Is it right for Steam to sell Early Access games?

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Yes.

If you haven't noticed most of the early access titles have been from indie studios who don't exactly like the prospect of asking publishers for money, this is simply a more organic version of Kickstarter without the goal looming above peoples heads and a required semi-playable version.

As for the rather large prices from the likes of Planetary Annihilation and Wasteland 2, both of those were funded via Kickstarter long before Early Access was a thing. The pricing for Alpha/Beta are at the levels that were on the Kickstarter.

 

[Savagezion]

Yeah, as said before - so long as the consumer knows what they are getting into.

That said:

- I think reviewing "early access" games is batshit retarded. You review a product not "how it is made so far". If I sit down to draw a picture I often get "What are you drawing?" and when I respond I often get "It doesn't look like a _______" in return. Well, dumbass, you don't see what I see in my head so it isn't going to look like one considering I have been drawing for 2 minutes. Reviewing something before it is done is just a pure waste of time.

- I don't like that when Early Access games happen, by the time the game is released a lot of the community is sick of the game which ends up hurting the launch of the game. I don't like doing the Early Access thing and will pay full dollar to support indie devs but when I do everyone is like "That game is so last year" when it JUST released today. "Ugh can we please stop talking about that game, I am sick of it"... It just came out...

- I don't like that offering critique of Early Access games is often met with "It isn't done yet, you can't fault them for it". By offering critique people are doing their part in early access by helping guide the game in development by throwing ideas and criticism (aka feedback) out from the community to try and help improve the game. (feedback is not limited to bug reports and ideas to add into the game) If those criticisms are met with defensive fanboyism trying to "white knight" for the devs, then the only reason to buy Early Access is to get a discount and support the devs less. Any dev who can't handle that type of criticism shouldn't be doing an early access game.

- I don't like the idea of early access being "on sale" considering early access is supposed to be a discount price as it is to help fund the game. If someone can't pay the $10 or $15 bucks for early access I have a hard time taking them serious when they want to claim they "helped" the indie dev. Additionally, by putting it on sale, you are treating the development itself as a product - which it isn't.

I personally think the communities around most Early Access games don't realize what they are getting into. Most games forums read like a forum like the escapist. They tend to bog the forums down with tons of needless threads that offer nothing to the game itself for the devs to have to sift through thus making it a chore to actually be involved with those that want to contribute. I don't have a problem with Early Access but I see many problems with the communities that spring up around them.

 

[kingthrall]

some of these Early Access games like Talisman Digital edition are freaking amazing and feel like a completed game with a few bugs.

Unlike lets say a 70+ dollar game like Rome total Bull 2 that ripped off nearly every total war fan out there with a myriad of bugs and issues.

So yeah I am full in support for Early Access games, considering Sega are a bunch of liars and cant even tell consumers their products are nearly always in a Beta stage being sold as a final product.

 

[DiscoRhombus]

I think it's a great idea when the model is utilised properly. I've bought a few early access games and I don't really regret any of those purchases. I think of it as a pre-purchase except at a discounted price and with the ability to play various versions of the game, bug test it and provide input (and income) for development and features I would like to see.

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.

 

[babinro]

I'm fine with it.

They aren't being misleading about it so far as I can tell. If someone wants to buy into an unfinished product they should be allowed to. The publisher/developers are the ones taking all the risks here. If negative PR gets out because of the unfinished state of your game than that's just another hurdle you'll face towards reaching sales projections.

 

[lapan]

If people are willing to buy it, they should be able to sell whatever they want. As long as they are not lying to you about what you are getting, they can sell whatever they feel like.

This.

And people should then definitely not go complaining about bugs and the like. You paid to play an alpha/beta, you knew what you were getting into, and if you didn't, you should've informed yourself first.

Personally, I don't see myself paying for early access any time soon either. But if someone else wants too, that's their business.

Isn't that the entire point of an apha/beta? Poiting out the bugs so they can fix them?

 

[Weaver]

The only thing I don't like is putting early access games in sales.

 

[lacktheknack]

I'm playing Prison Architect, made by a company I adore, even though it's not finished (and they may have never finished it).

Sounds good to me.

 

[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.

 

[Epic_Bubble]

I think selling early access is fine its alot like kickstarter. But I do think steam is wrong to put early access on sales. 50% of godus and you start thinking what is wrong with it .... the answer alot.

 

[Amir Kondori]

If you want to put it in terms of "right or wrong" then yes, it is definitely ethically ok. Early Access games are clearly labelled as such. If you do even the most cursory reading of the game's Steam store page it should be readily apparent that you are not buying a feature complete, finished game. Instead you are buying the chance to play a game in development and hopefully have your feedback matter in the finished product.

Whether or not putting your game up for sale through Steam's early access program is another question and I think it depends on the game. Minecraft is the best example of a game which works well that way. Even early versions of Minecraft were fun to play and had enough features to keep people engaged and having fun for hours. As time went on the game grew, with more features, more environments, more items, etc., until know where it is a game with a lot of content and a lot of polish.

Other games might not be a good fit. Say Call of Duty, where early access would just buy you a buggy, poorly polished example of a game you have played many times before.

So is it "right"?

Yes.

Is it a good idea?

Sometimes.

 

[kilenem]

I think its alright because there are a few games I would to play now even if they aren't done. X by monolith and t The Crew by Ubisoft Reflections and Ivy tower.

 

[Fat Hippo]

If people are willing to buy it, they should be able to sell whatever they want. As long as they are not lying to you about what you are getting, they can sell whatever they feel like.

This.

And people should then definitely not go complaining about bugs and the like. You paid to play an alpha/beta, you knew what you were getting into, and if you didn't, you should've informed yourself first.

Personally, I don't see myself paying for early access any time soon either. But if someone else wants too, that's their business.

Isn't that the entire point of an apha/beta? Poiting out the bugs so they can fix them?

Complaining about the existence of bugs is not even remotely the same thing as reporting them to the developers so they may fix them.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

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.

 

[razer17]

I think it's a good new way to get consistant revenue stream whilst your game is in development. As long as devs don't cut and run, and actually try and finish the game, it's all good.

I have two early access games, Day Z and Snow. Snow is a pretty awesome indie skiing game, a lot of fun.

 

[NearLifeExperience]

I've noticed Steam increasingly selling games in "early access". What do you think of this practise?

I personally would not buy one, I'd rather just have the finished product and I don't agree with selling something unfinished for so highly priced.

There literally is no reason why it wouldn't be 'right' to sell early access games whatsoever. People know what they're buying.

 

[J Tyran]

At first I thought "yes" as long as they where clearly declared as being unfinished but I am slowly moving towards the opinion that its a bad idea, we are seeing more and more endless beta tests and early access games and its only time before we see mainstream publishers really start pumping them out.

Can you imagine games like Battlefield 4 and Rome: Total War II being sold as "early access" games to give a legitimate excuse for them being unfinished piles of crap? So whilst early access might seem like a good idea now I think we will all rue the day this trend started, showing publishers that we are not only willing to buy games that are unfinished but actually marketed as unfinished is a mistake.

 

[Eve Charm]

I have a few early access games and I rather see steam stop doing it or allow for a refund since the game isn't technically out yet.

Things so far I've seen gone wrong with early access:

Starbound - nowhere on the store page did they mention character wipes and people went down right ballistic on the forums when they're work was reset, repeatedly, without warning other then looking at the main dev's website. Crap like that should be stated before hand and plenty of games never reset your character to not use the flimsy argument that was used to expect it.

Damned - Several versions of the game later made the game unplayable.

Dungeon of the endless - Balancing gone so wrong the game was winnable at a point

Prime world defenders - People telling the devs the game crashes on one of the later levels, Game comes out people still telling the dev game crashes on later level, I STILL CAN'T Beat this game!

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

I have a few early access games and I rather see steam stop doing it or allow for a refund since the game isn't technically out yet.

Things so far I've seen gone wrong with early access:

Starbound - nowhere on the store page did they mention character wipes and people went down right ballistic on the forums when they're work was reset, repeatedly, without warning other then looking at the main dev's website. Crap like that should be stated before hand and plenty of games never reset your character to not use the flimsy argument that was used to expect it.

Damned - Several versions of the game later made the game unplayable.

Dungeon of the endless - Balancing gone so wrong the game was winnable at a point

Prime world defenders - People telling the devs the game crashes on one of the later levels, Game comes out people still telling the dev game crashes on later level, I STILL CAN'T Beat this game!

I'd also love to throw in Castle story there, the devs back in 2012 had stated it would be for PC and on Steam when it first started, went into Alpha stage with a rocky start.

A good 5-6 months into 2013 and they suddenly decided they want to start working on the Linux version even though the current early access alpha version on Steam is riddled with bugs making it unplayable for others and even myself. fast forward to now and they're still super slow with their workload and still they want to work on linux when it's clearly sent their team into disarray with getting work done and it's angered many and I've decided to not play the game until it's done but I'm also really disappointed in them greatly.

If I were them I'd work on the PC version to the best of my teams abilities and make sure it reaches a finished and more stable state before even wishing to work on a Linux and maybe mac version first, I'd also stick to my promise since the games industry has shown that going back on your promises can have bad consequences.

 

[Ellie O'Daire]

I've no problem with it, as long as people know what they're getting. Heck, some of the Early Access games (namely Kerbal Space Program) feel more finished than the average Xbox game anymore.