I haven't been burned by early access yet. This is because I don't have the money to really just chance my gaming at this point. Alpha and beta releases for cash have to come with good press and recommendations from people I actually know. MMO free betas also don't get a dime unless they A. have a launch date with future development planned and B. give me something more than if I had purchased the same thing post-launch.
"Why should I give this money?" is a pretty good line these days for pre-launches.
I kind of disagree, in a small way. I don't think this many games should be using the early access model, because they are just hoping to get cash now instead of later... But I don't think I can blame them for doing it if people are buying it. I recognized the risk when I bought Rust/DayZ early access that they could go nowhere or in a direction I didn't want, but I wanted to play the game(bugs in all, that I knew were there) in its current state, and to try to influence it's growth with my own feedback if possible. If they fail, I would only be mad at myself, because I'm the one who made the purchase.
Well, with the Rust "Early Access" you get to play an ambitious zombie game before it becomes an ambitious not-about-zombies game since they are planning on removing the zombies.
Brilliant episode, Jim! Just brilliant. You have shown us a problem in the game dev industry that shouldn't even COMMENT NOT COMPLETE. SECOND HALF OF COMMENT WILL BE RELEASED TBA.
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.
This is definitely true. I don't have a moral problem with someone releasing a buggy mess as long as they make it clear that's the case, but that doesn't mean it is probably a bad business decision.
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.
You could pay money for Minecraft in Alpha. The game was a buggy mess during Alpha and "Survival Mode" had very few features - a couple very small maps in a couple different "biomes" with a few mobs. When Notch did updates it would often break the game. Although updates were frequent early on, when it started to really blow up Notch wasn't able to do updates for quite awhile. I never saw this as a problem since he was pretty clear that was what you were getting into, but a lot of people were pretty upset. I would say it was in a pretty buggy, unstable, unfinished status for well over a year from the point you could buy it. Stuff that was promised in the original description has only been added recently.
I'm sorry Jim, but Starbound, offering a fully realized game that will just get better? You're kidding, right?
The game is horribly buggy, and horribly optimized. It took me hours to get Starbound running on my machine - a machine that has had no trouble EVER playing a game. When you have to look up fucking guides on how to fix some miniscule glitch that stops the framerate from tanking in a 2D game, you don't have a finished product.
Starbound's game is horribly broken as well. There is no pacing or structure to it. After you do the last quest (there are what, 5?) It just says "Alright. Just do stuff." No direction. No goals. No clear progression, like with Terraria. I used to criticize Terraria for being a Wiki game - Starbound takes that idea to a whole new universe.
The thing is, I wouldn't mind that if the game was free. Its absurd when a company expects you to pay them money to do their bug testing. Having a game up on Steam and asking for money on it, when its clearly not in shipping condition is appalling - no matter who or what the company is.
And this is why I think the issue is one where everyone has to make their own decisions. Starbound is the only early access game I've ever bought and I found it worth every cent of the fifteen dollar asking price as-is. I too had the frame rate problem, but hell, I've head technical issues with games that were billed as finished products lots of times, and took ten times the effort to fix. I have more than 100 hours of quality fun in Starbound building all sorts of constructs, and that is with the promise that there will be more to come.
If they ran out of money and closed up shop tomorrow, I wouldn't be happy with the state of the game as-is, but I would say that I got enough fun out of it to be worth the asking price. Not everyone would feel this way, and so, o mileage on individual products will vary. Chucklefish seems like a solid, responsive developer, and so I don't mind them offering early access. Their goals for the game are clearly stated, the patches for the game have added content as well as bug fixes and what we have seen from the game so far seems competently made.
Of course if you didn't like Terraria, I would say this is clearly not the game for you, given the immense similarities.
Generally early access games are discounted - you pay less because you're getting an incomplete project. The theory of early access is that the community provides feedback on issues, so that the final release isn't a buggy mess but a refined piece of software that has already been tested on various PC setups and the like. Lest we forget that Minecraft was available for purchase years before it's actual release and as a result it was the pinnacle of time-wasting excellence from the get-go. Starbound has included features based on mods created by the community. Kerbal Space Program would never be as good as it is now without that essential user testing.
Of course, not every game and developer is going to use early access the way it was meant to be, but the same can be said for most gaming fads.
Don't people pay for the Jimquisition? I thought that was the point of the adverts before an episode, and I bet people pay to join Pub Club to get rid of the ads for this show or even for mobile access to the show. Perhaps we are cheated if our time or money is wasted.
I don't personally feel so, as some Jim Sterling is better than none, but perhaps there's an argument there, too.
I digress.
Lightknight said:
Hah, hilarious parody.
I agree fully. I see games that I really like the sound of and wonder, "Wow, how haven't I heard of this yet" and I watch the video and am impressed again. But then when I scroll down and see "Early Access", I immediately realise I've made a mistake and leave the page. I wouldn't pay for early access to a AAA game either.
I'm very similar. I never understood the concept of buying into a Beta, and I don't get Early Access. I do a u-turn the minute I see that sign. Maybe when it's released and maybe even then not at full price, but definitely not before launch. It seems like a bad gamble.
Further, as I turn more to YouTube for video footage of games before I decide if I want them, I appreciate Jim's comment on reviewing as-is more than ever. People should know what they're getting when they buy in, not what they might get if the developer actually bothers.
Incidentally, early access isn't a new thing on Steam. Several games I've seen on sale before EA was a thing would have people warning they weren't finished, but the material on the store page wouldn't say anything of the sort. I guess at least they're marketing it now, allowing you to make an informed decision, but it seems like they're just taking the same shitty QA and now using it as a selling point instead of a flaw.
I don't mind when Early Access when it's used by small devteams who are trying to get more money to work with, that are actually working pretty hard on the product. I got into what was essentially early access for this PC game I've been following for $10. The base game was, I'd say, worth it, and the developer has been toiling away, releasing new versions with new content and bug fixes and what-not. That's fine. The limitedness of the game is reflected in the price. But triple A game developers are already drowning in cash, they should never release an incomplete title. Especially when they routinely charge us full price for it. No. Just no.
*shrugs* It isn't a terrible model on its own if you're looking to learn about the development process and get involved. But for regular consumers, it's a poor business model mostly due to the average consumer being largely ignorant to the development process and the motivations of producers in general.
Still, like every new business model, there will be those seeking to exploit it until enough folks stop letting themselves get so easily suckered (7 Days to Die...I'm astonished at how well that piece of crap has sold, and I really shouldn't be after meeting the brain trusses who supported The War Z).
Early Access is no different.
As with anything, I urge consumers to inform themselves and resist on-spot purchasing (even on sale).
Given its close relationship with the Kickstarter business model, this is even more important for Early Access games.
******
1) Find video coverage and review.
Jim is mostly* correct; look for video coverage of any game you're thinking about purchasing.
Specifically, find sources of footage OTHER than those from the developer or publisher.
I've encountered MANY early Access trailers that are misleading, and a few which are flat-out lies. Trailers also gloss over a lot of existing problems. (One example that springs to mind: StarForge. It's infamous for this on Steam, as it was one of the very first Early Access titles offered)
Take heed: Video footage isn't foolproof for all games, but they go a long way towards avoiding Bait-and-Switch or "Barely Enough" schemes that seem to becoming more popular with the Early Access model.
2) Learn who the developers are and how they operate.
Put simply: Creator intent and interest is paramount with Early Access games.
An overwhelming majority of these games are produced by indie developers and because of this, most of them are complete unknowns to the market (compared to AAA publishers, who are pretty well known and consistent in their business models).
When researching an Early Access game, note the developer's behavior where possible:
How often do they post updates (both patching the game and addressing the public)?
What sorts of feedback do they provide: Are they openly hostile towards criticism, do they easily cave to pressure from their fanbase?
Or (most importantly) are they suspiciously silent and hide their real names from the public?
Now, nobody has to be a social daisy to enter this business, but
By asking the public to back your game in an unfinished state, you are asking for more trust from said public (and hopefully a bit of understanding). Expect constant criticism, expect tough questions, expect to be henpecked about release dates and content.
Because hyperbole and obvious trolling aside, all of these are perfectly natural responses to the skepticism you raised by going Early Access.
Because as a consumer, if it appears that you do not want to (or cannot) deal with that extra burden, I am not backing you and I will discourage anyone from doing so should the topic arise.
Do not snap back at your fanbase when they point this out either; indies live and die on the buzz of their games and their reputation.
If nothing else, know how the Internet Hate Machine works.
Know that non-specific hate is typical of the internet and is easily ignored. (like popularity backlash)
But the moment you give someone a specific and quotable reason to hate you, it's going to spread like wildfire. So do yourself a favor and do not snap back at your whiny, "entitled" fanbase, tempting as it sounds. If you're indie, they are your #1 source of advertising and thus, #1 source of reaching new customers.
3) Get a Feel for the general user reception
Put on your waders and get ready to slog through the shitpit that are comment boards and user reviews. But corroborating what you've learned from steps 1) and 2) is important. Learn to separate chaff statements and trolling from reality and please, don't just read the positive or negative reviews; read both and take note of the reader's stance. More informed reviews understand their opinion isn't absolute but will offer clear and more specific examples to support their reasoning.
Trolls will use misinformation, gloss over details while substituting rage and hyperbole.
Finally, look for consistency in reception. Is there a specific problem EVERYONE complains about that hasn't been addressed or isn't going to be addressed? Look for dealbreakers, especially if you're running an older Operating System or Hardware (a lot of Early Access Games are poorly optimized).
******
None of this is particularly difficult to do either; If you can afford the time to play most games on Early Access, you can certainly afford the time to do your research.
This has saved me a lot of grief; mostly from promising looking games that in truth, produced much less than they offered.
I have had more positive experiences with my Early Access than negatives, but only because I exercise caution.
[sub](*It's not fair to hold a game that openly claims is unfinished to the same expectations and standards as a game being pitched as a full release.) [/sub]
Im fine with early access given the following 2 things are followed.
1. It must be clearly advertised that this is not the finished product.
2. The product must be treated as a pre-order until it is officially released, as such it can be canceled.
I've never really been bothered about early access as seen on Steam. So long as a potential buyer is warned that the game is indeed an alpha, isn't finished, has ongoing development and subject to many potential changes, then fair play to anyone who wants to buy. They can't say they've been tricked into buying something they thought was a finished product, the warnings are in place. When they aren't in place sufficiently, then the problems arise.
Here's a note from the developers of the DayZ Standalone on DayZ's early access page:
DayZ Early Access is your chance to experience DayZ as it evolves throughout its development process. Be aware that our Early Access offer is a representation of our core pillars, and the framework we have created around them. It is a work in progress and therefore contains a variety of bugs. We strongly advise you not to buy and play the game at this stage unless you clearly understand what Early Access means and are interested in participating in the ongoing development cycle.
That is at the top of the page before the user reads anything else.
A further warning in the About The Game section further down:
WARNING: THIS GAME IS EARLY ACCESS ALPHA. PLEASE DO NOT PURCHASE IT UNLESS YOU WANT TO ACTIVELY SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF THE GAME AND ARE PREPARED TO HANDLE WITH SERIOUS ISSUES AND POSSIBLE INTERRUPTIONS OF GAME FUNCTIONING.
So long as these kinds of warnings are there (I think they need to be mandatory, and highly visible), then I don't see a problem. The user is clearly told what they are buying into. They then have the opportunity to make the purchase, or not and wait til the finished product. I agree there needs to be a baseline level of "completeness" to an alpha game, so developers can't take the piss with what they fling onto Early Access. But, handled responsibly, I don't see the problem with Early Access as a concept.
Now, on a £60 "finished" game like Battlefield 4, that's different. When you're getting rubber banded around the map on a decent internet connection to a server in your country, then there's something seriously not right.
Another issue I see is I'm not sure why developers are so excited to get people buying into their alphas and betas. Ask most developers if they'd want players playing alpha builds and they go wide-eyed.
First impressions are everything. If the first impression is a buggy mess, you're damaging your game's future potential! Sure the person who spent money on your early access might keep playing it to justify their purchase, but how many people are they going to recommend the game to others later EVEN if it ends up being good? They've already had their experience partially soured.
Is anybody else not getting Jim's video when they click on it? For me it's just a weird clip montage of a bunch of Escapist shows, most of which bug me.
the only time there should be paid early access is when a game would not get funded any other way.
when money is being handed over certain standards should have to be held.
and the release now patch later attitude makes me long for days before consoles had internet connections.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
