Jimquisition: Early Access
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Am I bad for paying for Early Access of "Dungeon of the Endless" or is that considered one of the "Good" Early Access games?
Either way, Jim made some great points and I'll be sure to look around for more information before paying for early access.
Either way, Jim made some great points and I'll be sure to look around for more information before paying for early access.
Call me completely out of the loop, but I wasn't aware of this sort of practice until I went to take a look at Day Z, and was greeted with an early access fee of $30. I was always under the impression that these kinds of builds and access were like demos, in that they were free but severely limited. I'll just have to wait patiently until it comes out in full, and then wait even further for it to go on a Steam sale.
Early access is a bit of an joke on steam. Giving top billing and top pricing for unfinished games. Saying that it helps fund the game is complete BS... You shouldn't be selling a game you don't even have the money to finish! What if early access is a flop and buyers aren't as high as they hoped, are they stuck forever having paid full price for a unfinished game? Are they even guaranteed a game will ever come out of full access?
Anyway first impressions are something you'll live or die for in this business. If you first impression is a shotty hardly playable game you deserved to be judged on it for asking for full asking price for it. If you can't even get an working early build of your game people shouldn't put hope in you'd ever be able to deliver a full game.
Anyway first impressions are something you'll live or die for in this business. If you first impression is a shotty hardly playable game you deserved to be judged on it for asking for full asking price for it. If you can't even get an working early build of your game people shouldn't put hope in you'd ever be able to deliver a full game.
I'm going to stop you there, say what you will about the Online, but GTA V is no where near those levels of in-completion.mjc0961 said:
You still got all the features and gameplay of a $60 GTA game, Massive Map with lots of things to do, A good sized single player story with a lot of missions, on top of all the driving and shooting the series is known for.
With Online, yes, it sucked to start out with, but considering the size, scale and quality of the single player experience, never-mind the multiplayer, I'm willing to give them a pass, especially seeing how Rockstar owned up to it and made several efforts to make it up to players.
On top of that: Even if you took all out Online, it has zero effect on the base game.
Contrast with Aliens:CM: Undeveloped, buggy, rubbish game-play and a general lack of care on the part of the Devs.
The Multiplayer was there day 1, but that too was horrible.
Battlefield 4: A extremely short 4 hour single player campaign with a heavy focus on multiplayer which was rushed and riddled with bugs and Netcode Issues.
I understand I'm coming off as a rabid fanboy and all, GTA 5 being un-finished is not something I believe is true.
Could GTA:O be better? Totally, but that doesn't mean that GTA 5 is on par with freaking Aliens Colonial Marines!.
Isn't Early access basically paying the developer so that you can work for them? People get paid to do quality control work. Not that I'm disregarding community feedback, it can be invaluable to improving your work.
Not sure why I'm fussed really. It'll hardly affect me seeing as I tend to wait for GOTY or complete editions of games I want anyway.
Bloody brilliant episode though Jim.
Not sure why I'm fussed really. It'll hardly affect me seeing as I tend to wait for GOTY or complete editions of games I want anyway.
Bloody brilliant episode though Jim.
I'm generally OK with the concept of "Early Access" provided a few key points
1) Clearly labeled as such.
2) Reduced in price. Not just as compared to AAA titles, but compared to similar titles. If 7 Days to Die feels that their completed product is a $35 value, then price the Early Version around $20. A rebate for your beta testers.
3) A genuine reason to release early. Maybe you're trying an entirely new mechanic or playstyle that either requires immense testing, or an early litmus test to see if the avenue is worth pursuing.
4) Constant communication from the devs. Regular updates, even if they're just verbal (or written) but preferably actual gameplay updates.
My best example of Early Access done right is : Kerbals.
#1 yup.
#2) Really hard to say. Not sure what the going rate is on this type of game... see next entry
Most clearly hitting it out of the park on #3. A fully open sand box airplane and rocket ship flight simulator with very accurate (if slightly imperfect) orbital mechanics and aerodynamics on a scale that I've never seen a AAA game even attempt. That's insane. It's so far outside anything that could be considered "normal" that I fully support the devs trying to get it out there early, and it really rules out any possible comparison or valuation guesses for #2.
And on #4, the devs have been very VERY upfront with updates, continually adding new features or improving current ones. And best of all, they've been understanding of any miscommunication. There was a minor snafu regarding which updates would or wouldn't be included in your Early Access purchase. So the devs graciously sided with the players, and added everything on the current agenda to the "Free for Early Access players" list.
Everything done right for Early Access, and from what I can tell, a rousing success on all fronts.
MÜN OR BUST!
1) Clearly labeled as such.
2) Reduced in price. Not just as compared to AAA titles, but compared to similar titles. If 7 Days to Die feels that their completed product is a $35 value, then price the Early Version around $20. A rebate for your beta testers.
3) A genuine reason to release early. Maybe you're trying an entirely new mechanic or playstyle that either requires immense testing, or an early litmus test to see if the avenue is worth pursuing.
4) Constant communication from the devs. Regular updates, even if they're just verbal (or written) but preferably actual gameplay updates.
My best example of Early Access done right is : Kerbals.
#1 yup.
#2) Really hard to say. Not sure what the going rate is on this type of game... see next entry
Most clearly hitting it out of the park on #3. A fully open sand box airplane and rocket ship flight simulator with very accurate (if slightly imperfect) orbital mechanics and aerodynamics on a scale that I've never seen a AAA game even attempt. That's insane. It's so far outside anything that could be considered "normal" that I fully support the devs trying to get it out there early, and it really rules out any possible comparison or valuation guesses for #2.
And on #4, the devs have been very VERY upfront with updates, continually adding new features or improving current ones. And best of all, they've been understanding of any miscommunication. There was a minor snafu regarding which updates would or wouldn't be included in your Early Access purchase. So the devs graciously sided with the players, and added everything on the current agenda to the "Free for Early Access players" list.
Everything done right for Early Access, and from what I can tell, a rousing success on all fronts.
MÜN OR BUST!
Not really. Early access people don't have to file any reports at all, let alone to the gruelling standards that paid game testers must endure.Camaranth said:
Also, reports from end-users can often be counter-productive, and take extra time to deal than those that are made by employees working to specific criteria. I would guess that particularly with people who want "early access" they probably spend a lot of time suggesting features, the viability and usefulness of which would be highly variable.
I was discussing this trend with a friend earlier today and we settled on the idea of buyer beware (though I am still reluctant to the compromise). Just like Raziel I haven't supported this trend though their are a few games that I considering such as Starbound as many of my friends have told me that it is good.
In the interests of full disclosure, I don't mind the joke episodes.
But actually, being discerning as I am in my purchase of games, I hadn't particularly noticed the glut of horrible pieces of shit out there before looking it up just then. I only know of Nuclear Throne and Eldritch, etc. which are decent, and while still being tested, are noticably still good games and being meaningfully worked on.
But actually, being discerning as I am in my purchase of games, I hadn't particularly noticed the glut of horrible pieces of shit out there before looking it up just then. I only know of Nuclear Throne and Eldritch, etc. which are decent, and while still being tested, are noticably still good games and being meaningfully worked on.
I'm not sure if I understand what the issue is, at least in most cases. Even completed games can turn out to be shit, is it really any surprise that half-finished ones can also be terrible?
The fact is, these games are coming with a massive sign saying "WARNING! THIS GAME ISN'T COMPLETE! EXPECT BUGS AND STUFF", so why are people acting surprised that this or that Early Access game isn't up to the standards of a full product?
Secondly, paying full price for something that's not out yet sounds a lot like what people do with pre-orders, and yet as long as it delivers, everyone seems fine with paying top dollar early in return for a bunch of weapon skins and DLC. Sure, it's cool when developers offer additional content to loyal backers or offer a discount to early adopters, but it's not something you should feel entitled too.
That said, asking for $90 for an unfinished product is rubbish and not something I'd go for, and of course we don't want the AAA crowd to think it's okay to release unfinished content while pretending it's the full game. And yes, if you buy ANY Early Access game you can bet your bottom dollar you're entitled to expect the developers to finish the damn thing and make it clear that they're working towards the full version. You can't stay forever in the limbo where you're getting paid like for a full product, yet being exempt from criticism because it's a Beta/Alpha.
The fact is, these games are coming with a massive sign saying "WARNING! THIS GAME ISN'T COMPLETE! EXPECT BUGS AND STUFF", so why are people acting surprised that this or that Early Access game isn't up to the standards of a full product?
Secondly, paying full price for something that's not out yet sounds a lot like what people do with pre-orders, and yet as long as it delivers, everyone seems fine with paying top dollar early in return for a bunch of weapon skins and DLC. Sure, it's cool when developers offer additional content to loyal backers or offer a discount to early adopters, but it's not something you should feel entitled too.
That said, asking for $90 for an unfinished product is rubbish and not something I'd go for, and of course we don't want the AAA crowd to think it's okay to release unfinished content while pretending it's the full game. And yes, if you buy ANY Early Access game you can bet your bottom dollar you're entitled to expect the developers to finish the damn thing and make it clear that they're working towards the full version. You can't stay forever in the limbo where you're getting paid like for a full product, yet being exempt from criticism because it's a Beta/Alpha.
This episode damn near killed me... Simply genious X3. Can't wait to see the finished product next week!
When I pledged for Planetary Annihilation it was trough kickstarter, and in the same spirit. I wanted to be part of making that game happen. When I bought Space Engineers trough Steam Early Access I was still in that same mind set. I know I'm not getting a finished product when I spend that money, and I am perfectly aware that for all I know that money is lost 6 months down the line and no game will ever be released. Thats a risk I'm willing to take, and it is a risk people simply have to understand that they ARE taking when they back a kickstarter project or buy an Early Access game.
I think that may be the problem... People don't view kickstarter and Early Access the way I view them. I would never spend money on an Early Access game if I didn't KNOW that I could afford to lose all of it and never see anything in return. I wouldn't recommend anyone spend money they can't throw away on a game they are not sure about. For most people 30 USD isn't something one can just throw at any old project and hope it works out.
Of course I am in the rare position that I CAN afford to spend money on these projects and not worry about them succeeding or failing. For this reason I take great pleasure in backing something I firmly believe can become something truly great, and I still hold Star Citizen can become one of the greatest games of all time (and it wouldn't have happened without early backers!).
Actually, I don't see a problem with this. I totally get why people want to back projects they are interested in and want to succeed. I myself have payed more than my share for ships in Star Citizen, and lets remember that those ships can be gotten in-game anyway! The only benefit I get from buying them (for a whole bunch of money) is that they have some in-game insurance tied to them, and I get to play them from launch... But I didn't buy them because of those rather pointless benefits. I bought them because I want to support the game, and I want it to become the best game it could possibly be, and I believe that Chris Roberts is the man to do it.Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
When I pledged for Planetary Annihilation it was trough kickstarter, and in the same spirit. I wanted to be part of making that game happen. When I bought Space Engineers trough Steam Early Access I was still in that same mind set. I know I'm not getting a finished product when I spend that money, and I am perfectly aware that for all I know that money is lost 6 months down the line and no game will ever be released. Thats a risk I'm willing to take, and it is a risk people simply have to understand that they ARE taking when they back a kickstarter project or buy an Early Access game.
I think that may be the problem... People don't view kickstarter and Early Access the way I view them. I would never spend money on an Early Access game if I didn't KNOW that I could afford to lose all of it and never see anything in return. I wouldn't recommend anyone spend money they can't throw away on a game they are not sure about. For most people 30 USD isn't something one can just throw at any old project and hope it works out.
Of course I am in the rare position that I CAN afford to spend money on these projects and not worry about them succeeding or failing. For this reason I take great pleasure in backing something I firmly believe can become something truly great, and I still hold Star Citizen can become one of the greatest games of all time (and it wouldn't have happened without early backers!).
since I usually wait for GOTY's I had no idea how bad this situation was. Poor show. Great as always Jim
i hate this early access as well. so many games actually got my interest but when i see this big blue box telling me its early access, i dont bother to even look at it any further.
this is wrong to charge so much money for a incomplete game.
this is wrong to charge so much money for a incomplete game.