"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.

[Roday]

引用自 brian9824：

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

*uhuk
Code}{atch
*uhuk

[Brian9824]

引用自 Pepo：

引用自 brian9824：

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

*uhuk
Code}{atch
*uhuk

Last time i checked they weren't a AAA company.......

[FOXDUDE69]

引用自 brian9824：

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.

Possibly. This is, of course, a worst case scenario. It's a good exercise to take a system to the extreme and see what it could possibly allow.
Besides, some companies like EA, Bethesda and Blizzard have proven that they are fairly immune to PR disasters despite having done things that we would have never even imagine back in the day.

[Brian9824]

引用自 Foxdude：

引用自 brian9824：

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.

Possibly. This is, of course, a worst case scenario. It's a good exercise to take a system to the extreme and see what it could possibly allow.
Besides, some companies like EA, Bethesda and Blizzard have proven that they are fairly immune to PR disasters despite having done things that we would have never even imagine back in the day.

I mean worst case scenario is to outlaw all games because they can be unfinished and will break afte the 2 hour mark.

It's definitely not a good idea to ever base your decisions around the worst case scenario. I mean by that logic you should go out and spend all your money and go wild right this second because the worst case scenario is the planet is destroyed in an hour.....

[FOXDUDE69]

引用自 brian9824：

It's definitely not a good idea to ever base your decisions around the worst case scenario. I mean by that logic you should go out and spend all your money and go wild right this second because the worst case scenario is the planet is destroyed in an hour.....

One has to use common sense too, brother.
The case I proposed is not extremely unlikely considering the track record of AAA publishers.
The case you proposed is very unlikely since there's no indication the earth might be destroyed in an hour, and that doesn't match with what the voices tell me either. And the voices are always right.

[Serendipity]

引用自 Snapjak：

Why is it so hard for people to keep away from things they don't like?

It's almost as if they're moths to a flame, MUST GO TO BAD GARRRRGGHHHBKAJDFAKL.



DON'T
BUY
EARLY
ACCESS
GAMES

Not that difficullt.

And why is it so hard for people to understand they are being fleeced.

[Brian9824]

引用自 Foxdude：

引用自 brian9824：

It's definitely not a good idea to ever base your decisions around the worst case scenario. I mean by that logic you should go out and spend all your money and go wild right this second because the worst case scenario is the planet is destroyed in an hour.....

One has to use common sense too, brother.
The case I proposed is not extremely unlikely considering the track record of AAA publishers.
The case you proposed is very unlikely since there's no indication the earth might be destroyed in an hour, and that doesn't match with what the voices tell me either. And the voices are always right.

The case you proposed is EXTREMELY unlikely. A AAA company has the money and resources to finish a game. Whether that game is good is a different story but has nothing to do with early access.

I mean name one AAA publisher who has EVER released an EA game and then cancelled it while in EA

Also - https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/science/nasa-says-golden-gate-bridge-sized-asteroid-will-pass-by-earth-in-early-jan.html

引用自 susanmel：

引用自 Snapjak：

Why is it so hard for people to keep away from things they don't like?

It's almost as if they're moths to a flame, MUST GO TO BAD GARRRRGGHHHBKAJDFAKL.



DON'T
BUY
EARLY
ACCESS
GAMES

Not that difficullt.

And why is it so hard for people to understand they are being fleeced.

Because they aren't being fleeced, and most EA games come out of EA and are enjoyable. Your also ignoring that 99% of the games that don't leave EA aren't due to some nefarious reason, and even if a game fails to leave EA people still have the game as is, which as Steam tells you means you shouldn't buy it unless you are happy with it in its current state.

[cinedine]

引用自 Tiberius：

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

You get hours of playtime and the "full" game instead of of limited version that is only available for a limited time.
It's sad that you need this quite simple fact explained to you.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between an Early Access game, a Live Service game and a game with years of new content after "release".

引用自 susanmel：

引用自 Snapjak：

Why is it so hard for people to keep away from things they don't like?

It's almost as if they're moths to a flame, MUST GO TO BAD GARRRRGGHHHBKAJDFAKL.



DON'T
BUY
EARLY
ACCESS
GAMES

Not that difficullt.

And why is it so hard for people to understand they are being fleeced.

Only because they blindly buy into promises.
DON'T BUY EARLY ACCESS GAMES if you don't want to take that risk. Why is it so hard to understand this?

[FOXDUDE69]

引用自 brian9824：

The case you proposed is EXTREMELY unlikely. A AAA company has the money and resources to finish a game. Whether that game is good is a different story but has nothing to do with early access.

I mean name one AAA publisher who has EVER released an EA game and then cancelled it while in EA

You know I can't, Brian... But it's not so unlikely anymore considering we live in world where Bungie can simply remove a stupid amount of content that people previously payed for from Destiny 2 and not only do they get away with it but a significant portion of the fans furiously defend them and then purchase a 40 dollar expansion that's so lacking in content that it could not be called an expansion by anyone who has any sense.

My point here being, there is no line some Publisher, AAA or not, will not cross, could you have imagined a game on Early Access selling an expansion before finishing the game? Because Ark did. I never saw that coming either! And I'm a cynical person!

[Tiberius]

引用自 cinedine：

引用自 Tiberius：

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

You get hours of playtime and the "full" game instead of of limited version that is only available for a limited time.
It's sad that you need this quite simple fact explained to you.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between an Early Access game, a Live Service game and a game with years of new content after "release".

引用自 susanmel：

And why is it so hard for people to understand they are being fleeced.

Only because they blindly buy into promises.
DON'T BUY EARLY ACCESS GAMES if you don't want to take that risk. Why is it so hard to understand this?

Right.. alpha/beta testing, game updates, xpac, dlc, they're all the same thing

Now let me roll my eyes real quick

[cinedine]

引用自 Tiberius：

Right.. alpha/beta testing, game updates, xpac, dlc, they're all the same thing

Now let me roll my eyes real quick

Then please explain the difference between them. And nobody is talking about DLC and expansions.

Feel free to explain where the difference is
- when an Early Access game getting new content and new mechanics
- and a Live Service dropping new content and changing some mechanics
- and a normal update that drops new content and changing some mechanics.

Games that have ongoing development and regularly drop new content:
- Dwarf Fortress
- UnReal World
- Tales of Maj'Eyal

None of them is Early Access. All of them are available for free outside Steam. All of them have (or in case of DF will have) a price tag on Steam. None of them is considered "finished".

Live Services:
- Destiny
- Hearthstone
- Elder Scrolls Online

All of them have ongoing development and regularly drop new content and introduce new mechanics as well as changing things around.

Early Access:
- Satisfactory
- 7 Days to Die
- Baldur's Gate 3

All of them have them have ongoing development and reqularly drop new content and introduce new mechanics ...

Early Access with support after "release":
- Darkest Dungeon
- Don't Starve
- Conan Exiles

All of them were Early Access once and received regular updates with new content and new mechanics after release. In some cases they still do. Even Darkest Dungeon had a content patch early last year in preparation for the DLC.

So again: feel free to explain how the Early Access moniker has any value other than warning the customer about issues with the game.

[Tiberius]

After so many of my post abt project funding, you still wanna ask me what early access is all abt. Smh

Go ask yourself why some games leave EA phase eventually

[Crazy Tiger]

引用自 Tiberius：

After so many of my post abt project funding, you still wanna ask me what early access is all abt. Smh

Go ask yourself why some games leave EA phase eventually

Going from EA to Full release often goes with a price increase. It also means the developers consider the game Version 1.0.

However, what Cinedine says isn't wrong. From a consumer standpoint the only difference in actuality is the label. And it's merely the label that people take issue with, cause they connect expectations to that label. Which is a peoples issue.

[cinedine]

引用自 Tiberius：

After so many of my post abt project funding, you still wanna ask me what early access is all abt. Smh

Go ask yourself why some games leave EA phase eventually

No, I asked you were the difference to other models is.
I actually told you earlier what Early Access is about. And it's still not funding.

[Flynt]

I honestly think that EA is needed these days, most of the times it's hard to know what players want out of a game so EA is a great way to get feedback from the community, this way the game will become something that people enjoy.

Though it's fair to say that some devs don't listen.