Do you agree with earlier access

[mjs warlord]

I posted something like this on a few steam discussions and devs got them removed ...... what happened to free speech.

We have early access , pre alpha , beta .
It seems to be the in thing now to release unfinished and probably bugged games these days but this never use to happen so why the sudden increase in this type of game release.
Have you ever scrolled through the end credits of a game and seen how many people work on a product and how long it took .
I dont think it expectable for games makers to release what they know is unfinished and maybe faulty AND expect us to suffer god knows how many crashes and then tell them what went wrong. You have to be pretty quick the discover a game has so many bugs in it you want a refund from steam , 2hrs played or 2 weeks owned.
Another thing that rattles me is i have seen some early release games for £50 or £65 for a deluxe version , 2 different versions of the same unfinished is milking the market and just wrong.

In life in general how many things would you refuse to buy if somebody told you it was unfinished but if you wait long enough they will fix it.

 

[Lutfij]

Anything that has me rendered into a guinea pig(for lack of a better term), is something that I'd refuse to be a part of. Early adoption has and always been the double edged sword regardless of what industry you look at.

Sometimes we need to take into account that an unfinished content is put out there to generate hype or even funding from XYZ individuals, though that can also be frowned up by people who are literally on the fence, devoid of loyalty to drive them towards adoption of said unfinished content.

Leaving a project hanging for long periods might weigh badly on a brand or the project in general, which is why some don't want to wait to release the final version.

My 2 cents though

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I don't have a problem with early access, but I think it should be priced accordingly. You should get a good deal for basically being their beta testers. But on the other hand, I don't necessarily believe in regulating it, either. Let the market take care of it. If devs are milking people, and people are willing to pay high prices for something that isn't worth it, it's kind of their own fault. I'm not paying full price for any game that is far from being finished.

 

[Colif]

I played Dorf Romantik in early access, its only looking back after it has been released that I realise how much they added after I last played. It was pretty good game a year ago.

When AAA games come out with bugs and you meant to pay full price for them, I can't really hold small indie teams to different standards.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

The only game I've bought early access was Lego Worlds. I bought it pretty early, and got it pretty cheap. That was when my kids were younger. But it was really cool to get it at a lower price and still get the final product when it was done. And it was kind of excited seeing tons of new features added regularly and to watch the vision come to fruition.

I wouldn't want that experience with a more linear game, though.

 

[mjs warlord]

Whilst i will never be clever enough to write a game my one claim to fame ... if you want to called it that is that i helped an indie guy finish off and debug his end product. The game was called crystal rift in 2015 by an indie guy whose company name is psytec. It is a old style dungeons game where you had to avoid monsters and work around puzzles at the same time , the "crystal" part of the game meant you had to collect certain coloured crystal to unlock different areas and the end goal was to collect 22 idols.

I was hooked on it but the problem was parts of the puzzles were broken and the wrong coloured crystals were placed in the different areas making it impossible to open doors . For about a week i helped him sort out the proper location for the crystals and sent him screen shots of things in the wrong place , i know i was the first person to complete the game because i found a final bug right at the very end and then proceeded to do a complete playthrough and to prove it i sent the ending screenshot.

Despite this , for a long time after users were still posting it was broken and unplayable and not possible to finish , even when i said what i had done the unplayable comments still carried on .

He game me some free game codes as a thank you

 

[Zloth]

The concept is fine by me. Everybody understands what's going on - or at least they should, Steam is good about making it obvious.

It seems to work well for RPGs. Those games only make a smallish part of the RPG available, and the publishers get a lot of good feedback. When the game gets completed, players play the game proper.

I don't understand what the frak is going on with some games, though, where the vast majority of players play the game in the earliest parts of EA. Valheim, for instance, got a HUGE number of players early in EA, but player counts have drifted way down now. I'm sure the game will get a big bump on proper release day, but I'm dubious that it will match the player counts it got in its first month or two.

But, if people want to pay for a game that definitely isn't ready yet, that's their business.

 

[Brian Boru]

what happened to free speech

At discretion of owner on private property—I expect Steam like EA [Early Access]

how many things would you refuse to buy if somebody told you it was unfinished but if you wait long enough they will fix it

Everything. I'm the wrong target for this question tho, since I usually buy games 1-6 years after release.

When AAA games come out with bugs and you meant to pay full price for them, I can't really hold small indie teams to different standards.

Yeah, that's my thought too about EA. Add on the long stream of DLC following on many big titles, and Indies don't have a moral case to answer—at least, no more than the entire industry.

Pricing aside, I'm all in favor of EA. One of the benefits of being a Patient Gamer is that almost all the fixable bugs are gone by the time I start to play. The earlier that bug hunt starts, the better for me and all other players who buy after EA.

I knew a bunch of people online who were part of the Windows Insider program—which anyone can join btw, it's in Windows somewhere. That had over 10 million members 5 years ago—it only started 8 years ago—and is such a success that MS now has Insider teams for a number of other products like Office etc.

There are lots of people who like to help shape products, and more power to 'em I say, they help the rest of us too.

 

[deanwinchester]

Yes, it's a way to solve the bugs.

 

[Pifanjr]

As long as the developers are honest about the state of the game, I'm fine with them selling whatever game they want for whatever price they want.

 

[Ryzengang]

Personally, I don't really understand the negativity surrounding early access. At least on Steam, it is very clear that a title is EA. If you buy an EA title, you have to accept that the product may not get better (or may not develop in the direction you want) or even get properly finished. This isn't obscured from the buyer, so I have no issue with it. Criticizing a game clearly labelled as unfinished for being unfinished seems a little weird to me.

Of course, there are good reasons to not buy EA titles, some of which have been raised in this thread. But there is a difference between not wanting to participate in EA and it being bad.

 

[ZedClampet]

I posted something like this on a few steam discussions and devs got them removed ...... what happened to free speech.

I will explain the exact reason early access exists, but first:

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have to allow all speech in your home. In the same way, developers don't have to allow just anything on their forums.

And the devs didn't get your comments removed. The devs removed them themselves. You think Valve is running around to 50,000 forums doing moderation work? They aren't. They have an AI that checks for racist and other types of banned content, but that's basically all they do unless there is a conflict between players and developers, in which case Valve will step in and try to smooth things over, often times removing player bans in the process.

We have early access , pre alpha , beta .
It seems to be the in thing now to release unfinished and probably bugged games these days but this never use to happen so why the sudden increase in this type of game release.

Back in the days of yore, almost every game had a publisher that paid for the game's development. Publishers were also needed to manufacture floppy disks/CD's/DVD's, package them and sell/distribute these packages to stores all around the world.

Valve changed that last part. You no longer needed to burn your game to storage devices or to have relationships with major retailers. You don't need to design cover art, write manuals, etc. So the possibility to self-publish came into being.

Using a publisher was frequently terrible. You didn't have complete control of the content of your own game. You were under constant pressure to get things done quickly and to launch the game on time. You usually made 20 to 30 percent of the sale price of a game. And, best of all, you frequently lost the rights to your IP. Your publisher could easily say, "Sorry, Battle Butts 2 is going to be made by a different studio. Good luck with your future endeavors."

So self-publishing sounded like a great deal, but then you no longer had anyone who was paying for development, which is very expensive.

That's where early access came in. Get your game started. Let people know it's not in great shape yet, but ask them if they want to support the game's development by buying early and getting a probably a not-so-great partial game which will be continuously updated and give them a chance to help shape the future of the game through feedback.

Gamers who understand this have no problem with early access. Gamers who think they should be given a flawless gem will be outraged.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I knew a bunch of people online who were part of the Windows Insider program—which anyone can join btw, it's in Windows somewhere. That had over 10 million members 5 years ago—it only started 8 years ago—and is such a success that MS now has Insider teams for a number of other products like Office etc.

I was in the Windows Insider program back when Windows 10 was in beta, or maybe a little before that. It was the biggest pain in the backside ever. You had to wait around on huge updates all the time, and it wasn't easy to get out of it without reinstalling Windows. Even after that, I still kept getting their emails forever, and had a hard time getting out of that. It was cool at first, but I didn't like it after a while.

 

[Johnway]

Well... on principle i do, but when it comes to execution? I would be cautious unless they can guarantee that the game will be completed and it will be worth it. too many horror stories of scummy devs and not delivering on their games for me to participate with any confidence. if anything sometimes its just an excuse for a poorly implemented shovelware.

 

[mainer]

The concept is fine by me. Everybody understands what's going on - or at least they should, Steam is good about making it obvious.

It seems to work well for RPGs. Those games only make a smallish part of the RPG available, and the publishers get a lot of good feedback. When the game gets completed, players play the game proper.

Personally, I don't really understand the negativity surrounding early access. At least on Steam, it is very clear that a title is EA. If you buy an EA title, you have to accept that the product may not get better (or may not develop in the direction you want) or even get properly finished. This isn't obscured from the buyer, so I have no issue with it. Criticizing a game clearly labelled as unfinished for being unfinished seems a little weird to me.

These posts pretty much sum up my feelings on Early Access (EA). I think overall it's a good method for developers to get a bit of support and feedback, especially RPGs that can have a lot of variables in conversations & actions, and how any given gamer will play. The risks are plainly stated for people to read.

I follow and wish list several games that sound interesting to me so I can keep track of the progress and check the discussions as well, but I've only actually purchased one EA game and that was Baldur's Gate 3 from Larian. Yeah, it was the full game price, but I don't care; I've been wanting BG3 since the first time I finished BG2. Will it feel like a Baldur's Gate game or a Divinity game? I don't know yet, but it will be an excellent & complex RPG either way. Larian has been wanting to make BG3 for years so there putting all the resources they have to work with into this game.

 

[Zloth]

if anything sometimes its just an excuse for a poorly implemented shovelware.

Ah, that's a good point. Even with the warnings, it opens the way to getting ripped off. The developers make a nice video, a lot of wonderful sounding promises, and an incomplete game they release as early access. People buy it and play it for a while, find lots of issues, but hey - it's beta! When sales start to taper off, the game developers dissolve their company and vanish. They might even be able to do it again under a new company name, depending on how good Steam is at sniffing out such things.

Pre-orders could get scammed that way, too, and the developers wouldn't even need to make a beta game. With the return policy, though, that probably doesn't work as well as it used to work.

 

[Johnway]

Ah, that's a good point. Even with the warnings, it opens the way to getting ripped off. The developers make a nice video, a lot of wonderful sounding promises, and an incomplete game they release as early access. People buy it and play it for a while, find lots of issues, but hey - it's beta! When sales start to taper off, the game developers dissolve their company and vanish. They might even be able to do it again under a new company name, depending on how good Steam is at sniffing out such things.

Pre-orders could get scammed that way, too, and the developers wouldn't even need to make a beta game. With the return policy, though, that probably doesn't work as well as it used to work.

Jim sterling made a killing playing/reporting on steam greenlight and slopes game room's kickscammers has given me a healthy dose of skepticism for all of it. Hell, right from the start it wasn't going to be some sort of golden age of games/devs without some sort of gatekeeping and barriers. Even then it was still far from perfect and too many games of piss poor quality and never finishing there game.