My thoughts on a better Early Access system

[SuperRealSystem]

So i already posted this on another thread on the Planet Explorers Discussions.
But a lot of people think there needs to be a change to Steam's EA policy.
They might already be thinking of something, but for the sake of keeping discussion going:

The Pledge System.

A developer has a game he wants to get into Early Access.

So he contacts Steam and provides them with all the info, data, a roadmap and a playable Alpha or Beta. Any goals that will be set, will have to be met. Don't promise laser shooting sharks if you have no idea how to implement them..

Steam accepts their game and starts to work with the dev to get a real schedule on paper.
This schedule will document a string of planned updates, together with dates for things that haven't been added yet.

No let's say the development will take 2 years and they decide to ask 30 dollars for the full release.

If a buyer likes their demo, they can pledge their money to this game and join the early access. They pay Steam the full price upfront.

Steam however, doesn't pay the developer the full sum of 30 dollars, but only 6 dollars upfront per sold game.

The developer now has 6 months of updates, additions and patches to prove himself to the player base. All this time the players can contribute feedback and discuss if they still think it is worth their money.

After 6 months there will be a deadline, has the dev kept his promise? Is it everything we hoped for 6 months back? Or are some things not implemented even thought they were promised. Is there a legit reason for not keeping a promise?

Now everyone get's a time period in wich they can decide if they still want to support further development.

If they wish to opt out, Steam gives them their pledge back, minus the first 6 dollars.

If they wish to continue support, they get to buy the next major patch for another 6 dollars.

We repeat this every 6 months. So you either jump ship and save some of your money, or you support it all the way to release. Then you will have paid the full price and the dev has lived up to your expectations.

There will need to be other things decided, like a grace period for a dev if he misses a deadline. And things like when to release and the amount per pledge and all.
But i honestly think that's Steam's responsibilty.

Or what if you want to opt in when there have been 2 major patches already?
That would be 6 for a demo and 2x6 for the updates, wich makes 18 dollars.
You get a period in wich you can play the current content, after that you decide if you're on board and pay the 18 dollars.

This will keep buyers from losing all their money at once if at any point something goes horribly wrong. They will lose some but there was that demo they liked so those 6 dollars weren't a total loss. Every time we can decide if the current content plus the major update is worth our money at that time. We as a buyer will have multiple chances to control our purchase.

The dev on the other hand will have some money to start/continue development, but they won't receive all the cash at once. This will keep them motivated to get that next pledge deadline update done, because it will mean another sum of money from their playerbase.
They also need to listen to their costumers more, because everything can be a reason to opt out when the next deadline is met.

The dev will have less money in the short term with a higher risk, but i think that is only fair considering all the trust we put in you guys right? And if you honestly failed while you wanted to succeed?? Well there is the pay for your initial efforts, but the rest is going back to the costumers. Next time step up your game.

There will always be a risk for both sides, so lets keep it balanced.

And then you, Steam..

You have an obligation to us and to the honest developers. There needs to be a system that punishes the charlatans and forgives inexperienced developers who simply miss a deadline once or twice. And there are succesful EA games, but currently everyone suffers from this problem.

In the long run it will benefit Early Access and your sales.
I think it will require a lot of effort and manpower, but you supply the service so you make it work.

I probably forgot something important or i am thinking too basic i don't know..
Just got this in my head and wanted to share. It is kinda long i know :p

Keep this thread alive by commenting on Steam's current way of handling EA, or by supplying your own ideas.
Just throw it out there!
You'll never know if it's a silly idea unless you share it right? :)

edit: Start_Running pointed this out:

"Steam has improved by adding a refund policiy whereby you can refund a purchase providing your meet certain constraints.

Developers have gotten better at using the system to properly manage consumer expectations."

Wich leads me to believe they have aknowledged the problem.
This also means they are in fact adressing it, so kudos there.
But adressing the consumer expectations is basically saying the problem is on one end.
I disagree.

[Start_Running]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Fayde1:

Flexible timeline/targets
It cannot work if it isn't flexible, within reason

Who defiens reason? Those that know the process or those that do not because honestly. Those that know see nothing wrong with a game going months without a visible update and a game taking 3-5 years to complete. We consider that to be reasonable.

Those that don't consider it unreasonable... because they don't know. They are ignorant of the processes involved and thusly what tehy consider to be reasonable is based on nothing resembling reality.

The current system already operates 'within reason' of those that know.

[SuperRealSystem]

If they are a month behind then no problem, if they haven't figured it out in (Let's say 6 months) then i seriously doubt their ability to finish this game. But then there would be the option to get out, while others keep supporting the dev team. You think that as a consumer, you have no right to complain, because they said it could happen..

This is bad practice and will come back to bite a company in the ass.

And once again, if you don't have the ability to absorb certain problems that can creep up,
you have no business in running a business.

Game development, the only business sector where costumer service is considered a tedious effort to keep the pitchfork mob off your back, instead of a way to separate you from the masses.

[Start_Running]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nick AKA ventie81:

If they are a month behind then no problem, if they haven't figured it out in (Let's say 6 months) then i seriously doubt their ability to finish this game. But then there would be the option to get out, while others keep supporting the dev team. You think that as a consumer, you have no right to complain, because they said it could happen..

And you agreed to it as a consumer. Besides. and I keep mentioning this.:

YOU HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN WHAT YOU PAID FOR

So how then does it remotely seem fair to get even some of your money back. That's like asking for your money back for the burger you bought and completely ate last week.

And once again, if you don't have the ability to absorb certain problems that can creep up,
you have no business in running a business.

Mmmm-hmmmm. Yeah...and this is what marks the division between people who run multi-million dollar international companies and those that do not. Those that become the multi-million dollar companies are those that take the gamble. Those that play it safe... well... safe but never stellar.

Game development, the only business sector where costumer service is considered a tedious effort to keep the pitchfork mob off your back, instead of a way to separate you from the masses.

That's because only in games do you have to deal with such a brand of uniquely entitled customers.

[ncoredump]

I tend to agree with OP ... if they can deliver the goods as promised then they get there money simple as that EA is becoming some what of fiasco...

If you cant see that or some how totaly disagree you must either be EA dev looking to capitalize on consumers, or steam staff, or staff of something connected and it thus does upset you when people are rightfully demanding that this sharade is brought to a end so we can get back to great gaming again.

The definition of alpha/beta software is where some of the problem lies because it gives the dev a open license to bring dribble to the table *especially once they have the money* .. and no one is allowed to complain .. except £22 will actually by you a relativly good working game that does what it sais on the tin so its not about money either 50% of the release price should at least get you a alpha that feels playable and thats what should be in the definitions playable/working content..so when does EA be to early.. when its a skeletal game that is buggy with a limited replay value?? who knows you tell me I think I've seen it all when it comes to the EA stuff I've tried..

with that said ARK has done well to not fall through those cracks too much.. and I would actually suggest you stick it out and get as many people playing ark as possible so the devs have the funding to get a well polished playable product to us that is enjoyable and enriches your game collection..

[Starbug]

Problem with Early Access games is that since it's crowdfunded, the funds raised will always depend on the size of the "crowd".

Probably why you see a lot of crafting and survival games on Early Access. That's seemingly one of the more popular genres.

[SuperRealSystem]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Start_Running:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Fayde1:

Flexible timeline/targets
It cannot work if it isn't flexible, within reason

Who defines reason? Those that know the process or those that do not because honestly. Those that know see nothing wrong with a game going months without a visible update and a game taking 3-5 years to complete. We consider that to be reasonable.

Those that don't consider it unreasonable... because they don't know. They are ignorant of the processes involved and thusly what tehy consider to be reasonable is based on nothing resembling reality.

The current system already operates 'within reason' of those that know.

Who defines reason? Not you apparently :) But i think you are a developer, just waiting to get is Alpha on Steam.. Am i right?

"HAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously. Look into the development history oif ANY game and you'll find that almost no devlopment process ever managed to stay within initial timelines or budget constraints."

Yes, widely accepted in game development. Frowned upon in other sectors..

"Uhm... Yes, yes it is. NO more than an author taking a break from writing a book . I mean those customers that have already purchased have already been given what they paid for.'

A publisher pays the author up front, he can write his novel. When it's done the publisher pays him the rest and starts selling the book to consumers..
He doesn't sell half of it on Amazon, only to perhaps finish it if it all pans out..

Great example to prove my point, thank you.

"Hmmm.. actually... yeah. the risk is on the consumer side. The consumer always has the risk regardless of industry or product. If you buy a car you're risking that the car is not a lemon and that you didn't inadvertently do something to invalidate your warranty between purchase and lemonization.

The wise consumer pays close attention to the documents and agreements they sign and carefully checks the background of the car before hand."

Used car, bad example. we are not buying used games. Although i agree on the part of checking them documents.
A new car will come with at least a 5 year guarantee. Most come with 7 years nowadays. You claim knowledge on development, but seem to lack knowledge about anything else really.. Your bad examples prove me that much.

"Here's a thought... try developing a game. You'll find it an enlightening experience I wager."

Ah the ever revolving comment of "You don't know what you are talking about".
In all fairness, i used it also in this post adressing you.. :)

"Yeah... so far not really happening. HEck the irony is. Early Access is essentially the best crowdfunding scenario so far. It actually gives you something in your hand up front.. How many other do this. NOt KIckstarter, Not Patreon. Nope."

Nokia thought something similar when smartphones appeared.
It's cool, we are on top..

Thinking the customer will stay because they have nowhere else to go. You have alot to learn mate, try to step away from your development work every now and then.

[Start_Running]

Oprindeligt skrevet af ncoredump:

I tend to agree with OP ... if they can deliver the goods as promised then they get there money simple as that EA is becoming some what of fiasco...

If you cant see that or some how totaly disagree you must either be EA dev looking to capitalize on consumers, or steam staff, or staff of something connected and it thus does upset you when people are rightfully demanding that this sharade is brought to a end so we can get back to great gaming again.

Ah yes the MCarthy School of logic. If you do not agree with me, you must be one of the enemy.

The definition of alpha/beta software is where some of the problem lies because it gives the dev a open license to bring dribble to the table *especially once they have the money* .. and no one is allowed to complain .. except £22 will actually by you a relativly good working game that does what it sais on the tin so its not about money either 50% of the release price should at least get you a alpha that feels playable and thats what should be in the definitions

So then if they only get half of your money... by rights you as the consumer should get nothing then. Since it would be unfair for them to live up to their end of the commitment while you only have to live up to 50% of yours.

So that version of EAG would see the devs getting only half but the consumer not getting a playable version.

[ncoredump]

?? you wot mate lol :) .. people just rightfully want a better quality of EAG and they do not give a hoot what stage of development it claims to be at .. getting half the money before you have released is more then fair .. further more show a bank manager that steam is holding a big fat pile of money for you and he wil almost certainly make it rain money for you

[SuperRealSystem]

"And you agreed to it as a consumer. Besides. and I keep mentioning this.:

YOU HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN WHAT YOU PAID FOR

So how then does it remotely seem fair to get even some of your money back. That's like asking for your money back for the burger you bought and completely ate last week."

No this is not what i am saying, you clearly can't understand what i have written down, while others do get it.

So if you just let go of the idea that i want money back on a full game, or want my entire sum back because i only gotten the first part of the game. You might see what i really mean.

You want all income from day 1 without the obligation of actually delivering, currently the system is built around this little given fact. While it should be built around what it was intended for.

You are saying that you can do whatever you want to your costumers, because the disclaimer says so. And guess what? Go ahead, be that guy. Then i'll be that guy to not fall for your Early Access game, because the way you do business is not to my taste. Not that it would be of any concern to you, the disclaimer protects you from anything..

[Start_Running]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nick AKA ventie81:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Start_Running:

Who defines reason? Those that know the process or those that do not because honestly. Those that know see nothing wrong with a game going months without a visible update and a game taking 3-5 years to complete. We consider that to be reasonable.

Those that don't consider it unreasonable... because they don't know. They are ignorant of the processes involved and thusly what tehy consider to be reasonable is based on nothing resembling reality.

The current system already operates 'within reason' of those that know.

Who defines reason? Not you apparently :) But i think you are a developer, just waiting to get is Alpha on Steam.. Am i right?

I am a software devloper, it's one of the things that companies pay me to do for them. So I am very familiar with the processes.

"HAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously. Look into the development history oif ANY game and you'll find that almost no devlopment process ever managed to stay within initial timelines or budget constraints."

Yes, widely accepted in game development. Frowned upon in other sectors..[/quote]

You know which other sectrors this tends to happen in. Film, MUsic, Literature also Web-development.

See a common thread. These are all fields that are harnessing creative energies. These aren't like accounting, or marketing or couriering where everything is a fixed routine.

"Uhm... Yes, yes it is. NO more than an author taking a break from writing a book . I mean those customers that have already purchased have already been given what they paid for.'

A publisher pays the author up front, he can write his novel. When it's done the publisher pays him the rest and starts selling the book to consumers..
He doesn't sell half of it on Amazon, only to perhaps finish it if it all pans out..

Great example to prove my point, thank you.

Not really, The publisher pays an advance (if the author is lucky) and the author writes. The publisher begins publicizing the book and yes there are preorders taken. Of course if the book may be delayed or late or even not materialize at all.

In those cases the publisher will refund the book because what the customers have paid for is a finished book. Unlike in early accesss where what the customer pays for is an Unfinished, incomplete version of a game in development. Can you spot the difference between the two.

"Hmmm.. actually... yeah. the risk is on the consumer side. The consumer always has the risk regardless of industry or product. If you buy a car you're risking that the car is not a lemon and that you didn't inadvertently do something to invalidate your warranty between purchase and lemonization.

The wise consumer pays close attention to the documents and agreements they sign and carefully checks the background of the car before hand."

Used car, bad example. we are not buying used games. Although i agree on the part of checking them documents.

Not it;s a good example. Buth with Used cars and Early Access the product is purchsae 'As is".

A new car will come with at least a 5 year guarantee. Most come with 7 years nowadays. You claim knowledge on development, but seem to lack knowledge about anything else really.. Your bad examples prove me that much.

Did I say anything about new cars though and if you actually read the Guarantee much like heath insurance policies there's more caveats and exemptions than you probably realize.

"Here's a thought... try developing a game. You'll find it an enlightening experience I wager."

Ah the ever revolving comment of "You don't know what you are talking about".
In all fairness, i used it also in this post adressing you.. :)

Yup. and misused it to boot. I'm actually very well aware. It's your myopia again. You see things in narrow tunnel vision without taking in the larger picture.

Thinking the customer will stay because they have nowhere else to go. You have alot to learn mate, try to step away from your development work every now and then.

Oh no.. but the question is, will the other guy actually be able to profit buy it. There's the trick, see I've been on enough sides of thinsg. If've seen companies that win over on customer service and keeping the customer happy and actually do good business for like a year or so and then crash and bvurn because there was no sustainability to the business model and the customers simply just went back to the old gaurd.


Customers are like fleas at Itmes. They'll cling to a host tooth and nail but one's it's bled dry, they'll happily jump to the next warm blooded host.

[Start_Running]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nick AKA ventie81:

You want all income from day 1 without the obligation of actually delivering, currently the system is built around this little given fact.

Because the customer is given on day 1 exactly what they paid for. In it's entirety.

You are saying that you can do whatever you want to your costumers, because the disclaimer says so. And guess what? Go ahead, be that guy. Then i'll be that guy to not fall for your Early Access game, because the way you do business is not to my taste. Not that it would be of any concern to you, the disclaimer protects you from anything..

Then you'll pay more for it on full release. I'm happy either way mate. :-)

[76561198042502114]

Good idea.

[Starbug]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Start_Running:

Customers are like fleas at Itmes. They'll cling to a host tooth and nail but one's it's bled dry, they'll happily jump to the next warm blooded host.

Telling analogy. By "telling" I mean that this shows you have zero objectivity or the even the slightest hint of neutrality. Your standpoint is clearly anti-consumer.

I can only hope that when / if you develop a game that you keep your opinions on the people who are paying your bills to yourself.

[76561198001062896]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Starbug:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Zetikla:

gee, I wonder why they didnt got hired to be the business manager of some big name companies

Either you're not a native English speaker, or you're being intentionally antagonistic.

Whichever it is, it has absolutely no bearing on this discussion, so you should probably stop trying to be edgy / judgmental.

If you don't want to be seen as an evil (or good) troll, try and stick to the topic, rather than making baseless insinuations about people you don't know.

Its hard to stick to a subject that was beaten to death snd oblivion

But whatever, Im clearly the blind ignorant here *shrugs*

[Starbug]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Zetikla:

Its hard to stick to a subject that was beaten to death snd oblivion

Please try! I am sure indefatigability is within your reach if you put your mind to it. Either that or unsub if you really can't be bothered with people posting opinions contrary to your own.