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.
Jimquisition: Early Access
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.