Why not go Open Beta/Demo before Early Access?

[Frindis]

Some games go straight to Early Access after having done closed beta and I often wonder why. A lot of those games suffer from major server issues because of the vast amount of people trying to play, not to mention other unpolished aspects of game mechanics that make the game near unplayable. Then the community manager or whoever is making news in twitter feeds apologizes and tries to calm things down, often explaining they were overwhelmed by the number of players taking an interest in the game.

But why do they not release a demo first or take the game into an open beta? Would not that at least give the company some idea of the popularity and server capacity? Would it not be better than just jumping in headfirst and risking everything?

I'm very interested to hear what you all feel about this and perhaps you have some idea as to why it is like this. My best thought is that this is often based on a bad marketing strategy and most likely something the developers themselves could not do anything about.

 

[Pifanjr]

I assume the games that go to Early Access are mostly the ones that are somewhat desperate for money. Although at some point it just becomes the new normal to release unfinished games as Early Access of course.

I've personally decided not to play Early Access games. Even besides the fact that I don't have enough time to play all the games I already own, I've seen too many examples of broken Early Access games for it to be worth the gamble.
And even if the early access is fun, video games can only hold my attention for so long and I'd rather experience the final product than getting too bored during the early access to properly enjoy the game when(/if) it finally releases.

 

[Frindis]

@Pifanjr Good points. I do believe that a game would prosper more in early access (EA from now) if they communicated as much as they could with the player base before releasing it to EA. I want to help out and back games that I have faith in, but at times that is pretty hard to do when some just blatantly ignore us and push for EA. Is it being desperate for money or could it also be naivety/pressure from investors/shareholders? Perhaps a little of both.

 

[Pifanjr]

@Pifanjr Good points. I do believe that a game would prosper more in early access (EA from now) if they communicated as much as they could with the player base before releasing it to EA. I want to help out and back games that I have faith in, but at times that is pretty hard to do when some just blatantly ignore us and push for EA. Is it being desperate for money or could it also be naivety/pressure from investors/shareholders? Perhaps a little of both.

Oh yeah, I can definitely see investors and shareholders pushing for an early access release to get a quicker return on their investment.

 

[Dan]

Because a demo and an open beta come at a totally different part of the development cycle (closer to release), than Early Access (which is a game still in development). A demo should always be a slice of the completed game, to y'know, demonstrate the game. An open beta should just be a bug hunt (although nowadays, an open beta is a hype demo)

People just need to understand that with Early Access, you are funding a game that is in development, a game that may not have been possible to create without this support, and a game that might not ever see the light of day as a completed product with the initial vision.

 

[Frindis]

@Dan I still don't understand why some call it closed beta then and go straight to Early Access. From what I remember from other games, after different closed betas you get to play an open beta before release. About the demo: Why not make a demo of the game even if uncompleted, would it not at least help a little on the way to prevent major server issues? Just as a way to test things out before going Early Access. For example: If a game going to Early Access has three acts, then maybe make a demo with just one act and really test out that act with thousands of people online.

 

[Pifanjr]

Apparently Early Access is also called Paid Alpha sometimes.

 

[Dan]

Beta should never come before Early Access. Closed and/or open beta should be the step taken near the end of Early Access, just before full release.

A demo shouldn't be used as a way to gain server stability, it just wouldn't work. Too many people just don't play demos, or people play them at totally different times because they know the demo is not going anywhere. A timed beta (where the servers are only accessible for a short time) is the best way to check server stability, as everyone will be connecting at the same time to try and simulate as close to a 'normal' release day usage they can.

 

[Zloth]

Then the community manager or whoever is making news in twitter feeds apologizes and tries to calm things down, often explaining they were overwhelmed by the number of players taking an interest in the game.

And the community manager could have written that a year earlier - or just copied one from Everquest or Asheron's Call from back when they released. At this point, I really can't believe the devs are in any way surprised. If they were surprised even back in 2005, I would have (and actually probably did) asked them if they had ever heard of MMOs before doing development on their game! You just can't miss the fact that nearly every online game that's released has been "overwhelmed by the unexpected response."

Since the devs/publishers aren't very forthcoming, I've made up my own theory: they just don't want to get the server power needed to support that many gamers because they know that, within about a month, player counts won't get anywhere near the levels they are at in the opening weeks. Servers are NOT cheap! Providing five times the number that's going to be needed after the initial crunch doesn't sound like a great idea to me unless you've got another game that's going to open up a couple of months later that could use the servers. And another game a couple of months after that.

 

[Frindis]

Beta should never come before Early Access. Closed and/or open beta should be the step taken near the end of Early Access, just before a full release.

I completely agree and it is unfortunate that not all game companies look at it in that way. Take Echtra Inc and it's Torchlight 3 as the latest example. They went straight from closed beta into early access and currently receiving a bad review because of unstable servers and just overall bad experience.

Since the devs/publishers aren't very forthcoming, I've made up my own theory: they just don't want to get the server power needed to support that many gamers because they know that, within about a month, player counts won't get anywhere near the levels they are at in the opening weeks. Servers are NOT cheap!

I do feel the developers for the most of times are trying to be forthcoming, I mean, they are the ones doing the hard labor and take pride in their work. Publishers/investors, on the other hand, are those who write the rules and at times those are not in favor of either developers or consumers. I know I am generalizing a bit here, but there is a reason why people like Jim Sterling/Angry Joe can spend thousands of hours complaining about said issues. If I were a developer I would at least try my absolute best not to go with ANY companies known for treating employees and consumers like dirt.

 

[Inspireless Llama]

Am I wrong by thinking that Early Acces is playing part of an unfinished game while a beta (no matter wether it's open or closed) is a finished game that still needs bugfixing?

It's interesting though because even though I think Early Acces is getting a bad name now because companies seem to be abusing it; some early acces games (eg unfinished) are better playable than games that officially came out of beta and got fully released.

When I played Prison Architect and Parkitect in early acces they both were fully playable, they were just lacking an lot of content. Not even as that the options were very limited but compared to how much content there was when I played it EA versus now, there was alot of content added.

 

[Berious]

I think it's a cost/benefit thing. Demos take away dev time from the main project, while EA means money now. I think EA is getting a bad name though. Know I'm getting a bit jaded with the practice. If I see a new EA game I'll usually wait to see how much traction it gets and how responsive the developers are.

I've seen (and paid for) too many promising projects that were all but abandoned. It's not all bad though, I bought Battle Brothers day 1, Factorio before it was on Steam, Kerbal Space Program really early . Haven't regretted those one bit - but it's hit and miss for sure.

Personally I'm really pleased to see demos make a comeback - bought Desperadoes 3 on the strength of it's demo. If it was EA I would have waited. Who wants to play a half finished story driven game? You'll be sick of it by the time 1.0 comes out.

 

[Pifanjr]

Am I wrong by thinking that Early Acces is playing part of an unfinished game while a beta (no matter wether it's open or closed) is a finished game that still needs bugfixing?

It's interesting though because even though I think Early Acces is getting a bad name now because companies seem to be abusing it; some early acces games (eg unfinished) are better playable than games that officially came out of beta and got fully released.

When I played Prison Architect and Parkitect in early acces they both were fully playable, they were just lacking an lot of content. Not even as that the options were very limited but compared to how much content there was when I played it EA versus now, there was alot of content added.

EA is also known as 'paid alpha' and alpha is a playable but incomplete version of the game. Beta is a feature complete version of the game that hasn't been fully tested/optimized yet.

So no, you're not wrong.