Anyone else uneven by the ongoing early access titles in Steam?

[Herboren]

I grew up in the 90's and the games that were in development for N64, SNES took nearly a year or two. PC games on average take 2-5 years to develop and that doesn't count the AAA titles which can take more. I know some Indie games are solo pro's who have no financial stability, but some have pushed beyond the threshold of 'too long'.

I know developers could really care less about my input so long as a dime lands in their pocket. But, these early access titles should provide demos to their game if they want support for their development. Sure, I could buy it an refund it in two hours, but kind of wish it was like the 90's where ps1/pc gamer magazine had a demo disc you could get from purchasing a magazine (or steal it most of the time). Baffles me that majority of these games here don't already do that; it kind of ruins the authenticity.

Then there is selling underdeveloped games by removing it from early access (Yes Icarus, I am talking about you; and 'This land is my land') that I was hoping for. At which point does the majority rule and say enough is enough. No.. I am not saying boycott the facade, but I just feel like there needs to be more control between both parties; gamers and developers, to make a clear and concise decision about when to purchase a product and when to serve a finished product.

Always open to change my view.

[Lithurge]

Escrito originalmente por Ganger:

I don't see any issues with early access myself. You know that early access titles may or may not be completed, so unless your unwilling to take the risk then DON'T BUY early access titles.

I bought two early access titles many years ago, I got burned by both of them. So I avoid them. But this doesn't mean they bad or shouldn't be released. End of the day, the buyer always has that option to buy or not to buy.

Of the five I bought over the years 4 have made it to a full release, one being Kerbal Space Program which is arguably one of the most successful ones. So yeah it's a bit pot luck depending on what you buy but you can get some very good games out of it if you're lucky.

[crunchyfrog]

NO absolutely not, as it's completely contradictory.

If you have an early access game then right up front there's limitations. They are asking for money to help them fund the ongiong development of their idea. This means their funds are limited, their resources are limited and their staff is likely limited too.

To create a demo is no small feat as it's not a case of just taking what you've already done and banging in a limit on it. It needs FAR, FAR more work to create. So in doing so you're actually detracting from the work they're doing.

And besides, it utterly defeats the point. The whole thing about early access is not that you fund it before you get the game. You fund it AND get the game while it progresses, so making a demo would utterly ruin that for everyone else.

So no, not a good idea for two very big reasons.

[nullable]

Escrito originalmente por Herboren:

I grew up in the 90's and the games that were in development for N64, SNES took nearly a year or two. PC games on average take 2-5 years to develop and that doesn't count the AAA titles which can take more. I know some Indie games are solo pro's who have no financial stability, but some have pushed beyond the threshold of 'too long'.

It's not the 90's anymore.

Your opinions about what qualifies as too long have no bearing in experience or reality. Because let's be real here, one of the reasons why games in the 90's only took a year or two to develop is they were a lot less complex in a lot of ways.

And some projects just struggle or fail. Defining arbitrary time limits or rules doesn't resolve that. It would be theater for the layman, that's it.

Escrito originalmente por Herboren:

I know developers could really care less about my input so long as a dime lands in their pocket. But, these early access titles should provide demos to their game if they want support for their development. Sure, I could buy it an refund it in two hours, but kind of wish it was like the 90's where ps1/pc gamer magazine had a demo disc you could get from purchasing a magazine (or steal it most of the time). Baffles me that majority of these games here don't already do that; it kind of ruins the authenticity.

No one is stopping developers from making demos. Developers haven't forgotten about them. Some developers still make demos, plenty of games have them. Even in the 90's lots of games didn't have demos. They've always been a wholly optional marketing tool, regardless of how warm and fuzzy your rose tinted glasses make you feel about demo discs.

It wasn't the only way to vet a game in the 90's, and it's not the only way to do it in 2021.

We get it you like demos. But not everyone agrees that that work and cost is worthwhile to their product. If they did, they'd make more demos, wouldn't they?

Escrito originalmente por Herboren:

Then there is selling underdeveloped games by removing it from early access (Yes Icarus, I am talking about you; and 'This land is my land') that I was hoping for. At which point does the majority rule and say enough is enough. No.. I am not saying boycott the facade, but I just feel like there needs to be more control between both parties; gamers and developers, to make a clear and concise decision about when to purchase a product and when to serve a finished product.

Always open to change my view.

All Early Access really is, is the developers opinion about the state of the game. You may have different opinions about the state of the game. Just like you may have opinions about whether it's good or bad. But your opinions don't represent objective truth.

I mean you talk about majority rule... well a majority seem to like Icarus. It's not an overwhelming majority, but it is a larger majority than most politicians get. The same is true for This Land is My Land. An even larger majority seem to like that game.

I think your problem is you think your opinions represent Joe Everygamer. And it would seem that in your two examples, they don't. You couldn't find any more favorable examples? I'd imagine you'd have used them if you had. If the best indictment you have are games that are just OK, that doesn't seem like a bad problem to have to me.

[MonkehMaster]

Escrito originalmente por Bee:

The EA system works. Don’t want to take a risk? Then don’t buy an EA game - it says so on the page.

the EA system does not work

its clearly abused, some games never leave Early Access and later on simply stop being updated (devs abandon the game) while still being left for sale on its store page, while others continue to be dragged slowly through the EA system for obvious reasons.

i wont say all games that went through the EA system were/went bad, some left Early Access quite well, some quicker and came out with great games, but thats few and far between.

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

To create a demo is no small feat as it's not a case of just taking what you've already done and banging in a limit on it. It needs FAR, FAR more work to create. So in doing so you're actually detracting from the work they're doing.

and yet, that is exactly what demo's are and have been used for, tossing in a chunk of what they have currently and ending the demo in a specific spot with a message saying "thanks for trying our demo" and some enticing words about possibly buying their game...

Escrito originalmente por Snakub Plissken:

It's not the 90's anymore.

Your opinions about what qualifies as too long have no bearing in experience or reality. Because let's be real here, one of the reasons why games in the 90's only took a year or two to develop is they were a lot less complex in a lot of ways.

And some projects just struggle or fail. Defining arbitrary time limits or rules doesn't resolve that. It would be theater for the layman, that's it.

yet games from those days were clearly better, had better quality control and for the games that failed before being put on the shelves, luckily people didnt lose money buying them like one would risking the Early Access system.

so i think your "point" doesnt quite pan out like you wanted it too.

--------------------------------------------------------

OP, i agree, back in the day we had better games, not including demos for said games and the development time and testing was done quite thoroughly.

now a days you have devs taking ages to make a game , while expecting your money before the game even makes it to release and sometimes those games go abandoned leaving you with a buggy mess of a game and out the money you paid, there are also alot of them that dont take feedback well, some that ignore suggestion and dont bother with technical help, they pretty much leave it to the community (paying customers) to fix/help each other (lets not forget about game mods), like its our job to keep their product working/playable/ect..

tho i do agree with some of the parts of the comments in here, youtube/streams can help with your decisions on purchasing a game, reviews may help.. but they are clogged with ridiculous ascii spam and steam awards farming and other nonsense spam (one word/letter/number/blank/ect..), so its work just to bother yourself looking through them.

that being said, while youtube/streams and possibly reviews can help, nothing helps better than a demo, which gives you the actual firsthand experience of playing the game.

sadly demos werent being utilized very well for quite some time, luckily you have some that actually do make demos and it may be picking up , showing the other devs that demos work as intended, just like they did back in the day.

also, just ignore the people coming in to force their opinions on you, claiming nothing is wrong and saying stuff like "your opinion doesnt matter" ect... those are regulars and they do this in almost every thread that gets posted.

[Pscht]

Escrito originalmente por MonkehMaster:

the EA system does not work :lunar2019crylaughingpig:

its clearly abused, some games never leave Early Access and later on simply stop being updated (devs abandon the game)

Oh right, that never happens to games that are sold as "finished". They have no bugs, no half-baked features, no promises of more content that never comes...

[MonkehMaster]

Escrito originalmente por Pscht:

Escrito originalmente por MonkehMaster:

the EA system does not work

its clearly abused, some games never leave Early Access and later on simply stop being updated (devs abandon the game)

Oh right, that never happens to games that are sold as "finished". They have no bugs, no half-baked features, no promises of more content that never comes...

what?

[Pscht]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

[Aachen]

Escrito originalmente por MonkehMaster:

.... its clearly abused, some games never leave Early Access and later on simply stop being updated (devs abandon the game) ....

How do you know that these unreferenced events were abusive cessations-of-development?

What’s the frequency of ‘em, compared to the EA pool as a whole?

[Olwart]

Escrito originalmente por Bee:

Use the search function - it would’ve shown you ever past thread on this topic.

Mods have a habit of instalocking threads people dig up.

Escrito originalmente por Bee:

And trust me, the points every possible point has been made at this stage.

People discussing things isn't a thing that's ever going to stop. And anyway, if it is so that eVerY poSsibLe pOinT hAs bEen mAde, why not share your knowledge with the OP so this “spam” thread dies faster?

[nullable]

Escrito originalmente por MonkehMaster:

Escrito originalmente por Snakub Plissken:

It's not the 90's anymore.

Your opinions about what qualifies as too long have no bearing in experience or reality. Because let's be real here, one of the reasons why games in the 90's only took a year or two to develop is they were a lot less complex in a lot of ways.

And some projects just struggle or fail. Defining arbitrary time limits or rules doesn't resolve that. It would be theater for the layman, that's it.

yet games from those days were clearly better, had better quality control and for the games that failed before being put on the shelves, luckily people didnt lose money buying them like one would risking the Early Access system.

so i think your "point" doesnt quite pan out like you wanted it too.

You weren't convinced, no. But I don't agree with any of your claims. It's not an argument, it's subjective opinion. Pick a console, pick a year and there's tons of crap games. I mean you can ignore, dismiss or downplay old games that are bad. But they exist by the truckload. I'm not going to cut you any slack with your rose tinted nonsense there.

I think you're having trouble grasping that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

And you don't seem to acknowledge how the sheer increase in volume in both software and players increases how often people run into bugs. And don't seem to realize that it's much easier to communicate those discoveries now that it was in the 80's or most of the 90's.

There's a lot of things that explain a significant part your perception.

Mileage on individual games will vary. Plenty of games today knock the socks off 90% of games with Nintendo's Seal of Quality

[Herboren]

Escrito originalmente por Aachen:

Escrito originalmente por Pscht:

its clearly abused, some games never leave Early Access and later on simply stop being updated (devs abandon the game)

How do you know that these unreferenced events were abusive cessations-of-development?

What’s the frequency of ‘em, compared to the EA pool as a whole?

DayZ for one and CDPR. But, I wouldn't say that developers are the issue, more along marketing teams trying to get their share at said SLA. Pressure from marketing team and investors don't really seem to understand what a polished game can net them. Like politicians trying to sell their stock before the market crashes. Developers ultimately should have more say on the due date of their games, but even some developers cease the development of a game like The Stanely Parable. I also had really high hopes for DayZ up until the studio closed =\

[nullable]

Escrito originalmente por Herboren:

Escrito originalmente por Aachen:

How do you know that these unreferenced events were abusive cessations-of-development?

What’s the frequency of ‘em, compared to the EA pool as a whole?

DayZ for one and CDPR. But, I wouldn't say that developers are the issue, more along marketing teams trying to get their share at said SLA. Pressure from marketing team and investors don't really seem to understand what a polished game can net them. Like politicians trying to sell their stock before the market crashes. Developers ultimately should have more say on the due date of their games, but even some developers cease the development of a game like The Stanely Parable. I also had really high hopes for DayZ up until the studio closed =\

I don't think it's that they don't understand. Part of the problem is games are a business. If a developer's work is being funded by a publisher the publisher has a lot to say and they have stake in the game. And they're not ignorant about development or games...

Sometimes choices have to be made that don't feel optimal. Losses have to be cut, games need to be canceled, studios need to be shut down, mediocre games need to be released to try and recoup some of the costs. If you don't do that then the only games that can be afford to be released are guaranteed hits.

Game development is a job, and most people in it are just employees. They're only going to work so long as they're getting paid.

A lot of teams and studios give it their best shot and sometimes they come up short. They might really believe a few more dollars and a little bit more time will make all the difference. Sometimes it might, sometimes it does. Sometimes they're just in denial.

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por MonkehMaster:

Escrito originalmente por Bee:

The EA system works. Don’t want to take a risk? Then don’t buy an EA game - it says so on the page.

the EA system does not work :lunar2019crylaughingpig:

its clearly abused, some games never leave Early Access and later on simply stop being updated (devs abandon the game) while still being left for sale on its store page, while others continue to be dragged slowly through the EA system for obvious reasons.

i wont say all games that went through the EA system were/went bad, some left Early Access quite well, some quicker and came out with great games, but thats few and far between.

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

To create a demo is no small feat as it's not a case of just taking what you've already done and banging in a limit on it. It needs FAR, FAR more work to create. So in doing so you're actually detracting from the work they're doing.

and yet, that is exactly what demo's are and have been used for, tossing in a chunk of what they have currently and ending the demo in a specific spot with a message saying "thanks for trying our demo" and some enticing words about possibly buying their game...

Escrito originalmente por Snakub Plissken:

It's not the 90's anymore.

Your opinions about what qualifies as too long have no bearing in experience or reality. Because let's be real here, one of the reasons why games in the 90's only took a year or two to develop is they were a lot less complex in a lot of ways.

And some projects just struggle or fail. Defining arbitrary time limits or rules doesn't resolve that. It would be theater for the layman, that's it.

yet games from those days were clearly better, had better quality control and for the games that failed before being put on the shelves, luckily people didnt lose money buying them like one would risking the Early Access system.

so i think your "point" doesnt quite pan out like you wanted it too.

--------------------------------------------------------

OP, i agree, back in the day we had better games, not including demos for said games and the development time and testing was done quite thoroughly.

now a days you have devs taking ages to make a game , while expecting your money before the game even makes it to release and sometimes those games go abandoned leaving you with a buggy mess of a game and out the money you paid, there are also alot of them that dont take feedback well, some that ignore suggestion and dont bother with technical help, they pretty much leave it to the community (paying customers) to fix/help each other (lets not forget about game mods), like its our job to keep their product working/playable/ect..

tho i do agree with some of the parts of the comments in here, youtube/streams can help with your decisions on purchasing a game, reviews may help.. but they are clogged with ridiculous ascii spam and steam awards farming and other nonsense spam (one word/letter/number/blank/ect..), so its work just to bother yourself looking through them.

that being said, while youtube/streams and possibly reviews can help, nothing helps better than a demo, which gives you the actual firsthand experience of playing the game.

sadly demos werent being utilized very well for quite some time, luckily you have some that actually do make demos and it may be picking up , showing the other devs that demos work as intended, just like they did back in the day.

also, just ignore the people coming in to force their opinions on you, claiming nothing is wrong and saying stuff like "your opinion doesnt matter" ect... those are regulars and they do this in almost every thread that gets posted.

Nope you're missing the point.

Diverting time away is not the same as the size of the teams and assets are compeltely different - that's the point.

[MonkehMaster]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Nope you're missing the point.

Diverting time away is not the same as the size of the teams and assets are compeltely different - that's the point.

making a small playable demo is not as hard or time consuming as you think...

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por MonkehMaster:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Nope you're missing the point.

Diverting time away is not the same as the size of the teams and assets are compeltely different - that's the point.

making a small playable demo is not as hard or time consuming as you think...

Cool, then demonmstrate your evidence for that.

Demonstrate how small devs with limited resources, staff and going through early access can easily eke this into their plans without adversely affecting them.