Is it right for Steam to sell Early Access games?

[bug_of_war]

I see nothing wrong with it, but I feel that they should still also provide a free beta along side it. If you're so sure you're gonna like it that you're willing to pay full price and download an in progress game than go for it, but for those of us whom are a bit more hesitant there really should be some 1 day/week only download of the beta. This way more people will play it and more data can be collected.

 

[loc978]

So long as the developer has a plan laid out, is transparent with said plan (as well as any setbacks), and communicates with their community, I see nothing wrong with it.

One thing I would like to see improved is planning a pricing structure in advance. That's the only thing keeping me away from Planetary Annihilation. That turned into a mess (turns out early access as a higher tier kickstarter reward is a bad idea), although the game itself appears to be coming along nicely.

Thus far, the only two early access games I've payed into in have turned out stellar, though (KSP and Starbound). Might be getting into a third soon (Rimworld). I've also had good experiences with the free version of Starmade. I'll be interested to see what the first Steam release of that is like.

...of course, sandbox builders lend themselves quite well to the early access model. RTS and arena shooters seem to as well. Story-driven RPGs, spectacle fighters, corridor narrative-heavy shooters, et cetera... not so much.
For example, I'm actually rather glad I'm not testing Wasteland 2. I'd rather wait for the finished product on that one.

 

[endtherapture]

So long as the developer has a plan laid out, is transparent with said plan (as well as any setbacks), and communicates with their community, I see nothing wrong with it.

One thing I would like to see improved is planning a pricing structure in advance. That's the only thing keeping me away from Planetary Annihilation. That turned into a mess (turns out early access as a higher tier kickstarter reward is a bad idea), although the game itself appears to be coming along nicely.

Thus far, the only two early access games I've payed into in have turned out stellar, though (KSP and Starbound). Might be getting into a third soon (Rimworld). I've also had good experiences with the free version of Starmade. I'll be interested to see what the first Steam release of that is like.

...of course, sandbox builders lend themselves quite well to the early access model. RTS and arena shooters seem to as well. Story-driven RPGs, spectacle fighters, corridor narrative-heavy shooters, et cetera... not so much.
For example, I'm actually rather glad I'm not testing Wasteland 2. I'd rather wait for the finished product on that one.

Divcnity 2 Original Sin gave everyone who Kickstarted backed it the chance to play the Alpha.

However if they were selling it on Steam I don't think I'd buy it.

 

[DiscoRhombus]

As one other poster mentioned I don't see the point of the pay more for early access though. That feels like a very questionable practice.

I don't think so. It's paying extra to get it before everyone else. You can do that at theme parks, nightclubs, and other such things, so why not games as well? If people are willing to fork over, let them.

That's not really an accurate analogy though. It's like paying more to get into a theme park except only half the rides work and there's always a chance they'll stop you mid-ride to fix up a bit of the track. Then after your ride you have to fill in a survey about what was right and wrong about the ride and what you'd like to see in future rides. Then you try and buy some food but you can't because NPC AI doesn't work yet.

You're not getting a complete product, when you buy in early to events and the like you still get everything everyone else gets you just get it first. When you buy an early access game you get an incomplete product (which I'm okay with since it's early access) and you help them fix it up. I don't think they should charge you more when you're being the good guy and providing them with cash to continue their development as well as valuable consumer input. They get enough out of it without overcharging you for wanting to support them.

 

[lacktheknack]

As one other poster mentioned I don't see the point of the pay more for early access though. That feels like a very questionable practice.

I don't think so. It's paying extra to get it before everyone else. You can do that at theme parks, nightclubs, and other such things, so why not games as well? If people are willing to fork over, let them.

That's not really an accurate analogy though. It's like paying more to get into a theme park except only half the rides work and there's always a chance they'll stop you mid-ride to fix up a bit of the track.

So... just like the way it is already?

(AHAHAHAHAHA. It's funny because I was at Disney World last week and a bunch of the rides went down for repairs and we got stranded on the "It's A Small World" ride for twenty minutes in the English section so we had It's A Small World After All played at us full blast for twenty minutes and we all went insane.... ;__

Then after your ride you have to fill in a survey about what was right and wrong about the ride and what you'd like to see in future rides. Then you try and buy some food but you can't because NPC AI doesn't work yet.

You're not getting a complete product, when you buy in early to events and the like you still get everything everyone else gets you just get it first. When you buy an early access game you get an incomplete product (which I'm okay with since it's early access) and you help them fix it up. I don't think they should charge you more when you're being the good guy and providing them with cash to continue their development as well as valuable consumer input. They get enough out of it without overcharging you for wanting to support them.

That's not really accurate. A lot of people skip the whole "consumer input" part and just play with all the toys that are there as they get added. It also becomes "Essentially Complete" a fairly long time before release date as the developer chases down the niggling issues that are not very common, so you could view that as your early access to the full product.

I'm part of two early-access games (Prison Architect and Castle Story), and at no point have I had to fill out a survey. Nor has the AI been incomplete in either case, for that matter.

 

[Bertylicious]

I don't mind Steam selling Early Access Games (EAGs) but I thoroughly dislike that they advertise them along with released titles. It's very annoying that their main banner for example routinely has a couple in there. I don't think they should be advertised on the main page, but kept within the early access category alone.

I have nothing against them, and have even bought a couple but advertising them alongside complete games I believe is a horrid practics. Selling them, absolutely, showcasing them on the main page/banner, absolutely not.

I dunno, I seem to recall Gabe Newall saying something to some arseholes about "selling games as a service" and something about bringing the customer into the development process in order to better serve them. I think that is essentially Valve's mission statement.

Assuming I'm not talking chuff, which is a bit of an if, I'd have thought that encouraging consumer participation in EAGs is central to what Valve & Steam is all about.

One thing I do worry about is how little non-EAG stuff there seems to be on Steam these days, 'cause if Steam goes bump then I'm gonna have issues with my library. It's almost like they've decided that the AAA market is an obsolete concept and fucked it all off in favour of this indie approach. Maybe they are right?

EDIT: I also wonder about the viability of the business model of EAG. With a conventional development cycle you get X amount of money to make the game, distribute it and all the rest then you get Y amount of sales. The difference between the two is your profit. How does it work with EAG? You're getting bits of Y from day... well not day 1 but certainly not at the end which strikes me as encouraging a never ending development cycle. I mean, will any of these early access experiments ever become finished goods? What incentive is there on the developers to ever conclude?

 

[DiscoRhombus]

As one other poster mentioned I don't see the point of the pay more for early access though. That feels like a very questionable practice.

I don't think so. It's paying extra to get it before everyone else. You can do that at theme parks, nightclubs, and other such things, so why not games as well? If people are willing to fork over, let them.

That's not really an accurate analogy though. It's like paying more to get into a theme park except only half the rides work and there's always a chance they'll stop you mid-ride to fix up a bit of the track.

So... just like the way it is already?

(AHAHAHAHAHA. It's funny because I was at Disney World last week and a bunch of the rides went down for repairs and we got stranded on the "It's A Small World" ride for twenty minutes in the English section so we had It's A Small World After All played at us full blast for twenty minutes and we all went insane.... ;__

Then after your ride you have to fill in a survey about what was right and wrong about the ride and what you'd like to see in future rides. Then you try and buy some food but you can't because NPC AI doesn't work yet.

You're not getting a complete product, when you buy in early to events and the like you still get everything everyone else gets you just get it first. When you buy an early access game you get an incomplete product (which I'm okay with since it's early access) and you help them fix it up. I don't think they should charge you more when you're being the good guy and providing them with cash to continue their development as well as valuable consumer input. They get enough out of it without overcharging you for wanting to support them.

That's not really accurate. A lot of people skip the whole "consumer input" part and just play with all the toys that are there as they get added. It also becomes "Essentially Complete" a fairly long time before release date as the developer chases down the niggling issues that are not very common, so you could view that as your early access to the full product.

I'm part of two early-access games (Prison Architect and Castle Story), and at no point have I had to fill out a survey. Nor has the AI been incomplete in either case, for that matter.

Hehe of course it's not always the case. My example was exaggerated for comedic effect, admittedly. But certain games really are that incomplete - Kenshi for example. I've gone for quite a few early access games and they can be incredibly fleshed-out (i.e. Starbound) but I still don't feel that they should charge more than the retail price for early access. At the end of the day the developers already get a lot out of people purchasing early access games. It strikes me as greedy, personally, when they inflate the price of the alpha-beta version.

 

[lord.jeff]

It's all been said, as long as they are making sure the consumer is completely aware of what they are getting I see no problem with it. It also helps developer find bugs and provides funding for a longer development time which means a more flushed out and expanded game in the end.

 

[sth1729]

It gives smaller developers a source of income so that they not only don't go out of business while making the game, but also have ongoing incentive to continue to improve the games. It also allows consumers a way to give better feedback about what the game as it's being made resulting in a far superior product than they otherwise would have had.

Hell just look at Minecraft to see how successful the practice is, or if you want something that is still technically in early access Starbound. Also for a lot of people interested in game development it can act as a kind of lens for what problems get priority when fixing bugs and balancing and such.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I dunno, I seem to recall Gabe Newall saying something to some arseholes about "selling games as a service" and something about bringing the customer into the development process in order to better serve them. I think that is essentially Valve's mission statement.

Assuming I'm not talking chuff, which is a bit of an if, I'd have thought that encouraging consumer participation in EAGs is central to what Valve & Steam is all about.

One thing I do worry about is how little non-EAG stuff there seems to be on Steam these days, 'cause if Steam goes bump then I'm gonna have issues with my library. It's almost like they've decided that the AAA market is an obsolete concept and fucked it all off in favour of this indie approach. Maybe they are right?

EDIT: I also wonder about the viability of the business model of EAG. With a conventional development cycle you get X amount of money to make the game, distribute it and all the rest then you get Y amount of sales. The difference between the two is your profit. How does it work with EAG? You're getting bits of Y from day... well not day 1 but certainly not at the end which strikes me as encouraging a never ending development cycle. I mean, will any of these early access experiments ever become finished goods? What incentive is there on the developers to ever conclude?

I understand your point, and while I will say unreservedly that EAGs are a good thing for everyone, I just don't like as-yet incomplete products displayed on the store front. Advertising them at the same price and in the same way as complete titles is disappointing and puts me off them. Every time I click something interesting looking and it turns out it's still pre-alpha, I growl in frustration and thumb back a page to start browsing again.

I think EAGs definitely should be on Steam. I absolutely like them being sold on the service, offering perks to early adopters and making target audience into testers. It encourages community, helps the devs with feedback direct from their playerbase and gets players invested into the titles. I do think however they should be in a separate section, as with the greenlight stuff f.ex. The home page IMO should only be for complete titles, or EAGs should be boldly-marked as such to save customer's frustration. I'd prefer however, every once in a while to just visit the EAG section specifically and see what's on offer there, as I do with GL. I want to be able to browse complete games without the danger of stumbling on incomplete ones in the mix.

----------------

Regards your edit, I think it is viable but only for small dev teams producing their first or second title. Essentially, the model is simply moving funds from post-release "profit" to "development budget". If one assumes that the same players who would've bought the game in its finished state are the ones buying it early, the system allows devs to create better games and most importantly, finish them. These small teams lack funding so might never be able otherwise to finish their game. This gives them an operating budget, but...

The downside of course is that since the bulk of players most interested in your product already own it prior to release, there won't be nearly so much profit. But, like Kickstarter, it does mean that ultimately the devs will have a complete product at the end of the process, one that's wholly their property (and not a publishers) that they can then sell for a (much reduced) profit. Late adopters get a complete game, the dev has something in their portfolio, an income stream and a playerbase. That's why I think it's a great idea. My only gripe is specific to their being advertised as though they're already complete.

 

[AnthrSolidSnake]

I really like supporting alphas and betas, so I say yes.
Stupidly misinformed buyers aside, as long as the devs don't get lazy because they are getting a steady stream of cash, I see no problem with it.
I've had a blast aiding in the development of Nether, 7 Days to Die, and DayZ Standalone so far.
Am I going to buy EVERY alpha and beta I see? Of course not, that's why I haven't bought Starbound or Rust (mainly avoided Rust because I already technically own like 4 FPS survival games...)

 

[Atmos Duality]

There's no qualifier so, equivalently, I can ask: Is it wrong for Steam to sell those games?

Steam's involvement raises no moral (Right/wrong) issues here, since Early Access games are marketed exactly as they are: Incomplete and riskier to the consumer. I assume than any consumer capable of purchasing games on Steam is also capable of clicking on the link that explains what Early Access found on every Early Access game store page.

Meaning the topic is a big ol' False Dilemma.
I think the real question should be: Are you willing to risk buying those games?

 

[Kyogissun]

I see Early Access as my pre-order having more power than just 'secured funds' for the developer. I mean, when a game is total shit and the early access is a fucking scam, it typically ends with refunds being put out and the devs getting in proper trouble and having to clean their messes up...

TYPICALLY.

 

[Flutterguy]

It is an option for game companies that have enough prepared to make a playable demo so they may finish the full project. Hell some even go on sale for 20-50% off before release, no complaints here. Can't wait for War for the Overworld myself.

 

[MHR]

It seems like steam is making a bad precedent of allowing developers to release unfinished games. It just sounds like a licence for a few shady developers to release half-baked crap and say "it's not finished yet" about all its flaws. That one free-to-play mecha game (not on steam) has been in beta forever just to milk freemium beta package cash.

However I think the real drawback about early access is that hype-train kids are going to buy it the first chance they get, decide "this game sucks" in the first hour and then never play it again. You can warn these type of people up and down, but they'll still do it, and I'm sure this crowd has a lot of overlap with the "impulse buy" crowd that will buy anything that looks shiny or on sale that steam gets a ton of business from. I'm also worried that the hype trains about games actually being "released" after early access will be pretty weak. Many of the people that want the game will already have it and everyone else might see the game as old news and skip it.

Is it *wrong* though? If it gets more profit or makes a better game, then no, not at all.

The worst part is just the people that buy an unfinished game and complain.

Edit: DayZ which is in early access is currently the top-selling game on steam with 600K sold. Most of those people aren't interested in beta testing. They see the hype and they buy it anyway. Many of them are probably going to become bored or disappointed. The devs have stated they won't even reach beta status by the end of 2014. They've already made millions, they're in no hurry to finish the game as soon as they can. This may send a bad message that players will buy unfinished/buggy games if you can hype it up enough.

 

[endtherapture]

It seems like steam is making a bad precedent of allowing developers to release unfinished games. It just sounds like a licence for a few shady developers to release half-baked crap and say "it's not finished yet" about all its flaws. That one free-to-play mecha game (not on steam) has been in beta forever just to milk freemium beta package cash.

However I think the real drawback about early access is that hype-train kids are going to buy it the first chance they get, decide "this game sucks" in the first hour and then never play it again. You can warn these type of people up and down, but they'll still do it, and I'm sure this crowd has a lot of overlap with the "impulse buy" crowd that will buy anything that looks shiny or on sale that steam gets a ton of business from. I'm also worried that the hype trains about games actually being "released" after early access will be pretty weak. Many of the people that want the game will already have it and everyone else might see the game as old news and skip it.

Is it *wrong* though? If it gets more profit or makes a better game, then no, not at all.

The worst part is just the people that buy an unfinished game and complain.

Edit: DayZ which is in early access is currently the top-selling game on steam with 600K sold. Most of those people aren't interested in beta testing. They see the hype and they buy it anyway. Many of them are probably going to become bored or disappointed. The devs have stated they won't even reach beta status by the end of 2014. They've already made millions, they're in no hurry to finish the game as soon as they can. This may send a bad message that players will buy unfinished/buggy games if you can hype it up enough.

This is a great point. I definitely agree.