I know how to solve the Early Access problem...

[futurefields]

When a publisher puts it's game up for sale that means they are also putting it up to be reviewed. That pretty much solves the problem imo...

Go ahead, poke holes in my logic!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I believe RPS started mini reviews of early access

 

[BrightCandle]

The review sites have to some extent being doing it, but mostly avoiding giving final scores and judgements. It does also mean they are going to have to review each game at least twice, potentially more when important patches come out that change the games mechanics. Its a lot of additional reviewing work.

The problem goes a little further if you replace early access games with just games. Almost all games receive patches after release, some of them minor but some of them are really important. Its not really fair to treat early access different, after all by saying early access should be reviewed like other games we also have to argue important patches for other games should also be reviewed, or again at the very least the final product after its been sufficiently patched. The reviewers don't do that currently, either with the earlier reviews or the later ones, they choose the moment when the developers say the game is ready and will be purchasable. The key is there are two states, purchasable and declared by the developer as complete. The later being a very blurry distinction on a lot of games.

 

[pontifex]

Here's how you solve it - stop selling early access.

 

[xantub]

Here's how *I* solve it... ignore everything about the game until it's released.

I'm only interested in early access for MMOs, as I can use that time to experiment, make the rookie mistakes, and generally to learn the game before 'the masses' do.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Here's how *I* solve it... ignore everything about the game until it's released.

I'm only interested in early access for MMOs, as I can use that time to experiment, make the rookie mistakes, and generally to learn the game before 'the masses' do.

This

I'll make exceptions for games with renown from developers I'm willing to trust (almost no one), but it's rare. When I buy an early access game I assume it is the way it is, if it gets better that's gravy.

 

[mmntech]

Early access: outsourcing your QA work to the general public because you don't feel like paying anybody. Brought you by the fine folks at Electronic Arts and Ubisoft. Now that's innovation!

 

[futurefields]

It's also for companies who have big ideas and terrible programming skills.

 

[BrightCandle]

Its mostly a strategy used initially by small teams who didn't have the money to complete development. In many ways its Minecraft that made this system work and showed it could be viable.
But when the big companies get it they distort its initial intent.

 

[Anteaus]

I have no problem with earlier access, but there should be an expectation that the full game be released within 6-12 months of starting early access. My problem with early access is that it's allows developers to keep a project going in perpetuity and never actually complete it. The RAH-66 is a good real life example of what happens if you keep paying the bills while not enforcing a stop date. The developer will keep coming of with new ways to spend the money all the while never actually delivering what was originally promised in the first place.

There are a few developers that actually delivered a product that benefitted both themselves and gamers, but those tend to be more the exception than the rule. My take.

 

[greenhawk]

it is a hard call and no matter what path is chosen, there are way to abuse it.

ie: forcing a 12 month max as early access, games will go "offical" well before they are ready.

though my biggest issue with early access is alphas and some beta games. Paying full (or more) for the game that is still in the same level 12 months later sucks (though I just place the game on my wish list to track it now instead). Looking at you Planetary Annihilation and folk tale. Though I can add the non-steam game mech warrior on line to that list as well.

Personally, the best fix is to allow the customer to filter those games out of the steam store, just like it is a option to filter DLC out. They there will be less people being miss lead into buying a game that is a buggy sandbox (at best), then waiting 12+ months for a non-buggy sandbox with a actual story game still "coming soon".

Though for some games, I would also accept the option to sell back the game to steam if the game is in beta for too long. (ie: 5% per month after purchase), so after 12 months, you can have half your money back. The gaming being delivered by steam makes these early access games possible, it also provides the way fix the issues they are causing.

 

[Red Storm]

I would simply prohibit early access games from showing up on any kind of "featured" page on a store. Make them viewable and accessible from one and only one section, titled Early Access. That way the people that don't mind them can go see them, and those who prefer that only finished games show up as featured items will be happy too.

 

[JamesV]

What exactly is the Early Access problem?

I don't see any problem with it. I remember saying, often in my 35 years of gaming, that I'd take games early even if they were full of bugs.

Maybe the problem is people expecting a full perfectly working game, even though Early Access games clearly state they are not? This is my bet as to why people complain about them.

 

[mmntech]

Extra Credits did a video on the problems with Early Access from a developer's perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmLz00L6CmY&list=UUCODtTcd5M1JavPCOr_Uydg

 

[Red Storm]

What exactly is the Early Access problem?

I don't see any problem with it. I remember saying, often in my 35 years of gaming, that I'd take games early even if they were full of bugs.

Maybe the problem is people expecting a full perfectly working game, even though Early Access games clearly state they are not? This is my bet as to why people complain about them.

No they do not clearly state it, until you actually get to the game's store page (talking about Steam here). They are advertised like regular games and they shouldn't be. They should only be in the Early Access section. Too many times I see something that looks interesting and then after looking into it I see that it's Early Access. If I had known I wouldn't have looked at it.

 

[Raduque]

I'm in the group that has no desire to even look at Early Access games. They shouldn't be featured titles, and shouldn't even be in the general games lists at all.

You know, I remember years ago, people bitching about buying unfinished games and the "release now patch later" trend. In my opinion, Early Access is just "release now patch later" taken to the next step. An for some reason, people are buying into it! That's the part I don't understand! Devs are going "Hey, buy this unfinished, buggy, possibly unplayable game, and maybe I'll finish it later" and people are going "HAY TAKE MY MONEY!"

I just don't understand it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The real easy solution:

Don't pay for it unless you're willing to accept every possible outcome. Just like with KickStarter.

Some KS projects fail, some succeed. Some Early Access games will not turn out well, some will.

If you want safety, don't pre-order, early access or KS any game. Learn patience and self-control.

I funded Shadowrun Returns and Divinity via KS and am happy with the results. I'll probably be happy with Wasteland 2 as well -- I'm ignoring the beta / access periods since I want to play it after the impatient people test it for me

I don't mind Early Access giving developers another funding source. For projects that succeed it can allow them to make a better game. If they fail, it costs me nothing since I didn't pre-buy it unless it was a KS project I backed. In that case I already decided to gamble on the developers so that the game could exist at all.

 

[thedosbox]

Early access: outsourcing your QA work to the general public

Not sure why you'd consider this a problem. It's not like existing QA processes have caught significant issues in the past. And as long as the "early access" people go in with their eyes open, what's the harm? At least it'll benefit the rest of us.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Not sure why you'd consider this a problem. It's not like existing QA processes have caught significant issues in the past. And as long as the "early access" people go in with their eyes open, what's the harm? At least it'll benefit the rest of us.

And they are people who want the game to be good, not just some minimum wage QA guy at Ubisoft trying to earn enough for his ramen with a six of Bud to dull the pain.

 

[Markbnj]

I'm in the group that has no desire to even look at Early Access games. They shouldn't be featured titles, and shouldn't even be in the general games lists at all.

If they took early access titles off the Steam Store, what would be left?

 

[DigDog]

Early access: outsourcing your QA work to the general public

This is true, but also the users get to shape the game in a way which would not happen with regular QA - i've been a part of games QA, and in the industry it's forbidden to give any kind of input into gameplay, writing, direction ..

 

[mmntech]

This is true, but also the users get to shape the game in a way which would not happen with regular QA - i've been a part of games QA, and in the industry it's forbidden to give any kind of input into gameplay, writing, direction ..

I've always found that whole attitude hilarious. "Ooo, criticize me and I'll have you blacklisted." Months later the studio is closing because the game bombed. Everyone's out of a job, but at least the developer still has his pride.

That's why you have to be cheeky sometimes, and anonymously tip off management. Weren't for people being cheeky, classic Sonic would have been a Japanese punk rocker with a human girlfriend. So essentially every bad Sonic game that came out in the 2000s.

Anyway, there certainly are risks having the public QA your game. The video touches on a few of them. Part of the problem is there's standard for Early Access games. Some titles are in the late beta stages and near complete. Others are thrown up there as early alpha builds.

If you release a game in the alpha stage, one that's still barely functional, it will sour the consumer's view on it. Yes, there is a certain understanding or risk for the buyer, but you don't want them to leave feeling ripped off either. Remember that gamers are not professional testers. That can work against you massively in the long run. "Oh yeah, I played it. Wasn't that great". Which stalls hype for your game and may prevent people from wanting to revisit it later on in the development and retail stages.

Do your base funding via crowd sourcing then reserve early access to the final beta push. This prevents hype from dying off too early, or treating gamers to something that's too buggy. Furthermore, Early Access games should not be listed on Steam's feature page.

 

[MeldarthX]

I've always found that whole attitude hilarious. "Ooo, criticize me and I'll have you blacklisted." Months later the studio is closing because the game bombed. Everyone's out of a job, but at least the developer still has his pride.

That's why you have to be cheeky sometimes, and anonymously tip off management. Weren't for people being cheeky, classic Sonic would have been a Japanese punk rocker with a human girlfriend. So essentially every bad Sonic game that came out in the 2000s.

Anyway, there certainly are risks having the public QA your game. The video touches on a few of them. Part of the problem is there's standard for Early Access games. Some titles are in the late beta stages and near complete. Others are thrown up there as early alpha builds.

If you release a game in the alpha stage, one that's still barely functional, it will sour the consumer's view on it. Yes, there is a certain understanding or risk for the buyer, but you don't want them to leave feeling ripped off either. Remember that gamers are not professional testers. That can work against you massively in the long run. "Oh yeah, I played it. Wasn't that great". Which stalls hype for your game and may prevent people from wanting to revisit it later on in the development and retail stages.

Do your base funding via crowd sourcing then reserve early access to the final beta push. This prevents hype from dying off too early, or treating gamers to something that's too buggy. Furthermore, Early Access games should not be listed on Steam's feature page.

punk rock sonic made his way back you know as shadow

 

[Anteaus]

If they took early access titles off the Steam Store, what would be left?

No one is saying ban Early Access titles from the Steam Store. What we are saying is don't market them along-side release titles as if they are equivilent. If a particular gamer wants to browse through early-release titles and choose to patronize them I'm completely on-board. I just think its unfair to put new release titles on the same stage with early build, feature incomplete titles. I'm specifically talking about the Features Titles section where Steam actively pushes these games.

The only problem with doing it is that Valve is taking money from these developers to market them in these ways, so there is no real disincentive. Thus, it's doubtful that Valve would take any of our suggestions seroiusly, even if we do have a point. Money speaks.

 

[JamesV]

No they do not clearly state it, until you actually get to the game's store page (talking about Steam here). They are advertised like regular games and they shouldn't be. They should only be in the Early Access section. Too many times I see something that looks interesting and then after looking into it I see that it's Early Access. If I had known I wouldn't have looked at it.

Honestly, that is some serious nitpicking over something so minor. If you had to click through 5+ pages before seeing a game was Early Access, and there were thousands of Early Access games that are 'featured', then I'd see your point; but getting upset over one click to view a store page, and the maybe 10-20 'featured' Early Access games seems like overreacting.