Brilliant episode, Jim! Just brilliant. You have shown us a problem in the game dev industry that shouldn't even COMMENT NOT COMPLETE. SECOND HALF OF COMMENT WILL BE RELEASED TBA.
Jimquisition: Early Access
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is definitely true. I don't have a moral problem with someone releasing a buggy mess as long as they make it clear that's the case, but that doesn't mean it is probably a bad business decision.Thanatos2k said:
You could pay money for Minecraft in Alpha. The game was a buggy mess during Alpha and "Survival Mode" had very few features - a couple very small maps in a couple different "biomes" with a few mobs. When Notch did updates it would often break the game. Although updates were frequent early on, when it started to really blow up Notch wasn't able to do updates for quite awhile. I never saw this as a problem since he was pretty clear that was what you were getting into, but a lot of people were pretty upset. I would say it was in a pretty buggy, unstable, unfinished status for well over a year from the point you could buy it. Stuff that was promised in the original description has only been added recently.
And this is why I think the issue is one where everyone has to make their own decisions. Starbound is the only early access game I've ever bought and I found it worth every cent of the fifteen dollar asking price as-is. I too had the frame rate problem, but hell, I've head technical issues with games that were billed as finished products lots of times, and took ten times the effort to fix. I have more than 100 hours of quality fun in Starbound building all sorts of constructs, and that is with the promise that there will be more to come.Rabid_meese said:
If they ran out of money and closed up shop tomorrow, I wouldn't be happy with the state of the game as-is, but I would say that I got enough fun out of it to be worth the asking price. Not everyone would feel this way, and so, o mileage on individual products will vary. Chucklefish seems like a solid, responsive developer, and so I don't mind them offering early access. Their goals for the game are clearly stated, the patches for the game have added content as well as bug fixes and what we have seen from the game so far seems competently made.
Of course if you didn't like Terraria, I would say this is clearly not the game for you, given the immense similarities.
Generally early access games are discounted - you pay less because you're getting an incomplete project. The theory of early access is that the community provides feedback on issues, so that the final release isn't a buggy mess but a refined piece of software that has already been tested on various PC setups and the like. Lest we forget that Minecraft was available for purchase years before it's actual release and as a result it was the pinnacle of time-wasting excellence from the get-go. Starbound has included features based on mods created by the community. Kerbal Space Program would never be as good as it is now without that essential user testing.
Of course, not every game and developer is going to use early access the way it was meant to be, but the same can be said for most gaming fads.
Of course, not every game and developer is going to use early access the way it was meant to be, but the same can be said for most gaming fads.
Don't people pay for the Jimquisition? I thought that was the point of the adverts before an episode, and I bet people pay to join Pub Club to get rid of the ads for this show or even for mobile access to the show. Perhaps we are cheated if our time or money is wasted.
I don't personally feel so, as some Jim Sterling is better than none, but perhaps there's an argument there, too.
I digress.
Further, as I turn more to YouTube for video footage of games before I decide if I want them, I appreciate Jim's comment on reviewing as-is more than ever. People should know what they're getting when they buy in, not what they might get if the developer actually bothers.
Incidentally, early access isn't a new thing on Steam. Several games I've seen on sale before EA was a thing would have people warning they weren't finished, but the material on the store page wouldn't say anything of the sort. I guess at least they're marketing it now, allowing you to make an informed decision, but it seems like they're just taking the same shitty QA and now using it as a selling point instead of a flaw.
I don't personally feel so, as some Jim Sterling is better than none, but perhaps there's an argument there, too.
I digress.
I'm very similar. I never understood the concept of buying into a Beta, and I don't get Early Access. I do a u-turn the minute I see that sign. Maybe when it's released and maybe even then not at full price, but definitely not before launch. It seems like a bad gamble.Lightknight said:
Further, as I turn more to YouTube for video footage of games before I decide if I want them, I appreciate Jim's comment on reviewing as-is more than ever. People should know what they're getting when they buy in, not what they might get if the developer actually bothers.
Incidentally, early access isn't a new thing on Steam. Several games I've seen on sale before EA was a thing would have people warning they weren't finished, but the material on the store page wouldn't say anything of the sort. I guess at least they're marketing it now, allowing you to make an informed decision, but it seems like they're just taking the same shitty QA and now using it as a selling point instead of a flaw.
I don't mind when Early Access when it's used by small devteams who are trying to get more money to work with, that are actually working pretty hard on the product. I got into what was essentially early access for this PC game I've been following for $10. The base game was, I'd say, worth it, and the developer has been toiling away, releasing new versions with new content and bug fixes and what-not. That's fine. The limitedness of the game is reflected in the price. But triple A game developers are already drowning in cash, they should never release an incomplete title. Especially when they routinely charge us full price for it. No. Just no.
*shrugs* It isn't a terrible model on its own if you're looking to learn about the development process and get involved. But for regular consumers, it's a poor business model mostly due to the average consumer being largely ignorant to the development process and the motivations of producers in general.
Still, like every new business model, there will be those seeking to exploit it until enough folks stop letting themselves get so easily suckered (7 Days to Die...I'm astonished at how well that piece of crap has sold, and I really shouldn't be after meeting the brain trusses who supported The War Z).
Early Access is no different.
As with anything, I urge consumers to inform themselves and resist on-spot purchasing (even on sale).
Given its close relationship with the Kickstarter business model, this is even more important for Early Access games.
******
Still, like every new business model, there will be those seeking to exploit it until enough folks stop letting themselves get so easily suckered (7 Days to Die...I'm astonished at how well that piece of crap has sold, and I really shouldn't be after meeting the brain trusses who supported The War Z).
Early Access is no different.
As with anything, I urge consumers to inform themselves and resist on-spot purchasing (even on sale).
Given its close relationship with the Kickstarter business model, this is even more important for Early Access games.
******
1) Find video coverage and review.
Jim is mostly* correct; look for video coverage of any game you're thinking about purchasing.
Specifically, find sources of footage OTHER than those from the developer or publisher.
I've encountered MANY early Access trailers that are misleading, and a few which are flat-out lies. Trailers also gloss over a lot of existing problems. (One example that springs to mind: StarForge. It's infamous for this on Steam, as it was one of the very first Early Access titles offered)
Take heed: Video footage isn't foolproof for all games, but they go a long way towards avoiding Bait-and-Switch or "Barely Enough" schemes that seem to becoming more popular with the Early Access model.
2) Learn who the developers are and how they operate.
Put simply: Creator intent and interest is paramount with Early Access games.
An overwhelming majority of these games are produced by indie developers and because of this, most of them are complete unknowns to the market (compared to AAA publishers, who are pretty well known and consistent in their business models).
When researching an Early Access game, note the developer's behavior where possible:
How often do they post updates (both patching the game and addressing the public)?
What sorts of feedback do they provide: Are they openly hostile towards criticism, do they easily cave to pressure from their fanbase?
Or (most importantly) are they suspiciously silent and hide their real names from the public?
Now, nobody has to be a social daisy to enter this business, but
3) Get a Feel for the general user reception
Put on your waders and get ready to slog through the shitpit that are comment boards and user reviews. But corroborating what you've learned from steps 1) and 2) is important. Learn to separate chaff statements and trolling from reality and please, don't just read the positive or negative reviews; read both and take note of the reader's stance. More informed reviews understand their opinion isn't absolute but will offer clear and more specific examples to support their reasoning.
Trolls will use misinformation, gloss over details while substituting rage and hyperbole.
Finally, look for consistency in reception. Is there a specific problem EVERYONE complains about that hasn't been addressed or isn't going to be addressed? Look for dealbreakers, especially if you're running an older Operating System or Hardware (a lot of Early Access Games are poorly optimized).
******
None of this is particularly difficult to do either; If you can afford the time to play most games on Early Access, you can certainly afford the time to do your research.
This has saved me a lot of grief; mostly from promising looking games that in truth, produced much less than they offered.
I have had more positive experiences with my Early Access than negatives, but only because I exercise caution.
[sub](*It's not fair to hold a game that openly claims is unfinished to the same expectations and standards as a game being pitched as a full release.) [/sub]
Jim is mostly* correct; look for video coverage of any game you're thinking about purchasing.
Specifically, find sources of footage OTHER than those from the developer or publisher.
I've encountered MANY early Access trailers that are misleading, and a few which are flat-out lies. Trailers also gloss over a lot of existing problems. (One example that springs to mind: StarForge. It's infamous for this on Steam, as it was one of the very first Early Access titles offered)
Take heed: Video footage isn't foolproof for all games, but they go a long way towards avoiding Bait-and-Switch or "Barely Enough" schemes that seem to becoming more popular with the Early Access model.
2) Learn who the developers are and how they operate.
Put simply: Creator intent and interest is paramount with Early Access games.
An overwhelming majority of these games are produced by indie developers and because of this, most of them are complete unknowns to the market (compared to AAA publishers, who are pretty well known and consistent in their business models).
When researching an Early Access game, note the developer's behavior where possible:
How often do they post updates (both patching the game and addressing the public)?
What sorts of feedback do they provide: Are they openly hostile towards criticism, do they easily cave to pressure from their fanbase?
Or (most importantly) are they suspiciously silent and hide their real names from the public?
Now, nobody has to be a social daisy to enter this business, but
By asking the public to back your game in an unfinished state, you are asking for more trust from said public (and hopefully a bit of understanding). Expect constant criticism, expect tough questions, expect to be henpecked about release dates and content.
Because hyperbole and obvious trolling aside, all of these are perfectly natural responses to the skepticism you raised by going Early Access.
Because as a consumer, if it appears that you do not want to (or cannot) deal with that extra burden, I am not backing you and I will discourage anyone from doing so should the topic arise.
Do not snap back at your fanbase when they point this out either; indies live and die on the buzz of their games and their reputation.
If nothing else, know how the Internet Hate Machine works.
Know that non-specific hate is typical of the internet and is easily ignored. (like popularity backlash)
But the moment you give someone a specific and quotable reason to hate you, it's going to spread like wildfire. So do yourself a favor and do not snap back at your whiny, "entitled" fanbase, tempting as it sounds. If you're indie, they are your #1 source of advertising and thus, #1 source of reaching new customers.
Because hyperbole and obvious trolling aside, all of these are perfectly natural responses to the skepticism you raised by going Early Access.
Because as a consumer, if it appears that you do not want to (or cannot) deal with that extra burden, I am not backing you and I will discourage anyone from doing so should the topic arise.
Do not snap back at your fanbase when they point this out either; indies live and die on the buzz of their games and their reputation.
If nothing else, know how the Internet Hate Machine works.
Know that non-specific hate is typical of the internet and is easily ignored. (like popularity backlash)
But the moment you give someone a specific and quotable reason to hate you, it's going to spread like wildfire. So do yourself a favor and do not snap back at your whiny, "entitled" fanbase, tempting as it sounds. If you're indie, they are your #1 source of advertising and thus, #1 source of reaching new customers.
3) Get a Feel for the general user reception
Put on your waders and get ready to slog through the shitpit that are comment boards and user reviews. But corroborating what you've learned from steps 1) and 2) is important. Learn to separate chaff statements and trolling from reality and please, don't just read the positive or negative reviews; read both and take note of the reader's stance. More informed reviews understand their opinion isn't absolute but will offer clear and more specific examples to support their reasoning.
Trolls will use misinformation, gloss over details while substituting rage and hyperbole.
Finally, look for consistency in reception. Is there a specific problem EVERYONE complains about that hasn't been addressed or isn't going to be addressed? Look for dealbreakers, especially if you're running an older Operating System or Hardware (a lot of Early Access Games are poorly optimized).
******
None of this is particularly difficult to do either; If you can afford the time to play most games on Early Access, you can certainly afford the time to do your research.
This has saved me a lot of grief; mostly from promising looking games that in truth, produced much less than they offered.
I have had more positive experiences with my Early Access than negatives, but only because I exercise caution.
[sub](*It's not fair to hold a game that openly claims is unfinished to the same expectations and standards as a game being pitched as a full release.) [/sub]
Im fine with early access given the following 2 things are followed.
1. It must be clearly advertised that this is not the finished product.
2. The product must be treated as a pre-order until it is officially released, as such it can be canceled.
1. It must be clearly advertised that this is not the finished product.
2. The product must be treated as a pre-order until it is officially released, as such it can be canceled.
I've never really been bothered about early access as seen on Steam. So long as a potential buyer is warned that the game is indeed an alpha, isn't finished, has ongoing development and subject to many potential changes, then fair play to anyone who wants to buy. They can't say they've been tricked into buying something they thought was a finished product, the warnings are in place. When they aren't in place sufficiently, then the problems arise.
Here's a note from the developers of the DayZ Standalone on DayZ's early access page:
A further warning in the About The Game section further down:
Now, on a £60 "finished" game like Battlefield 4, that's different. When you're getting rubber banded around the map on a decent internet connection to a server in your country, then there's something seriously not right.
Here's a note from the developers of the DayZ Standalone on DayZ's early access page:
That is at the top of the page before the user reads anything else.
A further warning in the About The Game section further down:
So long as these kinds of warnings are there (I think they need to be mandatory, and highly visible), then I don't see a problem. The user is clearly told what they are buying into. They then have the opportunity to make the purchase, or not and wait til the finished product. I agree there needs to be a baseline level of "completeness" to an alpha game, so developers can't take the piss with what they fling onto Early Access. But, handled responsibly, I don't see the problem with Early Access as a concept.
Now, on a £60 "finished" game like Battlefield 4, that's different. When you're getting rubber banded around the map on a decent internet connection to a server in your country, then there's something seriously not right.
Another issue I see is I'm not sure why developers are so excited to get people buying into their alphas and betas. Ask most developers if they'd want players playing alpha builds and they go wide-eyed.
First impressions are everything. If the first impression is a buggy mess, you're damaging your game's future potential! Sure the person who spent money on your early access might keep playing it to justify their purchase, but how many people are they going to recommend the game to others later EVEN if it ends up being good? They've already had their experience partially soured.
First impressions are everything. If the first impression is a buggy mess, you're damaging your game's future potential! Sure the person who spent money on your early access might keep playing it to justify their purchase, but how many people are they going to recommend the game to others later EVEN if it ends up being good? They've already had their experience partially soured.
the only time there should be paid early access is when a game would not get funded any other way.
when money is being handed over certain standards should have to be held.
and the release now patch later attitude makes me long for days before consoles had internet connections.
when money is being handed over certain standards should have to be held.
and the release now patch later attitude makes me long for days before consoles had internet connections.
(sorry if already responded to')Legion said:
(no it's 87 Pages, just checked now I saw 88 so I imagine there's 871+ early access games currently on steam....scratch this )
sry just double checked a very stupid kind of listing and me being stupid
so yes 87 Game titles in total now 88//Thank god for whatever I can't be a**ed to finish and/or release a finished product Jim...
And yea I agree some games are worth like Kerbal.. But a AAA putting out alphas to test water with full price that's just wrong, Valve maybe should remove early access games that hasn't got any update in 1-3months from Steam...
It's to bad though for the few studios that's are serious and needs the money/want the feedback...
loc978 said:
I'm sorry, but where did I ever say I didn't like Terraria? I said that Terraria had no clear progression curve. Sure, it had one - but you either had to stumble upon it or read a Wiki to find out what to do next. And for Terraria, the progression curve was kind of a big thing. There are countless sandbox games that have clear objectives on what to do. It's what stops the game from going stale. Criticizing a game doesn't mean I didn't like it.
Starbound takes Terraria's laziness in terms of design and shoots it through the roof. The quest system was supposed to be an answer to that - but, considering the paltry number of quests, it doesn't really do anything.
I had purchased Starbound because it had promoted itself as an open source, Sci-Fi Terraria. Because of how murky the progression is(expecting you to jump from planet to planet), there is no sense of flow. The mechanics of Starbound just offer a layer of tedium that Terraria didn't have. Starbounds success comes from Terraria's failures - in other words, Starbound found success because Redigit was a jerk who refused to release the source code to his game, and to update it only when he felt like it.
In Starbounds current state, it should not have been sold. Key features are missing, and the game is poorly optimized. Framerate issues for a 2D game are unacceptable - and the fix require digging through my registry to get it to run. That should be an embarrassment - you would think that optimization would supersede character wipes .That roadmap you linked, while nice, is irrelevant - the average person isn't going to check out the companies website before buying a game.
If you are putting out an Alpha or Beta early access build, you should not be charging money for it - or, at the very least, the title should have been available at a heavy discount. They are selling an unfinished product and expecting the community to give feedback as to where the bugs are or how to make the game better - features that normally a company would have to pay for.
Kinda hoping Jim does do a finished version of this episode months from now, just as a laugh.
I pretty much agree on all accounts here. I've taken a personal stance on Early Access titles, because they're already notorious for being feature deprived, and I got burned by buying Minecraft. The only Early Access title on Steam I currently own is Starbound, which is already as feature-rich as Terraria, and the devs have been pushing out new content and adopting mods into the core code at a very healthy rate.
I pretty much agree on all accounts here. I've taken a personal stance on Early Access titles, because they're already notorious for being feature deprived, and I got burned by buying Minecraft. The only Early Access title on Steam I currently own is Starbound, which is already as feature-rich as Terraria, and the devs have been pushing out new content and adopting mods into the core code at a very healthy rate.
Early access is just like kickstarter, a donation plus some people like following the development process instead of game development just being a black box.
You know, being part of the culture.
Don't buy early access titles with the expectation of receiving a finished product, obviously, and don't buy early access from whom you wouldn't donate to to support them!
It's the same deal as with kickstarter.
You wouldn't kickstart a game by blizzard or EA, right?
...Right?
Also gta 5 was never early access, that was just an incomplete release, the difference being that an early access title at least outright tells you it is incomplete while you're in for a happy surprise with the incomplete release if you didn't read reviews.
That's as old as gaming though and I don't think there has been such thing as a boxed early access game.
You know, being part of the culture.
Don't buy early access titles with the expectation of receiving a finished product, obviously, and don't buy early access from whom you wouldn't donate to to support them!
It's the same deal as with kickstarter.
You wouldn't kickstart a game by blizzard or EA, right?
...Right?
Also gta 5 was never early access, that was just an incomplete release, the difference being that an early access title at least outright tells you it is incomplete while you're in for a happy surprise with the incomplete release if you didn't read reviews.
That's as old as gaming though and I don't think there has been such thing as a boxed early access game.
I kind of hate the term "Early Access".
It's a beta. You are paying for beta. Early Access to me sounds more like you get something better than that. And what guarantees that the game will be finished? The company you get it from can close down tomorrow, and then you'd be up shit creek without a paddle.
Now I've payed for beta before. Specifically Path of Exile, but that was in support of their (at the time theoretical) micro-transaction model, and with the full knowledge that the game could have fallen under. Only other one I technically paid for was Starbound, but I got that as part of the current humble bundle (first 1000 bundles got Starbound).
It's not to say that it shouldn't be done, but there needs to be a giant "buyer beware" in the back of everyone's mind. I mean hell look what happened to cube world. A buddy of mine bought into that, and looking it up, seems like it hasn't seen an update since last July. That could easily happen to steam early access. I mean, Steam can barely monitor completed games, does anyone think they would hold Early Access distributors accountable to actually finish making a game?
It's a beta. You are paying for beta. Early Access to me sounds more like you get something better than that. And what guarantees that the game will be finished? The company you get it from can close down tomorrow, and then you'd be up shit creek without a paddle.
Now I've payed for beta before. Specifically Path of Exile, but that was in support of their (at the time theoretical) micro-transaction model, and with the full knowledge that the game could have fallen under. Only other one I technically paid for was Starbound, but I got that as part of the current humble bundle (first 1000 bundles got Starbound).
It's not to say that it shouldn't be done, but there needs to be a giant "buyer beware" in the back of everyone's mind. I mean hell look what happened to cube world. A buddy of mine bought into that, and looking it up, seems like it hasn't seen an update since last July. That could easily happen to steam early access. I mean, Steam can barely monitor completed games, does anyone think they would hold Early Access distributors accountable to actually finish making a game?