Slightly Civil War - Is Early Access a Good Trend in Game Development?

[Dwarvenhobble]

So as the forum threads for this haven't been updated since added and the subforum is set so only staff can create topics I thought I'd stick it here and we could play out the argument in the forums here

For those who haven't watched the episode yet

Is Early Access a Good Trend in Game Development? - Slightly Civil War

This week on Slightly Civil War, Yahtzee and Jack debate whether entering early access before official release is good for video games.

www.escapistmagazine.com

Also the supplementary podcast https://soundcloud.com/user-944993929 to go with it.

Some basic points to start the debate off

For:
+ It allows devs to experiment with new genres and ideas without being tied to massive publishers
+ It allows greater community feedback on a title to help shape direction as an example some people didn't like corpses in Darkest Dungeon but others did so the option was put in to let people turn it off should they want to.
+ It allows a small dev to have a have essentially a lot of QA testing to find bugs and other stuff.

Against:
- Developers abandoning their games with the false consumer perception that the game is still being worked on when it's really just abandoned
- Spoiling the content and explosive hype etc of release and spoiling the first impression
- Big studios jumping in ruining it for the indie guys and dis-incentivising putting out a full game first

 

[CriticalGaming]

It's a bit of a mixed bag isn't it.

Early access can have some benefits to both consumer and developer. However it has a lot of negatives too, like the abandoned game issue mentioned.

I feel like if you clearly have budget behind your game, like fucking Fortnite, then you have no right to release under early access. If you want to release a game early, call it a Beta and make it free, end of story.

However if you are an indie dev and you are trying to lay out an early product and generate income to keep the development going, then you should have a roadmap. I don't think it is unreasonable for any early access game to release with at least a chart that tells people what they are buying right now, and what will be added to the game in what period of time. Your game design document should be finished so you should know what your game is trying to become before you try to charge people for it. Don't do what Ark Survivial Evolved did and released "Early access" with no idea what the fuck was coming next. Hell Ark released and expansion before they "finished" the main game. That's fucked up.

 

[Agema]

I feel like if you clearly have budget behind your game, like fucking Fortnite, then you have no right to release under early access. If you want to release a game early, call it a Beta and make it free, end of story.

Agreed. Well funded games should just have a beta phase and then get released.

However if you are an indie dev and you are trying to lay out an early product and generate income to keep the development going, then you should have a roadmap.

I think the reality is that for many small developers, some sort of funding is necessary to either create their project, or to create their project within a reasonable timeframe. I would argue EA is better than Kickstarter. (I have various objections to Kickstarter, but let's leave those aside.)

I think there is definitely a downside that you can play the game in EA enough to lose enough interest for official release. But I would also say chances are you got your money's worth of fun out of it, so is that really a loss? Mostly, it's all the territory of caveat emptor. I would certainly say as a buyer that you should be extremely wary of a game that does not look planned and organised - that puts some responsibility on the dev to make it look okay, but if they don't and careless buyers come a cropper... well, they should all know the risks.

I think also at this point I might mention two games.

Elite: Dangerous, upon first release, was clearly, really, an EA game. Sure, the bare bones of everything worked fine. But the content and gameplay expansions subsequently really make clear that the release version can never have been what they were truly intending.

Secondly, the much maligned Phoenix Point, which Epic headhunted for its store and privileged release. I know this antagonised a lot of people. But what Epic really bought privileged release rights for was an EA release. To see the subsequent development of the game and the state it will be in for Steam, that's the only real conclusion. I know it's annoying, but Phoenix Point very clearly needed the money to get ship-shape, because the official release version that first came out, whilst playable, was a mess. Bugs, massive balance problems, limited content. It's in much better shape now, and will be even better when it gets to Steam. I suspect without the Epic Games deal, Phoenix Point would either have never arrived, or would have been forced to a release before readiness and been annihilated. It got the game out there, it's decent enough, and that's really the most important thing.

 

[Houseman]

My problem with Early Access is that it's based on the honor system with no checks and balances that ensure a developer does what is promised. We can all name some developer or some game where they took the money and ran, or otherwise failed to deliver the final product.

For Steam, I think it can be fixed by allowing refunds throughout the entire Early Access period, no restrictions. That way, they stand to lose everything if they don't live up to the expectations of their customers.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I think the reality is that for many small developers, some sort of funding is necessary to either create their project

I mean that's fine, but you should still provide the buyer with a roadmap. Give them a timeline of What is still getting added into the game and when those new features are expected to be added.

 

[meiam]

The concept doesn't require the steam feature. If you were to remove the early access category you'd still have ream of unfinished game, they just wouldn't be labelled as such.

Now it's clearly labaled as still in development, people can simply not buy early access game and they'll never suffer the downside of it.

 

[Nick Calandra]

Yea sorry about not updating those more often, you'll find out why hopefully in the next few days / week or so. Needless to say, I'm even more busy now than I used to be haha.

 

[Houseman]

The concept doesn't require the steam feature. If you were to remove the early access category you'd still have ream of unfinished game, they just wouldn't be labelled as such.

Now it's clearly labaled as still in development, people can simply not buy early access game and they'll never suffer the downside of it.

I think that the downside of not buying an early access game is that you might miss experiencing the game entirely, especially when it comes to multiplayer-only Early Access titles.

I can tell you the story of a game called The Art Of Fight. This was a VR, multiplayer-only game that peaked in Early Access. Everyone said it was the best. Everyone loved it. But then the devs abandoned it, and just released it as is. It quickly died after release. If you had waited until release, you would have only had one or two weeks to play it until you couldn't even find people to play it with. You would have missed the golden age. You wouldn't have had any fun at all.

Better to have loved and lost than never loved at all, so they say. This is the downside: never loving at all.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I look at it this way: Is the state that the game is in now worth the price the devs are asking for it now? If so, buy; if not, wait until the previous statement is true. Always assume that the project will be abandoned five minutes after you buy into it.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

For Steam, I think it can be fixed by allowing refunds throughout the entire Early Access period, no restrictions. That way, they stand to lose everything if they don't live up to the expectations of their customers.

I like this idea. Or just any idea that puts the early access devs in a position where they actually gotta finish their project and not pull a fast one on people. I don't buy early access games for that reason. I'm not giving them my money until they show the follow through. And since I don't play many multiplayer games, then I'm not missing out on any hype. I'll get to the title whenever I get to it, if I get to it

 

[Agema]

For Steam, I think it can be fixed by allowing refunds throughout the entire Early Access period, no restrictions. That way, they stand to lose everything if they don't live up to the expectations of their customers.

That's not viable: the devs are likely to use EA purchases to fund development, so that money will be gone and unreclaimable. Nor is it really fair to Valve, who will have still spent money on the publishing and hosting in good faith.

It also potentially means unscrupulous players could cheat the devs: buy early access, play the game and get plenty of enjoyment (even "complete" it, albeit in a rough and ready state), then skip out nearer official release just to get their money back.

 

[Houseman]

It also potentially means unscrupulous players could cheat the devs

I'd rather have that than unscrupulous devs cheat the players.

I'm not advocating a fair solution, just one that benefits consumers, because I'm very biased.

Thinking more on the subject of unreclaimable money, isn't that how a loan might work? A person asks for a loan, spends the money, but doesn't make any money back, so when the time comes to pay back the loan, I guess it's bankruptcy time.

Same kind of concept, except consumers have the right to declare that the loan must be "paid" at any time. Payment here means that they enjoy the product.

Nor is it really fair to Valve, who will have still spent money on the publishing and hosting in good faith.

I would think that would be covered, at least partially, by the $100 the devs pay to submit their game.

 

[Satinavian]

I have no problem buying early access if

a) I am sure the game gets made and there is some extra incentive (cheaper, bonus stuff)

or

b) I really want the game to be made and i am willing to lend money to make it happen.

I usually don't play early access, even when i have it.

 

[Agema]

I'm not advocating a fair solution, just one that benefits consumers, because I'm very biased.

Consumer benefit is complex. For instance, I'm not sure how my gaming life is improved if developers whose games I like lose out because entitled wankers who think they deserve free content play their games and stiff them the money.

Thinking more on the subject of unreclaimable money, isn't that how a loan might work? A person asks for a loan, spends the money, but doesn't make any money back, so when the time comes to pay back the loan, I guess it's bankruptcy time.

Same kind of concept, except consumers have the right to declare that the loan must be "paid" at any time. Payment here means that they enjoy the product.

Whilst there are some responsibilities on a borrower/seller obviously (to not cheat), the ultimate responsibility lies with the person handing over the money. For loans with the lender, to ensure that the borrower can repay. For purchases with the buyer, that they have ensured the product/service meets their wishes.

I would think that would be covered, at least partially, by the $100 the devs pay to submit their game.

I have no idea about the economics of game hosting. I don't think the $100 is designed as a meaningful source of revenue, I think it's a very basic form of quality control to dissuade incompetent chancers from wasting everyone's time by putting their half-wit home project up for sale.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

That's not viable: the devs are likely to use EA purchases to fund development, so that money will be gone and unreclaimable. Nor is it really fair to Valve, who will have still spent money on the publishing and hosting in good faith.

It also potentially means unscrupulous players could cheat the devs: buy early access, play the game and get plenty of enjoyment (even "complete" it, albeit in a rough and ready state), then skip out nearer official release just to get their money back.

I have suggested before that Early Access should have a limit.
5 years maximum.
After 5 years your game doesn't get to claim it's Early access anymore and you have to tick to release it.
If you don't tick to say you're happy to leave early access the game is pulled from sale until you do tick.
No using Early Access as an excuse then.

I look at it this way: Is the state that the game is in now worth the price the devs are asking for it now? If so, buy; if not, wait until the previous statement is true. Always assume that the project will be abandoned five minutes after you buy into it.

Yeh that's the way I tend to look at it now. Though I will say I have had one game manage to screw me over even with that because it had online servers it needed to verify with and the developer just turned off the servers and never patched out the requirement for it to verify with them when they abandoned it so it doesn't work at all now.

I do have other Early Access games that I got before I adopted this mindset. Some have released. About an equal number are barely changing and potentially abandoned.

 

[CriticalGaming]

5 years maximum.

Yo 5 years is way too much. I say 18 months tops. If you are trying to charge for a game that need 5 more fucking years of development you can kiss my ass. Most games dont take 5 years to develop from start to finish.

The Witcher 3 only took 3.5 years to develop for reference.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yo 5 years is way too much. I say 18 months tops. If you are trying to charge for a game that need 5 more fucking years of development you can kiss my ass. Most games dont take 5 years to develop from start to finish.

The Witcher 3 only took 3.5 years to develop for reference.

It's more cause of part time indie devs using Early Access as while full time game devs don't take that long normally if they're a part time indie dev it likely will take them that long.

 

[Agema]

I have suggested before that Early Access should have a limit.
5 years maximum.

Jebus. If we're time limiting EA, I'd make it two years on Steam. I don't see why anyone needs five.

I suppose games like World of Tanks were technically in beta for longer than five years, but realistically WoT was a fully functioning game when the so-called "open beta" first arrived. And you could play it for free.

Yeh that's the way I tend to look at it now. Though I will say I have had one game manage to screw me over even with that because it had online servers it needed to verify with and the developer just turned off the servers and never patched out the requirement for it to verify with them when they abandoned it so it doesn't work at all now.

I do have other Early Access games that I got before I adopted this mindset. Some have released. About an equal number are barely changing and potentially abandoned.

I have to say, I would exercise particular caution handing EA money over to any game dependent on online server access: definitely reputable firms with proven track records in game production only.

I've got one game on my Steam wishlist I'm pretty sure is vapourware (although the sole remaining member of the dev team is apparently contactable and claims he's still working on it) but it never released an EA version to ask for money for. And I wouldn't hand any over even if it did have an EA release enabled at this point.

 

[CriticalGaming]

It's more cause of part time indie devs using Early Access as while full time game devs don't take that long normally if they're a part time indie dev it likely will take them that long.

I dunno even solo developers are faster than that.

Scoot Kauffman and the Fight Nights at Freddy's games only took like a year.

Stardew Valley was a solo project that took four years.

Tobby Fox took 32 months on Undertale.

The Binding of Issac only took 3 months for that two man team. Which is.....wow dude. that's incredible.

So I think 5 years is still extreme even for indies, and most indie devs are not just one dude like the examples I gave above.

 

[Agema]

I dunno even solo developers are faster than that.

It might depend heavily on circumstances. A solo dev with nothing else to do can work on it 8+h a day. A solo dev with a day job might be down to ~3-4h a day. A solo dev with a day job and a family to pay attention to even less. Although the latter two should have the sense to be working on something extremely simple.