Early Access yay or nay

[Elberik]

Early-Access. (namely on Steam) seems to have replaced demos & trials.
I've noticed some talk about this recently and am not surprised to see that the general consensus is that consumers don't mind it's done right.
Well obviously.

After a week of hardcore Starbound I made myself stop because I wanted to save the experience for when it was actually done. A friend did the same with Wasteland 2. I played a ton of Minecraft in its early years but now I have no interest in playing the finished product.
I don't think it's a good idea for developers to release clearly unfinished products. It sets a bad president & could lead to a new understanding of "abandonware". It creates a world in which people miss-out on completed games because they've already played earlier inferior versions & moved on.

I understand that some developers use early-access as a way to generate extra $$ but demos & pre-orders already filled that role. I know that some release broken & unplayable messes. As with anything there are good examples & worst-case scenarios. Obviously we like the good & condemn the bad, but what I am asking is a simple yes or no question as to whether you think Early-Access is a good or bad thing.

 

[tippy2k2]

I have no problem with companies doing Early Access as long as it's clear what the consumer is getting.

That said...

I would never ever ever ever *Breath* ever ever ever go for an Early Access game. There is no game in the world that I would be willing to purchase to be a glorified Q&A person for the company that doesn't at least get paid. Seems like a waste of my time and money to "get" to play an unfinished game but I'm not going to tell people that they can't.

 

[DoPo]

I seriously don't see what the issue is. You don't want to buy an unfinished game? Well, how about...I dunno, let's say "you do not buy an unfinished game". There, done I solved that great problem that has been plaguing our society.

Let's say you don't want to play the game and be a "beta tester who pays for that" or whatever. You can refer to the solution above.

Or let's say one does not like developers being paid for an unfinished game. Unless they speak out on every turn against pre-orders (and not many do), then it seems a tad hypocritical.

Anyway - is it good? Fuck if I know. Is it bad? I don't really care. I don't see the reason for it to be either. It...exists. And I accept it. I have not seen a compelling argument for Early Access should not be. And considering it's optional, I am not sure what such an argument would look like.

 

[Windcaler]

For me there are 2 things that must happen for early access games. 1. They need to be clearly labeled as early access and have a list of the things that the game is done with, working on, and finally needs to be implimented. The consumer has every right to know whats coming for the game theyre buying into. 2. There needs to be a contract that says the dev will finish the game. I dont mind if the game takes months or years to develop it needs to eventually be finished because that is part of what you pay for. A game that is, at this moment, unfinished but will eventually be finished.

As long as those 2 things happen Im fine with early access.

 

[LookingGlass]

Participating in it doesn't interest me, but if games like DayZ and Rust can use it to get more funds to put into the game, then great. I'd appreciate it if each game was more clearly labelled with exactly how far along development is, and what the current timeline is to get to the finished product. But really, if there's insufficient information, I just won't buy it. No big deal.

My only real problem with it is that Steam doesn't have any useful ways of filtering them out from various games lists (games on sale, new releases, etc).

 

[Jeroenr]

Early-Access. (namely on Steam) seems to have replaced demos & trials.
I've noticed some talk about this recently and am not surprised to see that the general consensus is that consumers don't mind it's done right.
Well obviously.

When its done right, its fine.
But often it is a payed alpha trial, this way they don't need a QA team on the pay-rol.
And i don't realy mind that even, smalller or indy studio's often just don't have the money for that.
Big studio's (AAA) need to stay as far away from it as posible.

I wouldn't call Early-Access a Demo though, i never liket payed demos.
some studio's tryed it, but it didn't work.

After a week of hardcore Starbound I made myself stop because I wanted to save the experience for when it was actually done. A friend did the same with Wasteland 2. I played a ton of Minecraft in its early years but now I have no interest in playing the finished product.
I don't think it's a good idea for developers to release clearly unfinished products. It sets a bad president & could lead to a new understanding of "abandonware". It creates a world in which people miss-out on completed games because they've already played earlier inferior versions & moved on.

They do need a steady input of development to keep people playing, you need to see progress an new features to keep your intrest.
Also everyting they put in the game needs to be done, if it hase just some features but they work its fine.
But if it has al the features but none work, they need to go finish coding, and stop making us waste time and money.

Minecraft does this reasonbly well, so does Kerbal space program.

But those are sandbox games, they have replay value.
A narrative driven game just can't pull this off at all, often story over your done.

I understand that some developers use early-access as a way to generate extra $$ but demos & pre-orders already filled that role. I know that some release broken & unplayable messes. As with anything there are good examples & worst-case scenarios. Obviously we like the good & condemn the bad, but what I am asking is a simple yes or no question as to whether you think Early-Access is a good or bad thing.

I do go for good thing, but...
It's just not for every game.