My problems with "Early Access" games like DayZ, Rust etc...

[futurefields]

These games are sorely lacking in content yet there is no longer any financial incentive for the devs to finish their games. They are already getting the $$$ of a release title while the games sit unfinished and they push a couple small updates per month. I can't help but notice that the update cycle on this games has actually slowed down since going live on Steam.

 

[Genx87]

That is an interesting point. I have played another pay for beta in Warthunder. But the difference there is the economic model sets up an incentive for the devs to advance the game. It should be interesting to see how these stand alone pay for beta games work out. I plopped 30 bucks down on Day Z.

 

[VashHT]

Your point ignores the fact that more people will buy it if they hear good things about it when it's finished, it's not like 100% of potential customers buy into the early access.

 

[smackababy]

The problem I have with this kind of funding (and crowd funding in general) is that the consumers are taking near 100% of the risk. Normally, a publisher takes the risk financially and provides the upfront costs to the developers to make the game and the consumers "pay back" the publisher with sales. If the game is truly awful or doesn't end up getting release, the consumers aren't affected.

In the crowd source model, if the game is truly awful or the game enters development hell, the consumers are out money they paid for a product.

 

[pong lenis]

it's not like 100% of potential customers buy into the early access.

Yeah, with DayZ it was only about 90%.

 

[Red Storm]

I agree with OP, getting all that money early decreases a dev's desire/need to push through and finish remaining content.

If you were offered $1000 to do a job, but you only get the money once the job is done, you would work a lot harder than if it was the same job, but you got $400 of the $1000 at the start.

 

[KaOTiK]

I have some issues with early access myself, The biggest one on Steams front is that there needs to be an option to not display Early Access games or to have them in their own seperate section. You know how many times I'm like oh that game looks/sounds cool then I click on it and it is an Early Access game and I immediately close the window. A lot of games look great that are EA, but it is a shot in the dark half the time with indies for a variety of reasons.

It is pretty amazing, we went from a time where devs would select people to test their game and normally compensate them in some way (be it pay, or a copy of the game), to having the consumers test the games and pay for it.

Steam needs to have some standards/guidelines for EA as well. Like, you can't keep your game in alpha/beta form for more than xx months, they need to have a list of exactly what is actually in the game and what is not instead of just having a page with features the game will have. They also need to make it so the devs update it at a more consistent rate and have detailed patch notes and road map for how the development is going.

Some devs have done the above, but the overwhelming vast majority have not. I also do like that some devs have made it so that the game is cheaper when you get it on EA and the price will go up when it is done.

As it is now, EA is kind of messed up. You have games that in a lot of cases are not even functional as games or are missing core features about them being sold, and then to top it off they go on sale. It makes no sense as a consumer to purchase an EA game unless that game has most of its core features intact and/or you want to support development.

 

[EDUSAN]

i dont do EAs myself

see a game on EA that i like? ok ill wishlist it but ill wait until it is released before deciding what to do.

I already have 2 games on EA in my library, under the ocaen and interstellar marines.

The 1st one was super unfinished... and one day the Dev said that to continue improving the game he needs to change the game from a 2d platformer to a isometric 3d game.... WOW... that is barely the game i bought. (ok, it does look good in isometric view, but the game was sold as a platformer view... that could pretty much be considered false advertising)

And interestellar Marines show a ton of nice things in the trailers/pics but when you see it in-game is just a room that shows what the pic you saw before was showing and nothing else...

im pretty much against EA.

edit: i wonder if STEAM is making us hate EAs becaus of the initials (EA)... lol

 

[SMOGZINN]

Your point ignores the fact that more people will buy it if they hear good things about it when it's finished, it's not like 100% of potential customers buy into the early access.

One of the things I think we are going to see is that the 'official release' of games that have been on Early Access are going to be unimportant. The game has been on sale for months already so we can assume that the majority of the early adapters have already purchased it. I think that publishers will find that the game has already made the majority of its money it is going to make by the time it is ready for ‘official release’. Soon after they learn this they will decide that ‘official releases’ are actually counter productive. Why raise expectations when it’s not going to significantly increase sales?

I have some issues with early access myself, The biggest one on Steams front is that there needs to be an option to not display Early Access games or to have them in their own seperate section. You know how many times I'm like oh that game looks/sounds cool then I click on it and it is an Early Access game and I immediately close the window. A lot of games look great that are EA, but it is a shot in the dark half the time with indies for a variety of reasons.

My real problem with Early Access on Steam is that I feel they are intentionally trying to be misleading on just what Early Access is. The very name says it. They are downplaying that these are incomplete games and trying to make it sound like a special promotion.

I think it would have been much better is Steam had called these Beta and Alpha access, and did a little bit to make sure that the games are put in the right category. Alpha games being early builds that probably are not very playable, while Beta being feature complete but with the expectation that there might still be a number of major bugs.

 

[DeathReborn]

I do want to play Rust but won't while it's loaded with hacks & bugs. Some bugs I accept due to Alpha/Beta nature of games (I spent neary $1000 on Star Citizen). Day-Z will only see money from me when it's feature comparable to the Arma II Mod. Games like Grim Dawn, Star Citizen etc are backed by well known individuals in the industry so I do tend to have more trust in them. Day-Z & Rust not so much, yet.

It can be dangerous but sometimes you just have to roll the dice if you want in.

There's a game called Banished that is now finished (release next month) but for a few months development was slow as the nature of making games can get complicated or just hard to find that one (or many) bit of code that's buggy.

 

[EDUSAN]

isnt the guy behind RUST the same that made Garry's Mod? i think that could be enough to trust that guy. Garry's mod has been around for quite a long time.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I like the idea of Rust but I generally don't enjoy games that a primarily PvP except shooters. Same thing with Eve, I love reading about it but that is about it.

 

[gorcorps]

isnt the guy behind RUST the same that made Garry's Mod? i think that could be enough to trust that guy. Garry's mod has been around for quite a long time.

Garry's Mod isn't really a game

It's a tool to manipulate the set pieces and physics of somebody else's game at best. While there's some overlap in skills, I can't look at Garry's Mod as proof that they know what they're doing when it comes to important gameplay elements like: combat, enemy AI, etc

 

[JamesV]

In all of these threads I say the same thing "It depends on the game".

Prison Architect and Kerbal Space Program are regularly updated, but Towns looks like abandonware already.

KSP could have been called 'release' when they released the patch with the career; a TON of content already in the game, but they continue to treat it as a Steam-beta and add new things monthly. I am very happy with that purchase.

Things like Rust or other early access where you can basically run around and do a few things; well, you only have yourself to blame if you buy into those. There seems to be many of these, that won't be finished for years, but the store page and forums are all you need to make an informed decision.

 

[CPA]

Yeah, with DayZ it was only about 90%.

wow, you must be a marketing wizard to know the amount of market that was penetrated as part of their Early Access.

 

[Danimal1209]

The problem I have with this kind of funding (and crowd funding in general) is that the consumers are taking near 100% of the risk. Normally, a publisher takes the risk financially and provides the upfront costs to the developers to make the game and the consumers "pay back" the publisher with sales. If the game is truly awful or doesn't end up getting release, the consumers aren't affected.

In the crowd source model, if the game is truly awful or the game enters development hell, the consumers are out money they paid for a product.

If the game is crowdfunded but fails, the consumers lose out on $5-$50 (normally).

If the game is paid for by the company and it fails, the company can lose millions.

If I were a gaming company, I would crowdfund.

 

[smackababy]

If the game is crowdfunded but fails, the consumers lose out on $5-$50 (normally).

If the game is paid for by the company and it fails, the company can lose millions.

If I were a gaming company, I would crowdfund.

Placing near 100% of the risk of a product on the consumers is a horrible prospect for the consumers. They stand to gain nothing but the product if it even succeeds. If a gaming company spends $50 million to fund the development of the new COD game, and it sells a total of 5 copies, the company can absorb that through other areas and be okay. However, if the game is a huge success, the company makes $500 million from it. That is why they take that risk.

Consumers stand to gain nothing from absorbing the risk from developers, especially ones that are unheard of and full of promises. And it is the same for every Kickstarter, not just software based ones.

 

[DaveSimmons]

yet there is no longer any financial incentive for the devs to finish their games

I disagree, just like with KickStarter.

100% of potential buyers will not KS or Early Access a game. Shadowrun Returns has been selling copies on Steam long after they delivered the release to backers like me. If they had delivered a bad game or stopped updating it, they would have lost those sales.

I KS some games and pass on many others. I've yet to buy an Early Access game but might at some point. So far, 100% of all non-KS Early Access games still have me and others as potential sales to win or lose.

Sure, some KS and Early Access projects will fail or deliver bad products. But that's not really different from pre-ordering from the big publishers who gave us that other X-Com game and Aliens Colonial Marines.

I'd say little companies have more incentive to deliver good products from Early Access since they want to get money from new customers like me.

 

[Red Storm]

Placing near 100% of the risk of a product on the consumers is a horrible prospect for the consumers. They stand to gain nothing but the product if it even succeeds. If a gaming company spends $50 million to fund the development of the new COD game, and it sells a total of 5 copies, the company can absorb that through other areas and be okay. However, if the game is a huge success, the company makes $500 million from it. That is why they take that risk.

Consumers stand to gain nothing from absorbing the risk from developers, especially ones that are unheard of and full of promises. And it is the same for every Kickstarter, not just software based ones.

Really, dev companies can just absorb a $50 million loss and continue on their way? I highly doubt that. Maybe a few in the world, all backed by huge publishers.

Without crowd funding, we simply wouldn't have games in the works like Project Eternity and Star Citizen. I'm proud to say I was part of the group that pledged money to make those games a possibility.

 

[smackababy]

Sure, some KS and Early Access projects will fail or deliver bad products. But that's not really different from pre-ordering from the big publishers who gave us that other X-Com game and Aliens Colonial Marines.

I'd say little companies have more incentive to deliver good products from Early Access since they want to get money from new customers like me.

Except, I am 100% sure if I pre-order a game from a big publisher and it gets canceled, I will get my money back. If Rust gets canceled, will I be refunded my EA money? I'd give it a 50/50, but that is only because Steam would probably do it if I whined enough about it.

 

[Lonyo]

You are missing the key element... price.

The game is $30 now. Because it's pre-release and not finished. You pay less, you get the game now in an unfinished state.
The game gets finished, price goes up.

That's how it will work for Day-Z. That's how it worked for something like Minecraft.
May not be how it works for all games, but for the bigger games launched well in advance of being finished, that's how most developers are going to approach it. Yes, you take a risk as a gamer, but you don't take a $50 risk, you get a game in an unfinished state for a lower price with the assumption that when it is finished the price will be higher, but you will have got some value from the early access and from having a $50 game for $30 or whatever prices are.

You are looking at it as paying $30 for early access to a very buggy $30 game that may never get released.
You are paying $30 for a $50 game, with that reduction reflecting the risk you are taking on.

 

[Markbnj]

The problem I have with this kind of funding (and crowd funding in general) is that the consumers are taking near 100% of the risk.

Exactly. It's a win for the developer because a bunch of consumers make a much more pliable source of funds than a few professional investors do. On the other side, the investment is very small, and the people paying get something they apparently value, so it must also be a win for them.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It also lets small companies create the games at all. The team can use the Early Access money to pay the rent and keep working on the game instead of going back to work on line of business apps for Big Faceless Corporation.

A decent software developer can make $50-100,000+ a year depending on location by working on business applications instead of games. Very few indie developers are making more than that.

 

[futurefields]

You are missing the key element... price.

The game is $30 now. Because it's pre-release and not finished. You pay less, you get the game now in an unfinished state.
The game gets finished, price goes up.

That's how it will work for Day-Z. That's how it worked for something like Minecraft.
May not be how it works for all games, but for the bigger games launched well in advance of being finished, that's how most developers are going to approach it. Yes, you take a risk as a gamer, but you don't take a $50 risk, you get a game in an unfinished state for a lower price with the assumption that when it is finished the price will be higher, but you will have got some value from the early access and from having a $50 game for $30 or whatever prices are.

You are looking at it as paying $30 for early access to a very buggy $30 game that may never get released.
You are paying $30 for a $50 game, with that reduction reflecting the risk you are taking on.

I will laugh if they charge $50 for DayZ

 

[smackababy]

You are missing the key element... price.

The game is $30 now. Because it's pre-release and not finished. You pay less, you get the game now in an unfinished state.
The game gets finished, price goes up.

That's how it will work for Day-Z. That's how it worked for something like Minecraft.
May not be how it works for all games, but for the bigger games launched well in advance of being finished, that's how most developers are going to approach it. Yes, you take a risk as a gamer, but you don't take a $50 risk, you get a game in an unfinished state for a lower price with the assumption that when it is finished the price will be higher, but you will have got some value from the early access and from having a $50 game for $30 or whatever prices are.

You are looking at it as paying $30 for early access to a very buggy $30 game that may never get released.
You are paying $30 for a $50 game, with that reduction reflecting the risk you are taking on.

That doesn't change that I, as an "Early Accessor" am taking 100% of the risk. My only return is access to alpha and beta builds with the hopes the game will be released and sold at a higher price than I paid.