Has early access soured Steam for you?

[chocolate pickles]

I hate early access. In fairness, steam does make it quite clear what is early access, but the state that some of these games is released in I consider poor on a nice day. Hell, the dayz standalone is, imo, in worse state in he mod (no vehicles, for example, which is pretty irritating considering how huge and empty the map is).

At the end of the day, yes, it has. I feel there needs to be some kind of minimum requirement for these early access games to be released - or at least a much harsher one if there already is.

 

[RandV80]

No offense but if early access is 'souring' Steam for anyone I'd say they're being idiots. Granted sometimes they may go a little far, but you just... don't have to buy it? Like hell I backed the Carmageddon kickstarter and have full access to play the 'Early Access' version on Steam, but am choosing not to because with the limited time I have for game I want to play the full version, not a beta. Though I may take the plunge on Gnomeria, as I've been wanting to try Dwarf Fortress but just haven't had the time for the learning curve.

But anyways, like I said they could use some better quality control but early access is here to stay. Gabe is on the side of game developers, and early access is a great tool for aspiring developers to get a product out. Someone's always going to find a way to abuse the system, but the community makes it easy to avoid the bad to stick with the good.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Steam doesn't have finite space, but the sale does.

on the front page? that is more or less up to valve, they don't put anything on the front page of the sale unless it is cheaper than what it was before that time point, but there are still thousands of games that are on sale that don't make the front page, which if those games are on your wishlist you will see them and/or valve will send you an email about them being on sale.

Are their AAA games that ship unfinished or buggy? You betcha. However the AAA devs actually have a company at risk here. Chances are they will patch the game if its buggy. The amount it is unfinished is also different from what we are seeing with EArly Access. Early Access would have entire plots or mechanics missing as opposed to a AAA title which maybe cuts a level out to sell as DLC. You also have to keep in mind that some of these Early Access games wont even get finished. As in ever.

Both of these practices are shitty and I want to see them stop but I will take the lesser evil of the AAA over Early Access.

Glad we can agree on that point, but i disagree with the patching part, there are plenty of bugs/quests/dialogue/etc.. that never get patched up in games due to publishers not wanting to fix it and/or the dev has already moved on to the next project. alot of times now the things getting patched are the multiplayer games and that's about it.

Also that is made quite known to anyone even interested in an early access game, it is akin to kickstarter at this point, just at the next step (in that it is being currently developed enough to be played), if the customer is okay with forking over the money on what is there so far in hopes there may or may not be more coming, then what difference is that compared to buying a game new at the store? most AAA games are shipped buggy (switching to physical here) which puts that same guarantee essentially to early access.

I wouldnt really count that as a good thing. How many kickstarter/Early Access games have we seen fall apart because money ran out? Devs still have a deadline the need to meet. The one were money runs out and they cant support themselves anymore.

Like I have said many times, for every KSP there are so many other shitty shitty shitty Early Access titles.

how many of those projects that have fallen apart have I supported? Zero. How happy am I with my kickstarter and early access games? Extremely happy, hell more happy than most of the AAA dev games I've bought in the past year, and I paid a fraction of the cost for them too. Anyone with two brain cells could've imagined how much garbage would've steamrolled on through when kickstarter and early access first started, and most of those devs are coming up empty or don't get anywhere with it, doesn't mean we should punish the ones that are going exactly as planned and are niche diamonds in the rough.

At the end of the day, there is not a single thing in this world that is making you buy or even go to those early access games pages, it is not harming you in any possible way, so why would you be against the ones that do end up succeeding quite well? (you said you are against the practice, and those games probably wouldn't have been made without it, so I'm correlating that, even if you didn't directly state it.)

note: I know many of my points are stretched to extremes, and I don't disagree with that there is a ton of fuckin garbage on early access and kickstarter, but I don't see how their existence somehow hurts anything besides the stupid devs making the shovelware or the unfortunate idiots forking over pocket change to get early access to those games.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I don't like Early Access just on general principle, regardless of Steam.

The only Early Access game that I've bought into was Plague Inc. Evolved when it went on sale this past week on Steam. Even then, the only reason I bought it was because according to reviewers the single-player game was already more or less 100% complete and it was just the multiplayer left to be finished. I have zero interest in the multiplayer, so it was basically like buying a finished game anyway. I have zero complaints about this instance of buying an Early Access title.

As for other Early Access games... yeah, it'd take a situation like Plague Inc. Evolved to get me to even consider purchasing it. Games that still have a long way to go, yeah... I think I'll just wait.

 

[rgrekejin]

I'm not a huge fan of the Early Access concept. It bothers me that Steam is selling a product that the developers are under no real obligation to finish, or at least to finish with all of the promised features. Now, I know, I know, if you're not excited about playing the game in its current state, you shouldn't buy it, but there are two problems with that suggestion. First, it's kind of hard to know what a game is like "in its current state" without being able to play it, which usually requires buying it. Second, early access games are also generally sold at a discount of what the final release price is theoretically going to be. This can entice people into spending money on a game that looks good on paper, only to see most of the features they were actually excited about left on the cutting room floor.

 

[Something Amyss]

You don't need Early Access or Greenlight to find shitty, broken, or unfinished games.

I don't know why Early Access would impact your opinion on Steam.

For a specific game, yes. If I see "Early Access," I will click the "back" button or close the window.

 

[Ipsen]

Does Early Access turn me off Steam? No. Bad mobile ports are starting to, though, but that's kind of Jim's fault. See, 'advertising' on Steam isn't nearly as bad as the established system that we know of today; The kind that nearly rules the internet with a cash filled, AdSensed fist. Some front page exposure doesn't get me further to buying ANY game unless it's under 2$, or looks interesting enough for research. Steam even allows toggling off the popup ads every couple of hours. I'm finding I'm simply becoming more and more aware of bad stuff because of extra-Steam sources like Jim, but then again, I usually find out good games in the same manner.

Early Access also doesn't make this process easier for itself, by it's own nature; I often see Early Access titles for 15-40$, while usually seeing a finished title with potentially plenty of acclaim, appeal, and or research for below 7$. Also consider that finished games on sale are advertised just about as well as Early Access games are. I understand why Early Access does this, but the choice is easy from there.

Can somebody actually name me an Early Access game that ended up completed? I mean ones on Steam specifically, not other games such as Minecraft

I can. That article specifically mentions a couple that have since been released: Arma III and Drunken Robot Pornography. I can think of some more: Daylight, Don't Starve, State of Decay, StarDrive and Divinity: Original Sin, although technically the last one is not released yet but it should be in just 4 days.

Further questioning: Do users who've paid for the Early Access have to pay for the completed version?

If so, then Early Access has a serious problem in my eyes; paying for a game twice is nearly always more than you need to. If not, this entire trend of arguing about Early Access is inane and stupid, and Escapists should be ashamed for stirring this nonsense; the line is that clear.

I'd think this question is answered inherently in typical Early Access process, but I haven't seen any source on Steam for the matter, so with how often this argument comes up, I'm actually a bit worried now...

 

[DoPo]

Further questioning: Do users who've paid for the Early Access have to pay for the completed version?

No, what gave you that idea in the first place?

I'd think this question is answered inherently in typical Early Access process, but I haven't seen any source on Steam for the matter, so with how often this argument comes up, I'm actually a bit worried now...

Yet, nobody has ever claimed Early Access is bad because it requires people to pay twice. Indeed, people often claim it's bad because you pay for it and you get the game...but you may never get the full game or the features you actually want. In fact, just a post above yours says it outright.

As for sources on Steam [http://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/]:

Is this the same as pre-purchasing a game?

No. Early Access is a full purchase of a playable game. By purchasing, you gain immediate access to download and play the game in its current form and as it evolves. You keep access to the game, even if the game later moves from Early Access into fully released.

Emphasis mine.

 

[LeQuack_Is_Back]

Between half-made, may never be finished games being thrown in my face, and finding out actual, finished games I bought don't work because they're outdated and no one even bothered to update them enough to fix that, I'm not buying anything on steam any time soon. I've been burned too many times.

 

[Laughing Man]

I can't be the only one in these Steam sales to see a promising looking game come on a daily or flash offer only to click on it and find it an Early Access game.

No not in the slightest, just cause the game is early access doesn't mean that it shouldn't be treated as any other game. Pretty much every game will have someone who has done a review, Youtube the game see what people say see if it matches what you expect and research the game, add the simple assumption that what you are buying is worth what you are paying even if the developer upped sticks and decided not to finish the game.

That's why I have Prison Architect, a game that I have logged over 300 hours in, Kerbel Space Program another game that I have logged over 300 hours in and why despite it being on offer for £11 yesterday I couldn't bring myself to buy Next Car Game, yes it looks fantastic but if the developer was to stop production just now the game just didn;t have enough to justify the cost.

Just cause it's Early Access doesn't mean it's bad, review it, research it and their is no reason why you shouldn't have issue with any purchases, in fact I wish I was a prudent with the so called triple AAA full release, if I was I wouldn;t have turds like Watchdogs clogging up my hard drive.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Well...I recently bought Day-Z due to the immense amount of press/videos/let's plays and etc that showed it being quite neat.

It's terrible. Awful. So, so bad. I've never tried to get a refund from Steam, or really most anything else, to be honest, yet I was so thoroughly disappointed in the title that I made an attempt...and, I didn't know this, but you apparently can't get a refund on Early Access games.

$30 I'm not going to get back.

So, yes, I'm thoroughly soured on the idea. I'll wait until the game's actually released or if they're F2P.

 

[tehroc]

Depends on the game to be honest. I absolutely don't mind seeing Prison Architect alongside AAA games. Prison Architect was a solid game when it launched on Steam in alpha 9, they are on alpha 20 or 21 now. I did research though, I watch a few lets plays and then said this is a game I could get into.

 

[Lightknight]

Of course not. In the same way that buying a stale bag of chips doesn't make me not want to use a grocery store. I gotta eat and the grocery store is the best place to get it.

Having poor quality games is the risk we run when the store is so open. I'd rather an open store front than a strictly closed one. It's nice that they disclaim "early access" so I know to not buy.

 

[Vivi22]

It's a bit disappointing when a game looks interesting to me and then I find out that it's an Early Access game. I don't pay for unfinished games.

Ever paid for a Bethesda game?

I couldn't care less about early access games being sold alongside finished games. They're all clearly marked, and if the research someone does on a game before buying it amounts to seeing it on sale on Steam and checking out it's store page before buying it then they're someone that makes questionable purchasing decisions anyway and will be no safer buying finished games than buying early access.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Now days you cant even buy a finished game without expecting bugs, glitches and patching. Im not about to buy a game early that will have issues. Free beta is fine, let the fans play and fix things. But selling beta to fans is just taking the piss.

 

[Vivi22]

Now, I know, I know, if you're not excited about playing the game in its current state, you shouldn't buy it, but there are two problems with that suggestion. First, it's kind of hard to know what a game is like "in its current state" without being able to play it, which usually requires buying it.

This reasoning is just silly. Don't know what it's like in it's current state? Ask someone who's played it, either on official forums, other forums, on Steam, whatever. Look up some let's plays. Can't find any LP's or anyone who's opinion you can trust about the game (or even very many who've played it)? Then don't buy it. This is no different than being interested in some finished game no one's ever heard of.

Second, early access games are also generally sold at a discount of what the final release price is theoretically going to be. This can entice people into spending money on a game that looks good on paper, only to see most of the features they were actually excited about left on the cutting room floor.

And if people are willing to spend that money, they're the ones taking the risk. No one is lying to them about what they're getting into. If they spend their money and don't fully understand the risks involved because they didn't bother to at least read the Steam page then tough luck to them.

 

[Snotnarok]

I'm not sure why there's this bandwagon to hop on and complain about things that are easily sorted by the customer.
Does it say Early Access? That is your choice to risk funding the project, so you must understand that this is your risk you are taking.

There's other things to hate about things on steam, like dipshit Ubisoft forcing Uplay on their games, that's firmly seated in Ubisofts lap but they've always been anti-consumer as hell.

 

[Amaror]

Can somebody actually name me an Early Access game that ended up completed? I mean ones on Steam specifically, not other games such as Minecraft

Xenonauts. Just got released 10 days ago actually and was pretty much complete before that.

 

[DoPo]

Now days you cant even buy a finished game without expecting bugs, glitches and patching.

I keep being baffled when people say that. I mean as if this is some kind of recent development. This has been my experience ever - I'm not buying games day 1 or near because of how often they tended to be straight up broken in the past. Shining example is Sacred - I remember I actually got to play it soon-ish after release (but still, like a month or two after it) and you couldn't actually progress at one point. You are sent to find some water, you follow the quest marker and find an oasis and that's it - you can't actually use it or anything. In reality, there are simply supposed to be some bottles of water lying next to the oasis, but they just didn't spawn in early versions of the game. Notice the plural versions - as in more than one, as in, there had been at least one patch that didn't fix it. I believe there was a workaround with a patch, though - you could use a console command to spawn the bottles (it was wasser - I still remember it) but, I repeat, this is a bug that prevents you from finishing the game.

Sacred came out in 2004 - i.e., ten years ago. Moreover, it was far from the only game, and far from being the first one that did this. It was just the one I most fondly remember as I spent about a week stuck there - it was the game that convinced me to not play games soon after release.

It's not some kind of new phenomena - you can find the same a decade ago or more. Heck, back in 2004 I was still buying those gamer magazines that came with CDs (and the fancier ones with DVDs). The disks were crap - occasionally, they'd have, like, some freeware games or maybe some trailer worth watching, but what they were usually filled with is patches. Just patches for popular games - since stable and unlimited access to the Internet wasn't that wide spread, this was a popular way to spread the patches. Patches you usually need to, you know, fix stuff.