Early Access Has Ruined Indie Development

[Elberik]

And here's why:

1) Developers can use it as an excuse to release unfinished, broken products.
2) It can create an entitled fanbase composed of people who think they're venture capitalists.
3) It can use up all the publicity on an early alpha or unfinished beta so that when the game is actually done everyone has already moved on to the new shiny.
4) There's little to no certainty the game will ever be properly "finished"

Now tell me I'm wrong. Or add points if by some flux of reality you agree with me.

 

[Barbas]

No, I just think it's removed some of the incentive for independent developers and taken rather long dump on Steam Greenlight and the front page of the Steam store. It's also made buyers more cautious. That's about it, really.

 

[gargantual]

It does need to get fixed. Because with what EA Access and Gamestop are doing, the exodus of real developers has to have a place where they can provide an alternative of truly fleshed out games. But after incidents like Garry's Incident, Earth 2066 etc, they wont go unchallenged.

A silver lining though. "Minimum" is okay. "Insurgency" is complete. "Wrack" has a lot accomplished for being a short cel shaded early access game, "Road Redemption"...ehh well I gotta get around to it, but having a road rash successor from SOMEBODY is encouraging news, and you have the survival sandboxers with a loyal player base. Best to wait for the early adopters, and then make a decision I think.

Now KICKSTARTER, and indiegogo. Here's where we need some SERIOUS scrutiny.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Divinity Original Sin, DayZ, Rust, Kerbal Space Program, Insurgency, Starbound and Dont Starve beg to differ

Valve totally needs to add some form of developer accountability tough, like being entitled to a refund the first couple of weeks-months after you by the game

 

[Demonchaser27]

OP I have to sadly agree, whole-heartedly.

If for one reason and one reason only... Honest, good developers that make truly full experiences will get less exposure and therefore lose potential customers in the sea of overhyped early access fodder.

And eventually even the good, honest developers will fall as a result of low funds into your step number 1 for fear of bankruptcy.

And here's why:

1) Developers can use it as an excuse to release unfinished, broken products.

By allowing this garbage we inadvertently create more of it.

 

[Rozalia1]

What are you talking about? Its makes money doesn't it? If people want to part a (large) sum for an unfinished game than its their money and an indie couldn't be happier there are people around who'll do that.

 

[WeepingAngels]

...and it started with Minecraft. Didn't it?

 

[senordesol]

I will say that it makes me much more careful about what I pay for.

There's been a few games that I thought looked interesting in premise, only to balk when I saw the 'Early Access' label.

I think it's greatest downfall is that there's no promise of quality (or even functionality) despite the fact that purchases are being made. You can literally promise anything, deliver nothing, and still be paid real-world dollars.

Not. Cool.

 

[veloper]

Early access and crowdfunding will simply go away when people nolonger have faith in such projects.

There's also a chance that enthusiasts will become better at sorting out the developers, or that some popular kickstarter developers will be carried by dedicated fans.

Most likely nobody will learn anything and we will have to continue to ignore the ever growing pile of unfinished crap.

In all scenarios it cannot get worse than it was before.

 

[masticina]

Right I seen a video about this and I have to agree with them.
http://extra-credits.net/episodes/early-access/

The good points about early access is that developers get some cash and maybe some recognition at the start. Games likes DayZ and Minecraft all began pretty small. DayZ just like Counterstrike did and Minecraft out of nowhere. So it isn't all bad. Some games do well when brought out through early spreading and allowing people to play it even early in development.

But there is a shadow side and that indeed is that developers bring a game early on the market. To early at times, which means that gamers who play the game at said moment are like "Yeah well it is kinda unfinished and I am going back to my other games." Many of them probably never will return. So even though you got money from them and you got them to play not only are they probably not going to play your 1.0 product but also might tell their friends "It is a bit unfinished"

And then the game finally is "done" it has reached 1.0. Open the beers or champagne and send out the word. Well again quite a few of those who played it probably won't play 1.0. They are busy in other games so their opinions are still based upon the 0.4a. A quite rough version of the game. And when people ask "Should I play this game" they will speak based upon their experience from 0.4a

While new players yes will come but maybe not enough to make it work.

So early access yes it can bring good but you have to play it right. You can't just bring out the most barebone product and promise "That content will be there." There already should be some content that hints at what can become. And yet making even such early content can take time and yes money. Money they desperately need right now.

This is the problem when to go public. Definitely not in 0.1 stage unless you are yerk. And to go out in 0.9 .. by then you really really could use that money from the early access games. It is up to developers to work out when to make the jump.

So is it bad? No! But it has problems! And not all developers are going to find the right moment. And yes we had issues with early access games that we're just terrible. Day One: Gary's Accident for instance. Yeah and that Wolf game. Oh my.

 

[Elberik]

...and it started with Minecraft. Didn't it?

When Minecraft was first released it was full and complete. Mojang basically feature creeped for several years after the initial release.

 

[WeepingAngels]

...and it started with Minecraft. Didn't it?

When Minecraft was first released it was full and complete. Mojang basically feature creeped for several years after the initial release.

It was in Alpha when I got it.

 

[Elberik]

Divinity Original Sin, DayZ, Rust, Kerbal Space Program, Insurgency, Starbound and Dont Starve beg to differ

Valve totally needs to add some form of developer accountability tough, like being entitled to a refund the first couple of weeks-months after you by the game

Divinity & Don't Starve are the only ones that have been properly released. Insurgency & DayZ were pre-existing mods that a development team beefed up. The other three are still in "early access" & therefore don't disprove point 4. The public has moved on and doesn't care about Rust or Starbound anymore (point 3). I've never heard of KSP so I cannot comment on it.

 

[Elberik]

...and it started with Minecraft. Didn't it?

When Minecraft was first released it was full and complete. Mojang basically feature creeped for several years after the initial release.

It was in Alpha when I got it.

Yes it was basic but it was solid. It wasn't broken and what was there was finished.

 

[WeepingAngels]

...and it started with Minecraft. Didn't it?

When Minecraft was first released it was full and complete. Mojang basically feature creeped for several years after the initial release.

It was in Alpha when I got it.

Yes it was basic but it was solid. It wasn't broken and what was there was finished.

It was playable but it was still in development. Early Access is just that.

 

[Jopoho]

People that are lazy now have a means by which it is easier to be lazy and still release some sort of commercial product. It doesn't stop good indie developers from being good indie developers though.

The problem is that early access is a business tactic, and a fairly new one for the game scene. Indie developers typically aren't going to have a whole lot of business savvy when compared to games with publishers. They choose to use early access models without understanding to full range of consequences. Eventually, the smartest developers will learn an adapt, and the rest probably won't be able to find the capital to continue developing. But no, there isn't any business model so destructive that it would kill off a whole section of the industry.

 

[Johnson McGee]

I personally am avoiding early access titles since the cycle for me has always been to: play the broken or limited game, use up all my desire to play the game then ignore the title when it's complete.

For developers though, if it's the only way for them to get the cash needed complete their game it can be justified. The feedback from people can also improve the game as much or more than detracting.

I just think consumers need to be discerning over what they sink money into in terms of early access. Don't support an unknown or unreliable developer just because they say they have a good idea.

 

[endtherapture]

I have to agree. I'd rather have a complete, if shorter, highly polished experience that gets released, like Bastion, rather than something languishing in development hell for years with a mess of bloated features than are never finished.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Divinity Original Sin, DayZ, Rust, Kerbal Space Program, Insurgency, Starbound and Dont Starve beg to differ

Valve totally needs to add some form of developer accountability tough, like being entitled to a refund the first couple of weeks-months after you by the game

Divinity & Don't Starve are the only ones that have been properly released. Insurgency & DayZ were pre-existing mods that a development team beefed up. The other three are still in "early access" & therefore don't disprove point 4. The public has moved on and doesn't care about Rust or Starbound anymore (point 3). I've never heard of KSP so I cannot comment on it.

divinity and dont starve both went through early access and were released to critical acclaim

insurgency managed to fund itself thanks to early access after their kickstarter failed, to say "its a pre-existing mod that a development team beefed up" is utterly simplistic and doesnt really reflect the whole reality of the situation

Kerbal Space Program has achieved a huge level of popularity thanks to early access to the point they attracted the attention of NASA itself and they helped the development team design a mission for the game

as for the public "moving on", lets use some real data to debunk those claims, heres a few games that went through early access

http://steamcharts.com/app/242880
http://steamcharts.com/app/249650
http://steamcharts.com/app/219740
http://steamcharts.com/app/230230
http://steamcharts.com/app/222880
http://steamcharts.com/app/223830
http://steamcharts.com/app/218820
http://steamcharts.com/app/107410
http://steamcharts.com/app/238430


every game experienced an increase in "peak number of players" at their time of release that was anywhere from 2 times to 50 times the numbers of players the game had in the previous month as an early access title

and with the exception of "Sir you are being hunted" and "Contagion" the games had in general more players playing the game post release than back when the game was on early access

of course without proper sales data is hard to know how the number of peak players translate to sales, but theres always a relationship between the two