Steam Early Access' new policy change: Game gets ditched? Tough shit.

[MeTalHeD]

And this is the reason I don't buy games in Early Access, it's a gamble I'm not willing to take. Now there is even less accountability on the part of devs and Valve.

There are some I like the look of, but I won't buy them unless they are finished. The only problem with that is it doesn't seem like those games will be because there is no incentive to finish them. Not to mention there is no guarantee when the game is "finished" you will get what you were promised anyway.

I hope enough people see this and decide it's not the worth the risk. That way maybe something will change...but I doubt it.

I understand the motivation for Steam to allow developers the option of letting people play their Early Access stuff...but you're right. It is a gamble. Something people shouldn't be taking unless they are fully aware of what they're getting into.

Is it fair when gamers criticise the early access stuff? It isn't finished. However, by allowing people to play it, it gives people something to review, and review they will. Secondly, even unfinished games can still be good...or at least the bits available can be good. Therefore there's nothing stopping developers from making a good game regardless.

What I don't get is why Steam doesn't allow a user cap for Early Access games. For example, if a new developer comes on board and makes a game and allows Early Access, set the cap to 10, 20 or 100 until they've finished a section of the game. Many games are divided into chapters or levels, so it wouldn't be impossible to track their progress. When they finish, say, 25% of the game, Steam allows more gamers to try it out.

This will keep 50 000 people from buying into the game at $100 each, which scores the developer (and Steam) $5 million for something that isn't finished. They've essentially made profit without finishing their work. They have no motivation to complete the game other than to hope it gets another 100 000 or so people to buy it.

I know, I am hoping Steam and devs would want a cap on how much money they're making, but come on. Do it for the consumer, please Steam? Do it for a good track record. When a developer who has finished their game decides on the next Early Access release, you could raise the cap as a sign of goodwill and that they've proven themselves.

It would also help if developers provided a clear plan for their game while developing. That way when people buy the game, they know what to expect and roughly when to expect it by. Developers can tell you when their game will be released, so is it out of the question to know when they're going to upload improvements or additions? (And what they'll be?)Right now, everything can grind to a halt and gamers would be left with something no one can use. It's like being stood up on a date, but to be happy when the waiter gets the order right. Or paying for a car while it's being completed only to get half of it but to be happy when the radio works. Imagine having to tow it in every other month for an added part and going away disappointed because they still haven't got the bitchin' rims you've been waiting for.

Cut us SOME slack, please Steam. A few rules here and there would be good for everyone.

 

[StriderShinryu]

3. The Dev only receiving half of the value of the sale until the game leaves early access so if the game dies in early access a partial refund can be given.

I think this is a good idea, though maybe a total price cap for Early Access games would also be a good idea.

As said, buying an Early Access game is definitely something that's on the purchaser. They should know by this point that they are buying into something that isn't and may never be completed. That said, however, there do need to be restrictions put in place such that while Early Access can be a release and testing model for developers to use it's not somewhere they really want to stay longer than necessary.

I would propose that, in addition to the above, there is also a limitation on how much promotion Early Access titles can receive. I would say that Early Access games should never be given space on the Steam front page, can't be included in Steam sales and are not listed on any of the "Top Sellers" listings. Let developers use Steam Early Access to reach a larger potential number of players but don't let them use Steam to promote their games.

 

[gigastar]

So basically, dont buy Early Access.

If people were doing that in the first place then there wouldnt be a problem.

 

[Zontar]

I don't understand why people buy into Early Access for this very reason, among others. I'd rather feel secure in the knowledge that I'm buying a (more or less) final product.

Pretty much this.

The only logical reason to buy any Early Access game is under the assumption that if the game stopped being updated and was fully released now, would it be worth the price?

The answer to that question is the answer to "should I buy it?", it's as simple at that. It's why Planetary Annihilators being a financial success baffles me or how DayZ being the top selling game at full price during the last Winder Sale makes me understand why some people think that a sizable majority of the human race is of below average intellect.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wasn't this already their policy for Early Access?

Isn't this their go-to policy anyway?

Maybe now people will stop buying unfinished games on the promise of up...Who am I kidding, people will do the same and then complain how unfair it is.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't understand why people buy into Early Access for this very reason, among others. I'd rather feel secure in the knowledge that I'm buying a (more or less) final product.

If only you even got that. Being published on Steam is no guarantee you're publishing a remotely finished product.

 

[The Random Critic]

All I hope now is that the company that made Kenshi can finish Kenshi...

You did agree to pay for the beta after all, so it's fair, but still

At least they tell you right up front that their product/ideas aren't finished, unlike EA.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Things like Kickstarter and Early access were never guaranteed to have their intended products released. Both are essentially "on good faith". Why people aren't getting this is beyond me.

If you want to support a Kickstarter or an early access game, do your research. The only games I've contributed to on Kickstarter were games that either

A) Were far enough along to have a working alpha of the game and only required funding to finish it.

B) Came from people with reputable backgrounds, like Shadowrun and Wasteland 2.

If you just throw your money at something that looks cool, without any research of pedigree behind the project itself, you have to expect disappointment sometime.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Wasn't this obvious?
Seriously does this even need saying? They can 'finish' it whenever they want, if people are happy with it in the Early Access state then the devs can just go "GOOD ENOUGH" and declare it finished. I'm not surprised at all, in fact I thought this was a given.

+1, as the cool kids say. I always thought it was pretty given that buying early access games was a chance to buy the game "as is", with only a vague promise that it might one day be a better product. It is the first law of investment: "Always be prepared that you will not see a return on your money".

Perhaps, though I think that this logic will mix badly with the "Early Access is a blanket armor against criticism" crowd that you find in every EA game. I mean, if there's a chance that you'll end up with the product "as is", does that mean that when reviewing them we have to treat them as such? Or do we have to have two seperate scores for these games? (e.g. a "as-is" score and a "potential" score, the latter being when, at the very least, the more obvious bugs are ironed out)?

Most reviewers who do a review of an early access game very clearly state that they are reviewing it in its current state, indicated by the date of review or the name of the build, something like "Indie Game Build 0.22a") , and not what it might potentially become. Later they might revise that review for the release version, or they might not. If you want a review of the game in its current state, look for a recent review. Most reviews will probably appear whenever the developers deem to finalize a "release build" although this decision is more or less arbitrary and many games continue to receive updates even after release.

Personally, I fall on the "tough luck" end of this argument. Steam has long been transitioning from curated store to open market, early access is just another part of that. And if you're not willing to take the risk associated with early access, just don't buy it. I know I don't. It's not as if I'm obligated to support every indie developer, they'll get my money when they've made a product worth that money.

So basically, there are 3 times when you should, in my opinion, spend money on an early access game:

1. You think the game is, in its current state, worth the price
2. You wish to support the developers, whether the game is ever completed or not
3. You are willing to take the risk that you will never receive the product that you imagine this game will eventually turn into

Otherwise, you got burnt, and have no right to take an indignant attitude with Steam, as every early access game is very clearly labeled as such. If you're gonna get pissy, do so with the developers on the grounds of their incompetence, but even then, accept that you shouldn't take a risk if you won't accept a negative outcome.

yupp this.

really, if you are in THAT much of a hurry to play an early access game, you are forfeiting your money at that point. Kerbal space program I knew FULL well what I was getting into when I purchased it, and not a single ounce of disappointment in it. That's not to say anyone/everyone should go out and buy it, I just had the opportunity to support the developer midway in case they needed some extra dough and wanted some more exposure.

All this being said, I would hope valve has some sort of process to put some devs on a "blacklist" of some sort that are extra crummy (towns developer comes to mind, that is making towns 2 which will probably be the same with a couple of things tacked on for polish) or tags them to previous projects that were bombs or were left in the dust so someone who comes to the game on a store page can see "oh look, this developer was extra douchey towards their customers in the last project, fuck that."

(not necessary, but wouldn't be bad to be a bit more user friendly)

 

[Keoul]

Missing the point. Monsters and Munitions (http://store.steampowered.com/app/256440/) was ditched by the developers. It was never declared finished or taken out of Early Access. It is no longer able to be purchased, however noone who has bought it has gotten refunds.

I wouldn't say so, that is just one of the risks of jumping on the bandwagon of Early Access games, It's like paying your way into beta access. I mean come on it's like purchasing a regular game, you get a game as is and the devs slowly add more content, this is every single game that connects to the internet. Also, if the game was ditched by the developers and they said so then I might understand, however you can't just assume they bailed out on you, did you notice their twitter hasn't posted since February? Has it occurred to you that something has happened out of their control to cause them to stop updating? Maybe a fire where they worked or a death in the team?

I doubt anyone would get refunds or even demand refunds since almost all the reviews are positive and it's very clear people are happy with it in the state it is now and simply hope for updates to make it better.

 

[Racecarlock]

And yet EVERY TIME a game doesn't sell as much as a dev thought it would, they all go "Y U NO BUY MY GAME? I WURKED HURD!".

Maybe this is why. We're essentially putting money into a slot machine or playing roulette with it. We're essentially placing non refundable bets. Because if we don't like it and we want our money back, we're "Entitled, horrible jerks who don't know how hard we the devs worked.".

This is some serious bullshit and I don't know why people keep falling for it. "Buyer beware"? Yeah, ok, now I'm scared of buying your shit and now you need to do better convincing. Good job on that one. If there's one set of people you'd think would want to mitigate buyer beware or get around as much of it as possible, it would be developers.

But nope, if you bought it it's your fault for being stupid and buying something early. Not the dev's fault for censoring negative opinions and flagging youtube vids, oh no, it's all us. And then they sit there and wonder why they're not getting all the cash in the fucking world. This is why. And by the way, yes, you are entitled when you complain like that, developers. We're not the only ones.

 

[Snotnarok]

Valve really doesn't have much responsibility here in my head...It's not preference of platform here it's just they're telling it how it is.

This game is not finished, you are knowingly and willingly buying the game in this unfinished state. To me there's a giant risk there regardless of what someone may try and defend it with: you are buying a game in an unfinished state with any number of things that can go wrong- including douche-baggery.

Valve isn't making the game, they're not publishing it, they are just offering a platform and a means to sell it.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Whoa, people buy early access games and feel they are owned more than what is currently in there?

I must be an oddball, cause I don't look at the price and think 'this is totally gonna be worth that much one day', I look at the price and think 'is this game worth this much?(as in, right now)'.

If the answer is no then it's very simple, don't buy it. They should price the game at what it's worth, not what it might be worth some time later. When it has more content or is finally worth more, THEN they can increase the price, but until then it's kinda foolish to buy something you don't think is worth it in the *hope* that might change later.

If they update and add to the game, well that's cool, you bought something and now it's value is going up, you got an 'early adopter discount' for supporting them back when their game *wasn't* worth as much, and allowing them to continue as such.

If NOT though; You bought the early game, you got the early game, there isn't really grounds for demanding a refund unless they outright stripped the game of content it use to have; there is however certainly grounds to judge value based on what is presented before you and buy/not buy accordingly.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't understand why people buy into Early Access for this very reason, among others. I'd rather feel secure in the knowledge that I'm buying a (more or less) final product.

If only you even got that. Being published on Steam is no guarantee you're publishing a remotely finished product.

As evidenced by the recent Air Control fiasco, yeah. Still it's better than buying into a knowingly unfinished game though, not knowing if it'll ever be finished.

 

[Something Amyss]

As evidenced by the recent Air Control fiasco, yeah. Still it's better than buying into a knowingly unfinished game though, not knowing if it'll ever be finished.

There have been more than a few. But you're right, I like my odds better without Early Access.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

So basically, dont buy Early Access.

If people were doing that in the first place then there wouldnt be a problem.

well its not like IN THEORY is bad, hell overall i think early access has done more good than harm, rust, DayZ, KSP, Starbound, etc

but there must be some accountability from the developer, valve should tip the balance a bit more in favor of the customer, the early access program already provides many benefits to the dev, provide some for the customers as well, id say the most clean and effective way would be some sort of guaranteed refund X time after your purchase (this period should be preferably long so the customer can make up his/her mind), but im willing to listen to any other solution valve might propose, they are good at comming up with solutions that generally satisfy most people

 

[Grimh]

How much you wanna bet one of the reasons for Early Access being a thing is so Valve wouldn't have to deal with accusations of selling blatantly unfinished games in their store (which they still do anyway).
However these games are marked as unfinished, you are buying into an early access to the game are entitled to all future updates they release up to the final release build, you're not pre-ordering the final product and get early access as a sweet bonus.
And yet, strangely, that is how Valve seemingly make them out to be by featuring them on the front page like they're products fit for sale when they're clearly not. Of course people get conflicting impressions of the whole thing.

 

[Something Amyss]

How much you wanna bet one of the reasons for Early Access being a thing is so Valve wouldn't have to deal with accusations of selling blatantly unfinished games in their store (which they still do anyway).

That's based on the assumption that Valve gives a damn, which I can't believe.

 

[Loop Stricken]

I really do think Early Access should be treated as a preorder, that could actually deter some bad indie devs from making a game on there then just abandoning it, and with some curating of the store they could force unfinished products into EA. But that wont happen because Valve is taking a step back at the moment.

i read that a few days ago, its bullshit, and honestly, very anti-customer in my opinion, early access desperately need some form of developer accountability, if the dev isnt going to finish his game, ok, i should have a refund atleast

Gods forbid people should be responsible for their own actions and purchasing decisions!

When it comes to Early Access and anything similar, the moment you put your metaphorical money on the table, you should not expect anything more than what's presented. Not one of us can tell the future (and if they can, they're keeping schtum), nobody knows if the one guy making this game is going to get sick, run over, go bankrupt, whatever.
You should only buy into Early Access if you're willing to accept what's already been done, or you want to fund the developer in hope of further progress.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

I really do think Early Access should be treated as a preorder, that could actually deter some bad indie devs from making a game on there then just abandoning it, and with some curating of the store they could force unfinished products into EA. But that wont happen because Valve is taking a step back at the moment.

i read that a few days ago, its bullshit, and honestly, very anti-customer in my opinion, early access desperately need some form of developer accountability, if the dev isnt going to finish his game, ok, i should have a refund atleast

Gods forbid people should be responsible for their own actions and purchasing decisions!

When it comes to Early Access and anything similar, the moment you put your metaphorical money on the table, you should not expect anything more than what's presented. Not one of us can tell the future (and if they can, they're keeping schtum), nobody knows if the one guy making this game is going to get sick, run over, go bankrupt, whatever.
You should only buy into Early Access if you're willing to accept what's already been done, or you want to fund the developer in hope of further progress.

and developers can be irresponsible with their games all they want?

im sorry but early access already gives way too many perks to devs, there must be some balance, and experience tells me Valve USUALLY tries to find this balance, comming up with solutions that generally make everyone happy, here, the dev is basically the only one laughing all the way to the bank, free to promise the world and deliver nothing