Early Access is purely economical.

Or are there any other factors I'm not considering?

[cinedine]

Publicado originalmente por Foxdude:

Which brings the question, should established publishers that have no real need for crowdfunding have access to Early Access?

Early Access is not for funding your game. Why do people don't get this?

Early Access is for getting reliable data about player engagement and the market situation.
For example some years back people where desperate about getting a new classic Arena Shooter instead of Hero Shooters. So a few games were made scratching that itch. And didn't they didn't sell. If you took your average 3-5 years to develop a game for this market that in reality doesn't exist, you'd have wasted time and money and might get you rstudio into debts.
Or all these people who cry for "innovation". So you spend 3-5 years innovating on a concept just to figure out that people actually do not want innovation.
Or you develop your open world survival game like DayZ only to have the market moved on to Battle Royal games.

Early Access was the reason Fortnite became big. It allowed them to focus on a popular game mode when it was still hot. It saved H1Z1 for the same reason.

It allows studios to gauge interest and focus on the points the community engages in. It allows them to pull the plug on a project before sinking time and money into it. There is no need to develop an epic RPG if people don't show interest. There is no need to come up with complex systems if the players are already overwhelmed with your basic design.

It's about risk management. About breaking out of the development bubble and getting some outside perspective.
If anybody really needs it, it's big studios that sink millions upon millions in development and need their games to sell record numbers to break even.

Publicado originalmente por Foxdude:

But they could have gathered that data just as easily from a game on open beta.
And open betas don't limit user access either, so anyone interested can jump in just as easily.

Open betas are nowadays just limited time demos.
Early Access is nothing but a continous open beta in the old sense.

[Tiberius]

Publicado originalmente por cinedine:

Publicado originalmente por Foxdude:

Which brings the question, should established publishers that have no real need for crowdfunding have access to Early Access?

Early Access is not for funding your game. Why do people don't get this?

Early Access is for getting reliable data about player engagement and the market situation.
For example some years back people where desperate about getting a new classic Arena Shooter instead of Hero Shooters. So a few games were made scratching that itch. And didn't they didn't sell. If you took your average 3-5 years to develop a game for this market that in reality doesn't exist, you'd have wasted time and money and might get you rstudio into debts.
Or all these people who cry for "innovation". So you spend 3-5 years innovating on a concept just to figure out that people actually do not want innovation.
Or you develop your open world survival game like DayZ only to have the market moved on to Battle Royal games.

Early Access was the reason Fortnite became big. It allowed them to focus on a popular game mode when it was still hot. It saved H1Z1 for the same reason.

It allows studios to gauge interest and focus on the points the community engages in. It allows them to pull the plug on a project before sinking time and money into it. There is no need to develop an epic RPG if people don't show interest. There is no need to come up with complex systems if the players are already overwhelmed with your basic design.

It's about risk management. About breaking out of the development bubble and getting some outside perspective.
If anybody really needs it, it's big studios that sink millions upon millions in development and need their games to sell record numbers to break even.

Publicado originalmente por Foxdude:

But they could have gathered that data just as easily from a game on open beta.
And open betas don't limit user access either, so anyone interested can jump in just as easily.

Open betas are nowadays just limited time demos.
Early Access is nothing but a continous open beta in the old sense.

None of this explains the PRICE TAG of early access. You are just explaining alpha/beta testing

The document you linked earlier is there to warn devs that.. there is no guarantee devs would make enough money from EA to fund the whole project. Nothing in that document actually stops the devs from using EA to help with the project funding.

[Crazy Tiger]

Publicado originalmente por Tiberius:

None of this explains the PRICE TAG of early access.

Because it's the same explanation as with every price tag on the Steam store. Game devs/publishers set the price to the price they want.

[Tiberius]

Publicado originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

Publicado originalmente por Tiberius:

None of this explains the PRICE TAG of early access.

Because it's the same explanation as with every price tag on the Steam store. Game devs/publishers set the price to the price they want.

Nah.. there's a reason why steam has both playtest and early access

[FOXDUDE69]

Publicado originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

Publicado originalmente por Tiberius:

None of this explains the PRICE TAG of early access.

Because it's the same explanation as with every price tag on the Steam store. Game devs/publishers set the price to the price they want.

Still he makes a fair point. Early Access is just an Open Beta you pay for so there's a discussion to be had if established publishers should have access to it.

Otherwise we might find ourselves in the situation where every AAA game in development can be placed on early access which will eventually lead to games getting canceled that people already payed for. Right now if a AAA game gets canceled it's not a big deal because no money changed hands. But with Early Access this could very well be a possibility. And anyone that's been paying close attention to AAA publishers in the last 15 years is probably wondering why this hasn't happened yet.

The developers of Ark released a full size expansion before they completed the game. I shouldn't have to explain why this is deeply immoral.

[Brian9824]

Publicado originalmente por Tiberius:

Publicado originalmente por cinedine:

Early Access is not for funding your game. Why do people don't get this?

Early Access is for getting reliable data about player engagement and the market situation.
For example some years back people where desperate about getting a new classic Arena Shooter instead of Hero Shooters. So a few games were made scratching that itch. And didn't they didn't sell. If you took your average 3-5 years to develop a game for this market that in reality doesn't exist, you'd have wasted time and money and might get you rstudio into debts.
Or all these people who cry for "innovation". So you spend 3-5 years innovating on a concept just to figure out that people actually do not want innovation.
Or you develop your open world survival game like DayZ only to have the market moved on to Battle Royal games.

Early Access was the reason Fortnite became big. It allowed them to focus on a popular game mode when it was still hot. It saved H1Z1 for the same reason.

It allows studios to gauge interest and focus on the points the community engages in. It allows them to pull the plug on a project before sinking time and money into it. There is no need to develop an epic RPG if people don't show interest. There is no need to come up with complex systems if the players are already overwhelmed with your basic design.

It's about risk management. About breaking out of the development bubble and getting some outside perspective.
If anybody really needs it, it's big studios that sink millions upon millions in development and need their games to sell record numbers to break even.



Open betas are nowadays just limited time demos.
Early Access is nothing but a continous open beta in the old sense.

None of this explains the PRICE TAG of early access. You are just explaining alpha/beta testing

The document you linked earlier is there to warn devs that.. there is no guarantee devs would make enough money from EA to fund the whole project. Nothing in that document actually stops the devs from using EA to help with the project funding.

Hate people who keep trying to falsely claim EA isn't for funding. Funding is a MAJOR part of EA, it's just not the sole funding source and steam doesn't want developers to rely on EA sales as their only source of funding.

Spelled out clear as day in the EA rules and guidelines.

[Brian9824]

Publicado originalmente por Foxdude:

Publicado originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

Because it's the same explanation as with every price tag on the Steam store. Game devs/publishers set the price to the price they want.

Still he makes a fair point. Early Access is just an Open Beta you pay for so there's a discussion to be had if established publishers should have access to it.

Otherwise we might find ourselves in the situation where every AAA game in development can be placed on early access which will eventually lead to games getting canceled that people already payed for. Right now if a AAA game gets canceled it's not a big deal because no money changed hands. But with Early Access this could very well be a possibility. And anyone that's been paying close attention to AAA publishers in the last 15 years is probably wondering why this hasn't happened yet.

The developers of Ark released a full size expansion before they completed the game. I shouldn't have to explain why this is deeply immoral.

Again though, not really any different then someone releasing a buggy game and then abandoning it after launch. I mean your making up a hypothetical scenario that is extremely unlikely to occur, because of the backlash it would cause to the developers.

They aren't going to release EA titles to screw people over because it would kill their company.