Jimquisition: Early Access

[jaateloauto]

Minecraft's the one to blame for this, but that's because it got it's popularity from YouTube stars.

How is Minecraft to blame? It's certainly not the first game to use alpha funding, not even the first popular one.

Personally, I don't feel there is a problem with early access. Do people waste money on products that will never deliver? Absolutely. But that happens with complete games as well. Many games have bugs that can ruin the experience or simply just aren't worth their asking prices. The buyer's attitude is the problem here. If you don't feel like the game is worth the price they're asking for right now, not when hopefully eventually improved, then you should not buy it. Games I've bought for a fraction of the final price like Mount & Blade, Minecraft, Kerbal Space Program, were all enough fun in their alpha stages to play as they were.

I've been burned for buying "complete" games (read buggy, unfinished, broken mess) like Civ5, next-gen NBA 2K14, Spore but never for an alpha funded game, granted I do my research before buying. Besides, Paradox Interactive and Creative Assembly have a proven track record of releasing games that only get out of their "early access" mode once they have a few expansions out.

 

[Roxor]

I wonder if Early Access would be a bit less problematic if developers were required to have significant discounts for the more incomplete stages. Say, 25% off for Beta, 50% for Alpha, and 75% for Pre-Alpha.

 

[blackrave]

Glitchy and unfinished episode?
So meta

 

[Lapin Logic]

NEXT CAR GAME on steam not only is a early access but you can pay extra for the DIGITAL DELUXE VERSION... a step too far, i already think that if we are funding the game development and beta testing the game should be CHEAP, real cheap, not retail price until its a retail game.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I'm fine with early access as long as it is advertised truthfully.

Yeh, I second this. The level of advertising is humble too. They maybe get a front page banner ad on steam, with "early access" clearly stated on it. Trying to draw parallels to BF4 which was advertised everywhere, constantly on my tv and everytime I went to the cinema... Not seeing it.

 

[TheUnbeholden]

I'm kinda conflicted on this topic Jim, but its probably just semantics on my part.

You can't judge a unfinished game as if it was a finished product. Just because digital entertainment is capable of distributing functional unfinished products for a price, doesn't mean it should be judged as a finished product. But since they are asking money and are providing some sort of product it should be sort of reviewable in some way, just not in the way you would a finished game.

The public should be made aware of bad deals and practices, as you have done here now.

Maybe I'm just arguing semantics.

Yes I agree, while its ridicolous to review a demo in the same standards as a fullgame, its a different story if they are charging money for it. So I think the 4 different categories of games should be judged on different set of criteria:

Low standards: demo
Moderate standards: Early Access
Full standards: Full release
Highest standards: Re-release (HD release or a port)

Every review site should carefully construct a set of criteria for each of these categories of games. Criteria are important.. you don't take a sports game specialist and have him review a first person shooter do you? It would paint a inaccurate picture of the title. Early Access games should be judged mainly for the asking price compared to the actual product, if its not upto par then you have to say whether its worth paying the asking price for the "future promised features". If it is, by how much extra are you paying for promised features?

 

[NSGrendel]

As someone who worked on a cancelled "MMO" browser game, I can tell you that the beta period is nothing more than when you test the market for suitable marks. If a game is going to be successful, your buying into it or not isn't going to make the slightest amount of difference. Games are successful or not and a few people monetising, regardless of how much, doesn't make any difference. You aren't supporting anything. At best, you are reducing the costs of the company. If the game isn't successful, they'll sack everyone anyway. And if it does have the traction needed to become popular, you're not going to make any difference with your pittance of money.

People thinking that spending money on a beta will help it along are like people who think giving £20 to Greenpeace is going to stop global warming.

Your contribution is meaningless, unless 100,000 people are doing the same thing.

This is a fiscal fact whether you like it or not. And companies budget how much they're going to spend long before they start seeing the returns.

 

[NSGrendel]

Although don't let that stop people making spurious remarks based on zero knowledge of the industry, since that's the fuel the internet runs on.

 

[Groverfield]

I finally figured out what pisses me off about this practice: It's taking jobs away from playtesters. Why perpetuate a system that's a good entry level way of introducing new blood into the games industry than playtesters, who get to see what works and what doesn't work in games to build an intuitive knowledge of game design to help ensure better game production in the future while they earn scratch for their efforts? Because we can get communities to do it for free, similar to the jimquisition on PC gaming communities where individuals days fix major bugs that take development teams months to work out. Of course, there are economic problems and tons more that I shouldnt get into.

 

[mohit9206]

Early access games will continue to flourish as long as people are willing to pay for it.There will soon come a time when every game will either be early access or free 2 play(read pay to win) with microtransactions.

 

[Kirro]

I don't mind it with the indie crowd. We can fairly say that 9 out of 10 indie games are mediocre at best and total shit at worst, but we support them for the 10% that are gems. We can accept that what we'll be getting in an early access is, by definition, an alpha version with limited playability. And on Steam a buyer can always check the forums first to see what people are saying.

What you have to realize is that Early Access is like Kickstarter but better. Kickstarter asks you to pay with the promise of a finished product. There are nasty examples of people spending the money and never delivering on their promise. With Early Access, you at least get a product. It may be a muddy, buggy, unplayable mess, but you get something. Of course, if you buy that mess without researching, you deserve what you get.

I don't expect a whole lot of big name developers to try this. There'll be a few, but it's otherwise counter-productive. If your game is good, you lose out on the hype and anticipation that you get on launch. If your game is bad, you're displaying your shitty game for all the world to see. Aliens: CM wouldn't have sold a single copy post launch if people had been able to play the alpha or beta versions.

Anyway, TGFJ.

 

[Paul Bastin]

I'm indifferent about this one, mainly because I would never play an Early Access game no matter how good it was. I learned my lesson with Don't Starve. By the time it was ready, I was already bored of it and so didn't see quite a lot of the newer content.

I think the option for Early Access should exist. If it was a game I was super-hyped about and had a vested interest in, I might even consider it. But really it's no different than backing something on Kickstarter. You're doing it because you like the idea they have and want to help make a real product out of it.

I am a little tired of hearing people oversimplifying things and saying "they are endorsing the sale of unfinished games, while they bash games like BF4 and ACM". The difference between Early Access and unfinished game is that Early Access actually warns you that it's unfinished first.

So yeah, although I have no issue with Early Access and think it can be useful, I myself am not interested in it and it would also be nice if they could allow the option to remove Early Access games from the storefront on a customer-by-customer basis.

 

[RolandOfGilead]

I think it may be around for a while, and I can see the appeal, caveat emptor certainly, but wouldn't you love it if all your games became more fun to play as time went on?
Also, as gamers, we're trained for this, in good games you start out with crappy weapons, powers, or stats, and then get more powerful and more skillful as time goes on.

It would be an interesting experiment to make skill progression a community process from beginning to end.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

Well, just to necro an old video's forums, Valve has clarified in the EA FAQ that apparently if anyone ditches an Early Access game, the people who bought it are stuck with a shitty Alpha product and don't get a refund. Thought you might like to know that.