Poll: Early Access Brutality: Right or wrong?

[Buckshaft]

Recently, I've been seeing a storm being kicked up about the whole wave of early access games coming out, in fact, you can barely call it a wave anymore, it's a tsunami. Boot up steam and a large amount of the games on the "Best Selling" List have the early access tag on them. The main thing I'd like to discuss is the process of criticising and reviewing these early access games.

I recently watched a Super Bunnyhop video on this, and I felt it raised some good points and made a convincing argument that these games should be reviewed more seriously and to a higher standard, but I'd like to go one step further.

I know it sounds brutal and almost unfair, But I think Early Access games, that is to say, games that aren't considered to be in a "1.0" State by their creators, should be judged by the same standards as "complete" products. Because anything that a company deems fit to stand on its own as a game, and to be sold for a sum of money (Even if that sum is lower than a full retail product) should be held the same standards, if not even harsher ones than a game sold on a shelf. Because when paying for these, you aren't buying a complete game. You're buying an unfinished game in the hopes that it'll get better. People need to know which games are worth that risk of buying, because they don't want to end up wasting their money.

I'm aware that games are released under early access for a multitude of reasons. Maybe the creators need money to fund the development to a point where they consider the game complete. Maybe they want to get a fanbase hooked and spread word of mouth. Maybe, just maybe, they genuinely want the fans to have a working example of what they're making and have a game that can already stand on it's own. The most popular games to get the formula down are the ones like Minecraft and Kerbal Space Program, which, yes, have improved over time, but in the beginning there was a solid product to build off of.

But the current model of business, where creators seem content to release half a game at about 60% price and say they'll work on it, (And fans are happy to go easy on it) isn't healthy for gaming as a whole, and in my opinion, it's only contributing to Steam's current quality control clusterfuck. The most egregious example I've experienced was 7 Days to Die. I bought it on a whim not long after first only to find that it was horribly broken and buggy, barely running on my machine (Which is fine) and the fact that they looked at it and thought "Yup, that's something we can charge money for" Grates me. I really believe this model can work, but only if it's scrutinised properly

Well, that's my two cents, for what they're worth.

 

[Esotera]

It depends on the quality of the game. As long as the early access game is fun to play and doesn't have any game-breaking bugs, I don't really see the problem. That said, people need to manage their expectations and have a realistic understanding that games take a long time to develop & might never reach their final goal.

The perfect model of early access is Kerbal Space Program in my opinion. The game was fun to play from the start, the developers have been really great at communicating to players, and there's a really active modding community that enhances the game so much. Players can suggest features & give feedback on the unfinished product, and they also get what's effectively a new game with every update. Which is why I have played over 100 hours of this game...

 

[Pink Gregory]

Don't Starve and Prison Architect worked out pretty well for me, but this was on the strength of the developer.

It feels odd to say, but a new developer putting their product on early access (as opposed to, say, Kickstarter) doesn't really convince me of anything, regardless of their potential. Kickstarter et al presents more of an investment in the game's future, whereas Steam seems content to sell it as a playable product.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I don't think that early access games need to be judged or reviewed professionally. It wouldn't be fair to the games to be reviewed professionally because professional reviewers can't be asked to go back and alter their reviews or scores every time an early access game is updated.

As far as how people talk about and criticize the games on forums and the like, early access games should be talked about based on the content that is already available in the game at the time of the purchase, not content that's promised in the future. People shouldn't be buying games based on promises that there will be updates and that the games will get better, since if those promises aren't met buyers have to recourse, so people should only buy these early access games if they're interested in the content available at that exact point in time, and any additional content made available later should be treated as a bonus (like free DLC) in the minds of consumers.

 

[Cerebrawl]

Once you've started charging money, the product is released and should be treated as such. The "early access"/"beta" part becomes merely a warning label, and stops being a shield from scrutiny. It just means you've released an unfinished game.

 

[Buckshaft]

Once you've started charging money, the product is released and should be treated as such. The "early access"/"beta" part becomes merely a warning label, and stops being a shield from scrutiny. It just means you've released an unfinished game.

That's what I was trying to say, but a bit of a brainfart made me put it in unnecessarily convoluted terms. Fair play to you.

 

[Eve Charm]

The rule I'd say go buy, If they are selling the game for any amount of money, on a store front like steam or desura, They deserved to be judged. All any reviewer has to do is they their review is based of version "whatever" And then no matter how many versions it should all be factored in the final score. One of the Major points of early access is so "The Devs can get Feedback on their game" What better feedback is their then a full blown no holds bar review of their game as it stands that they decided to sell to people.

As per steams new TOS on early access Devs don't even have to update their game at all. That early access may very well be the most final product you'll ever get. So you have to review what you have, because you may NEVER have a final product to review.

If you don't want to be judged, Release a free demo to get your feedback and balancing for your game, Or sell it as early alpha access PRIVATELY on your own website.

 

[Dalisclock]

I'm with the others who say that if you're charging people to play a game, expect some amount of scrutiny about it's quality. If nothing else, the game should be PLAYABLE. If it's broken and money changed hands, don't be surprised when your game gets slammed.

And frankly, if you actually want feedback, then you should be welcoming the criticism so you know what to fix in the next release, then fix it and show the dedication to making the game better. Instead of going the opposite route and pulling a "Guise of the Wolf" or "Garry's Incident".

"Early Access" is not a shield from Criticism.

Edit: Should have been Garry's Incident, not Garry's Mod

 

[Smooth Operator]

Once you ask for money people need to know what they get for that, there should always be a side note where further development is promised but at the same time no one is assured that will happen, especially now that Steam washed it's hands of any rule set or consequence for these devs.
So if the devs disappear a month in no one has your back and the only thing that remains is exactly what a proper review said you get, that is why you need to get the full picture when putting down the money.

Especially for devs that charge 2 - 5x their games base price, I want that shit examined with an electron fucking microscope.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

early access games do need the feedback, but they shouldnt be judged as complete games, they are not that

 

[loc978]

I'm with the others who say that if you're charging people to play a game, expect some amount of scrutiny about it's quality. If nothing else, the game should be PLAYABLE. If it's broken and money changed hands, don't be surprised when your game gets slammed.

And frankly, if you actually want feedback, then you should be welcoming the criticism so you know what to fix in the next release, then fix it and show the dedication to making the game better. Instead of going the opposite route and pulling a "Guise of the Wolf" or "Garry's Mod".

"Early Access" is not a shield from Criticism.

I feel this is one of the best metrics to separate early access games using the system as it was intended from scams. If you see a buzzword laden PR campaign in the game's description with little actual information, and the devs aren't responding to criticisms in an open, uncensored forum... probably a scam, or at least very egotistical devs.

Early Access games should absolutely be scrutinized, in some ways more heavily than full releases (update planning, pricing structure, etc), in some ways more lightly (current bugs, etc). As always, the reality of the situation is more complex than a universal standard can account for.

...and I'm pretty sure you didn't mean Garry's Mod up there (Day One: Garry's Incident, maybe? I don't think that used Early Access, just Greenlight. It is a piece of shit, though)... it pre-dates the Early Access system by quite a bit, and it widely regarded as one of the best physics sandboxes out there...

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Judge the FUCK out of them. Have no mercy on developers who propagate this anti-consumer trend of releasing buggy and unfinished games.

StarForge was the last straw for me, incidentally.

 

[Seishisha]

Im sort of on the fence about this subject, while i do believe it to be the consumer's responsibility to know exactly what they are purchasing at the time, i dont think its fair to judge an unfinished game that could litteraly be a different product within a few weeks or months.
There in lies the dilemma its not finished now (and it may never be) but any criticism given could be invalidated later on, how do you fairly give a verdict for somthing that isnt complete, it would be akin to watching half a movie and reviewing the whole thing. Unless the reviewer is prepared to follow the development and update as needed a finalised review is irrelevant during development.

I guess the best solution would be to make it abundantly clear that the review is dated to a specific version of the title, and also clarify that all content in the review is subject to that specifc release and not future proofed for any updates or changes the game may have after the review is published.

A simple warning at the start would probably suffice e.g.

"This review was written during the game's development, all content is subject to change and is not final."

After that the review can be as harsh or forgiving as needed.
Once development is officaly finshed either because the game is feature complete or has been abandoned i feel it would only be fair to revisit the title and review it again.

On a more direct note, anyone planning on buying anything in early access should do research first, check forums and wiki's for previous update information, ask around the community and be one hundred percent certain of the purchase before handing money over, if your buying a product for the potential it has and not as it is right then you should probably just wait untill its finished, i know thats what im doing with several titles undergoing development right now.

 

[Zhukov]

Surely people are free to judge a product by whatever standard they wish.

I really don't understand many of the complaints about Early Access. I mean, for fuck's sake, the game's pages have a great big bloody warning right there. THIS GAME IS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT, IT WILL BE BUGGY AND INCOMPLETE AND SHIT MIGHT GET CHANGED.

If someone forks over their money for that and then turns around and complains about getting a buggy and incomplete game, then I have not the slightest shred of sympathy for them.

If you don't want to play a buggy and incomplete game, and hey, fair enough, then wait for it to be finished.

I have bought early access games. I only bought ones that looked like something I would enjoy playing in their current state. I also looked up gameplay footage from other sources, usually Youtube. And thus, thanks to my not being a (complete) idiot, I am yet to be disappointed.

 

[Alterego-X]

Review games however you see fit, but don't cling too hard to the idea that the "full retail product" as the golden standard is still as much of a meaningful category as decades ago with physical distribution.

In a world with the Internet in it, critics that are playing the Lords of the Paywall are appearing increasingly desperate in trying to justify their existence. This is true for every medium, games are just one example of it.

Peiople are feeling more casually willing to throw money at amateur creators and ad hoc performances, because on the other end of the spectrum they are also more free to access everything, either through piracy, or through the mediums themselves getting more accessible.

Critics can be useful as long as they are amusing performers themselves, or if they help saving us TIME and direct us in the direction of whatever is trending, but no longer as the controllers of what people will look at.

 

[Savagezion]

I recently watched a Super Bunnyhop video on this, and I felt it raised some good points and made a convincing argument that these games should be reviewed more seriously and to a higher standard, [snip]

I agree with this but I don't think reviews are the problem. I think many people out there are just buying into too many Early Access games. I barely have the time to follow 3 so I don't know how someone could follow 20. I don't even comment much on the ones I am following but I try to know what their community knows. I try to follow what the community is asking for loudest. If people are going to 'spam purchase' Early Access, the equal and opposite reaction of the market is to spam games to buy. Then, as it does, the market slowly tests to see what it can get away with.

I ain't saying that everyone should only participate in X Early Access games (lol abbr. EA games), but I think too many people are buying them and and not realizing the stipulations of Early Access. Early Access CAN mean 'may not get finished if enough people don't buy' and usually does mean that to many indies. However much money the game makes tends to be development costs, I would hope, and not considered profit.

This makes Early Access even carry some risk if you are pricing your game low in hopes to get more people to try it. Because they don't make much money for costs and unless your game catches online attention, most interested buy in at minimal cost making your margin for profit small. I don't like the idea of Early Access games going on sale though personally. I would never buy an Early Access on sale as the point is to help the dev get money to make the game you want.

As for the poll, depends on the game.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

Judge the FUCK out of them. Have no mercy on developers who propagate this anti-consumer trend of releasing buggy and unfinished games.

Space Engineers was the last straw for me, incidentally.

Wait, really?

Space Engineers is one the best Early Access games I've seen. It runs just fine on my laptop with zero lag, it has weekly updates with actual progress and new features, a fairly active dev team and already has a roaring multiplayer community!

I'd get it with almost any other game, but Space Engineers is actually a shining example of what Early Access SHOULD be!

 

[Coruptin]

Review games however you see fit, but don't cling too hard to the idea that the "full retail product" as the golden standard is still as much of a meaningful category as decades ago with physical distribution.

In a world with the Internet in it, critics that are playing the Lords of the Paywall are appearing increasingly desperate in trying to justify their existence. This is true for every medium, games are just one example of it.

Peiople are feeling more casually willing to throw money at amateur creators and ad hoc performances, because on the other end of the spectrum they are also more free to access everything, either through piracy, or through the mediums themselves getting more accessible.

Critics can be useful as long as they are amusing performers themselves, or if they help saving us TIME and direct us in the direction of whatever is trending, but no longer as the controllers of what people will look at.

I think this post is about the general mindset you should bring when playing an early access game both average Joe Smith gamer and professional critic alike.

 

[Dalisclock]

...and I'm pretty sure you didn't mean Garry's Mod up there (Day One: Garry's Incident, maybe? I don't think that used Early Access, just Greenlight. It is a piece of shit, though)... it pre-dates the Early Access system by quite a bit, and it widely regarded as one of the best physics sandboxes out there...

Yeah, my bad on the Garry's Mod. I didn't even notice the mistake until I looked at it again this morning.

 

[Alterego-X]

I think this post is about the general mindset you should bring when playing an early access game both average Joe Smith gamer and professional critic alike.

Yeah, that applies to Joe Smith gamer too. Just try to move away from the analogies of what you would expect for your money if it were any other purchase, and in the direction that it is NOT any other purchase.

Some Early Access offers are worse than others, but they are all based around the idea of modern gaming culture being more of a Sharing Economy than a strictly trackable transaction of x goods for y cash, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.