Jimquisition: Early Access
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Does this mean we can give suggestions on how to improve the final product?
I'll get early access games if I truly believe in the concept and developer and I feel like I'd want to be active in the dev's forums. Starbound has been the only one to pass that criteria for me.
I'll get early access games if I truly believe in the concept and developer and I feel like I'd want to be active in the dev's forums. Starbound has been the only one to pass that criteria for me.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,170
- 143
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
Precisely what I was going to say, arguably us Pub Club members have paid for the Jimquisition, or at-least access to a better quality ad-free version.Al_ said:
On the actual video itself, surprised the Pokemon Bank's delay didn't come up, another example on a feature not being available at launch and then being delayed even past the supposed release date of 27th December. Okay, the core Pokemon game is there but it won't be complete until my precious team from previous gens can be uploaded!
Gonna have to disagree with you because I think early access is doing well, but I do agree with you on the aspect of Youtube clips of these games being more important than ever. Agree with you there 110%
As long as there is a disclaimer noting all features missing AND included with the product you'll be getting I personally don't have a problem with Early Access.
A rough timeline of feature implementation would also help a great deal too. As well as knowing you'll get a discount or maybe some exclusive content if you buy it early.
My problem comes when you get no benefit from buying a broken, feature-lacking game.
As an example, Minecraft was (I believe) 50% off the final product if you bought it during it's alpha stage. 25% off if you bought it during beta. That is a good deal in my opinion.
10% off is lackluster. No discount is despicable.
A rough timeline of feature implementation would also help a great deal too. As well as knowing you'll get a discount or maybe some exclusive content if you buy it early.
My problem comes when you get no benefit from buying a broken, feature-lacking game.
As an example, Minecraft was (I believe) 50% off the final product if you bought it during it's alpha stage. 25% off if you bought it during beta. That is a good deal in my opinion.
10% off is lackluster. No discount is despicable.
At least Minecraft had the right idea of not charging full price for beta access. Some of the games seeing early access are charging full price or more. Also when Minecraft was in beta, the game was still fun to play (who else remembers their first dirt shack?). Many betas out now are just unplayable because they are missing features or elements of the game are just broken.
My "early access" comes in one of two ways.
1) Beta testing
2) "early access" for a game when I have purchased a different game
I find that the early access/beta testing model works well as I am either getting it for free or purchasing a game I already wanted, and happen to get early access as a bonus.
@Jim - Does your opinion on early access also extend to the "purchase Game A to get early access/beta access to game B"?
I remember Gears of War 3 did that for their multiplayer, and BF3/BF4 also had "purchase game to get in early" options.
1) Beta testing
2) "early access" for a game when I have purchased a different game
I find that the early access/beta testing model works well as I am either getting it for free or purchasing a game I already wanted, and happen to get early access as a bonus.
@Jim - Does your opinion on early access also extend to the "purchase Game A to get early access/beta access to game B"?
I remember Gears of War 3 did that for their multiplayer, and BF3/BF4 also had "purchase game to get in early" options.
Funding development through releasing highly flawed incomplete products has got to be the American Dream. I have no idea why consumers are falling for it. Alphas and betas are for the QA team, not for you to buy and do the testing for the developer. Stop being so desperate.
Early access has gotten out of control really. I'm seeing them left and right on Steam at this point. This might be one of those rare instances where consoles have the advanatage, with far stricter quality control policies.
And to the people saying "Oh well it's just an option it's not hurting anyone" - like all things in a short time it will. Instead of "Well let's let people get early access as a bonus if they want it" it'll soon become "Our estimates indicate we will get this much money from early access people so we only need this much money to start, etc."
Same thing that happened with DLC, and now look where we are.
Early access has gotten out of control really. I'm seeing them left and right on Steam at this point. This might be one of those rare instances where consoles have the advanatage, with far stricter quality control policies.
And to the people saying "Oh well it's just an option it's not hurting anyone" - like all things in a short time it will. Instead of "Well let's let people get early access as a bonus if they want it" it'll soon become "Our estimates indicate we will get this much money from early access people so we only need this much money to start, etc."
Same thing that happened with DLC, and now look where we are.
There have been only two, basically unfinished, games that I have invested in.
The reason I choose those games was because they were by a developer that I knew could be trusted to deliver a finished product, and not have something hang in development hell as a buggy unfinished product with an unsure release date and no motivation to finish the product.
That's the point. If you want early access, or something, make sure it's by someone that can be trusted. Someone who has delivered finished products before and who you know can deliver a quality product.
Not some unknown small fry who has never build anything and might not even know how to do stuff.
Oh yeah, the two games that I invested in: Broken Age and Massive Chalice.
Not really Early Release games, but still. If you want a good game, invest in Double Fine.
The reason I choose those games was because they were by a developer that I knew could be trusted to deliver a finished product, and not have something hang in development hell as a buggy unfinished product with an unsure release date and no motivation to finish the product.
That's the point. If you want early access, or something, make sure it's by someone that can be trusted. Someone who has delivered finished products before and who you know can deliver a quality product.
Not some unknown small fry who has never build anything and might not even know how to do stuff.
Oh yeah, the two games that I invested in: Broken Age and Massive Chalice.
Not really Early Release games, but still. If you want a good game, invest in Double Fine.
It's frustrating to read the user reviews, buy the game and discover that the users were rating the game based on its potential. Fortunately, this has never happened to me. The users that post reviews are very critical of early access games that are overpriced or not delivering what they promised in a timely manner. 7 Days to Day is getting hammered by the users.
I would be interested in professional reviews that talk about what's currently implemented, what's going to be implemented, the timeline for those implementations and any major issues with the core gameplay. It's free publicity for the development team, and it makes it easier for potential customers to decide if the game is worth their money. It would also go a long way to make buying into Early Access games a lot less risky.
I would be interested in professional reviews that talk about what's currently implemented, what's going to be implemented, the timeline for those implementations and any major issues with the core gameplay. It's free publicity for the development team, and it makes it easier for potential customers to decide if the game is worth their money. It would also go a long way to make buying into Early Access games a lot less risky.
In the grand PC vs. Console debate I think everyone agrees that there are things that the PC does much better and that consoles are trying to emulate. This is one of the things that I'm glad that consoles are doing half assed in a vain attempt to 'Catch up' to the 'GLORIOUS PC GAMING MASTER RACE'
Another thing to note is some games are doing themselves a disservice to the model. Some games are really in a beta state, and some of them are in "beta" like gmail was in "beta" for years - complete finished experiences that can still be improved.
Minecraft was NOT in beta for as long as the beta label was still on it. Minecraft was a complete experience long before. So now people are piggybacking on that and releasing actual beta experiences (buggy, incomplete messes) hoping that people will fall for it.
And there's no way to tell on the surface which one you're going to get.
Minecraft was NOT in beta for as long as the beta label was still on it. Minecraft was a complete experience long before. So now people are piggybacking on that and releasing actual beta experiences (buggy, incomplete messes) hoping that people will fall for it.
And there's no way to tell on the surface which one you're going to get.
...this can safely be truncated to "Do your research, early access isn't for most people"
There is a problem here, and a big one... but it's not just companies being exploitative this time, it's also people being ridiculously exploitable. A majority of these games come with big ol' warning labels on 'em... at least indies on Steam. Example:
The AAA part is pretty much inexcusable, though... like most things the AAA industry does these days.
There is a problem here, and a big one... but it's not just companies being exploitative this time, it's also people being ridiculously exploitable. A majority of these games come with big ol' warning labels on 'em... at least indies on Steam. Example:
source of image [http://cheezburger.com/7993699840]
This begs the question "why did you buy it, then?". The game was billed as Terraria, but bigger and in space, made by one of the original Terraria devs and his new team. If you didn't like Terraria's sandboxy nature, why did you think you'd like Starbound's sandbox (which is the only part of the game that is near completion, a fact that the devs acknowledge readily [http://playstarbound.com/roadmap/])?Rabid_meese said:
I feel like Early Access is just like Kickstarter, only with very set prices and product now as opposed to later. Yeah, you're buying a game before it's done, but no one is hiding it from you--you ought know by now what you're getting into. It's better than the game coming out without features, or any real warning they're missing (when GTA V came out, did it say "Early Access Multiplayer" on the box?).
Honestly, the only awkward part is the review system. Review it now, it might suck. It might get better later. It might never be finished. Who knows? Probably not even the devs. Reviewing it now AND later is probably the best thing (if it sucks now, don't get it until it's to a point where you'd enjoy it), but leaves reviewers having to pick over a title multiple times just to be accurate about it.
Honestly, the only awkward part is the review system. Review it now, it might suck. It might get better later. It might never be finished. Who knows? Probably not even the devs. Reviewing it now AND later is probably the best thing (if it sucks now, don't get it until it's to a point where you'd enjoy it), but leaves reviewers having to pick over a title multiple times just to be accurate about it.
I've probably been beaten to the punch already; but I'll say it anyway. Steam has 105 titles as Early Access, not 87 pages. Unless you have a really low amount of items shown per page. Yes that is a lot of games, and some really are taking the piss at the moment (Castle Story, I'm looking at you). But it isn't 87 pages worth. With how the page you were on works, it is showing items 1-10, then 11-20, etc. There are 9 pages there and would be 11 if it showed all the games, rather than just the top 100, which is weird that it only shows 87 titles.Jimothy Sterling said:
The one that put me off was Wasteland 2. I know, I know 'it'll be less when it's done' but Jesus 60$ for early access. Planetary Annihilation pissed me off as well when it charged $89.99(!) on Early access. Now it's down to 59.99... I do love some of the titles, usually the ones that priced accordingly to what is currently finished. Kenshi (probably my favorite early access title) came to steam at 14.99 and is a bit more costly now at 19.99. It's getting slightly more expensive as the game gets larger. Seems weird for titles like Wasteland 2 and Planetary Annihilation get cheaper as they get bigger.
Hunter C. Creed