Steam's Early Access failures?

[sandorski]

Go to Youtube and watch someone play the game you may be curious about. There are some really good KS/EA games in development. Subnautica, The Forest, 7 Days to Die, and Stranded Deep are all unfinished games, show a lot of potential, but have a really good base gameplay.

 

[SERPENTINE]

Massive Early Access Failures:

WarZ (Infestation: Survivor Series)
Rust
7 Days To Die
Starforge
Reign of Kings

I can go on and on

 

[DaveSimmons]

Yes, but we can point to stacks and stacks of corporate $50-60 AAA releases that were failures too. For example Aliens Colonial Marines.

Game development is hard. Even if you release a complete, working and reasonably bug-free game it still might not be fun to play. Also, a game that's fun for some people will be considered a failure by others.

If you aren't wiling to risk failures, stay away from early access and KS. No one holds a gun to your head and forces you to open your wallet.

 

[digitaldurandal]

So only fund the 10%.

Yes, KS and Valve should police titles more aggressively, but someone else falling for a shady pitch doesn't mean you do. That same person probably gave their bank account to a Nigerian prince or bought "enhancement" pills online.

The presence of spam doesn't mean email should not be allowed to exist.

You are still free to fund games that would not be created in the absence of KS and EA. Ignore the shady pitches, ignore the corporate mitigation pitches.

I don't think it should be banned. I DO think that fraud should be investigated and sites that are selling these products should be more proactive and less reactive about that.

The problem with us only funding the 10% is that it won't fix anything. I suggest you fund nothing. As is already seen companies that see this working for other developers and opportunists with any ability to claim some kind of legitimacy will just continue to pile on as the 90% continue to earn money for making a post on the internet.

Personally I don't even look on there any more. Your product better come out, and it better come out in a working condition if you want my money. My free time is too precious to be wasted on junk.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Massive Early Access Failures:

WarZ (Infestation: Survivor Series)
Rust
7 Days To Die
Starforge
Reign of Kings

I can go on and on

Rust is still in development. They rebuilt on a whole new engine. I wouldn't call that a failure honestly.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Massive Early Access Failures:

WarZ (Infestation: Survivor Series)
Rust
7 Days To Die
Starforge
Reign of Kings

I can go on and on

7 Days to Die is pretty good now, its definitely not a triple A game but its definitely fun for some time its more fun playing with a friend. for a $25 game that is on sale frequently for $10-15 its worth it.

I've never tried Rust however I get your point that the game has undergone major big changes and its different that what it started out to be.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Yep, and it's only just now that Steam is willing (read: forced through litigation) to offer people's money back.

There needs to be some form of regulation with this endless EA/KS garbage. If the game isn't released within 12 months of charging customers for access then the early adopters should ALL be eligible for full refunds.

The fallout from that, the extra effort to finish a game and do it on time, would entirely satisfy all of my own personal gripes.

I'm curious of your logic behind this.

You give them money, but if they fail to show the product, you want your money back?

Why would they still have money if the product fails? What do you think the money is going towards exactly? If they had a bunch of money left to give everyone full refunds, why would they need kickstarter/early access money to begin with?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm curious of your logic behind this.

You give them money, but if they fail to show the product, you want your money back?

Why would they still have money if the product fails? What do you think the money is going towards exactly? If they had a bunch of money left to give everyone full refunds, why would they need kickstarter/early access money to begin with?

I believe the point is Steam needs to have something to lose offering a game that could turn out to be nothing like the sale/green light description.
Lets say you & I start a green light campaign about essentially the greatest game on earth, we use some prerendered stuff that looks real cool, we take sales and use that money to buy cars and extravagant vacations. We mark our green light game down sell a few more and ultimately release something like this:

essentially our game was a fraud and a scam to begin with we had no plan, no skills and no progress but we still took money. I can understand that steam should have some mechanism to prevent this, they shouldn't simply be a billing platform.

 

[HeXen]

Valve should hold all the money from purchases, lending it out to the devs with interest until it's completed.
But really there probably is no way to prevent it, it's a risk and they tell you early access is a risk.

 

[Man I Suck]

I'm curious of your logic behind this.

You give them money, but if they fail to show the product, you want your money back?

Yep. I want a promise toward a finished game in exchange for my money.

If they don't deliver then I want my money back.

Why would they still have money if the product fails? What do you think the money is going towards exactly? If they had a bunch of money left to give everyone full refunds, why would they need kickstarter/early access money to begin with?

I couldn't possibly care about any of this. Me paying money to them for a finished product should be a contract where they get to keep my money in the promise of delivering a finished game within a reasonable time frame. If the contract is broken, I get my money back.

 

[sweenish]

Yep. I want a promise toward a finished game in exchange for my money.

If they don't deliver then I want my money back.



I couldn't possibly care about any of this. Me paying money to them for a finished product should be a contract where they get to keep my money in the promise of delivering a finished game within a reasonable time frame. If the contract is broken, I get my money back.

I get the words that you're saying, but you are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what KS and EA really are.

I generally avoid both platforms myself. I'll gladly wait for a final product, and then give my money.

Klei has shown themselves to be a company that can properly utilize Early Access. Even so, I'll still wait for a final product.

As for fraud, it's going to happen, just like it happens with professional investors. They don't always get their money back, but there are assurances to help mitigate their losses. KS and EA lack these mitigations. Placing 100% of the onus on the backer without holding the dev/entrepreneur responsible at all is backwards. I can agree with that.

But thinking you'll get a 100% refund 100% of the time is delusional. Instead of demanding the impossible, it would be better to simply avoid the programs altogether while giving sane criticisms.

 

[bystander36]

Yep. I want a promise toward a finished game in exchange for my money.

If they don't deliver then I want my money back.



I couldn't possibly care about any of this. Me paying money to them for a finished product should be a contract where they get to keep my money in the promise of delivering a finished game within a reasonable time frame. If the contract is broken, I get my money back.

You shouldn't pay into these products then. You are not paying for a finished product. You are paying for them to develop a product. There is a distinction. One is like a preorder, the other is you acting like a producer, or even a bit like an employer.

Stick to preorders and finished games. You clearly have no interested in backing a game, which is perfectly fine.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Yes, what Steam and KS need to explain better, in giant neon letters, is that this is patronage not a simple pre-order.

Aside from the 1% case of fraud:

You are paying a team to work on a game. They are spending the money while they work. That money is gone now, and you have no right to get it back even if they fail to deliver the game that you want.

If you don't want that risk, stay away.

 

[Man I Suck]

You shouldn't pay into these products then.

You don't say? Please, continue with these revelations.

You are not paying for a finished product.

When did I ever say that I WAS paying for a finished product? Do you not understand the implications of the word "should" in my statements?

You should read more than you reply.

You are paying for them to develop a product. There is a distinction. One is like a preorder, the other is you acting like a producer, or even a bit like an employer.

Yes, and as an employer, I'd love to fire kickstarter and early access titles.

Stick to preorders and finished games. You clearly have no interested in backing a game, which is perfectly fine.

If it's perfectly fine, then why are you preaching at me with these nobrainer sermons?

 

[Man I Suck]

I get the words that you're saying, but you are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what KS and EA really are.

No, I'm not. I'm hoping that EA/KS die in their current form; I'm conveying the hope or the expectation for there to be some sort of regulation on the matter. I really hate repeating myself.

 

[HeXen]

Yes, what Steam and KS need to explain better, in giant neon letters, is that this is patronage not a simple pre-order.

Aside from the 1% case of fraud:

You are paying a team to work on a game. They are spending the money while they work. That money is gone now, and you have no right to get it back even if they fail to deliver the game that you want.

If you don't want that risk, stay away.

But they do explain this very clearly

Check out the listing of Early Access titles currently on Steam, and look for something that strikes your interest. Then buy the game or, if its free, just start playing.

Early Access is a full purchase of a playable game. (LOL) By purchasing, you gain immediate access to download and play the game in its current form and as it evolves (Lol again). You keep access to the game, even if (that's potentially a big if) the game later moves from Early Access into fully released.

You should be aware that some teams will be unable to 'finish' (aka: rip your ass off) their game.

They don't even vaguely call it patronage and you really aren't supporting them, you flat out are buying an Alpha/Beta game that they already started. They only offer the potential that perhaps they'll actually evolve it or it might just be a scam, if so you're SOL. That's what should be written in neon lettering. Patronage is kickstarter games.

 

[sweenish]

No, I'm not. I'm hoping that EA/KS die in their current form; I'm conveying the hope or the expectation for there to be some sort of regulation on the matter. I really hate repeating myself.

You indeed were.

The idea of a 100% guarantee is not a suggestion for better protections for the customer. It's a demonstration of a fundamental misunderstanding.

What you want are generally called pre-orders.

Wanting the system to go away entirely is not the same as a 100% guarantee on refunds.

So what do you want? You're saying different things. One of those things, I can get behind, the other is an impossibility by the nature of the platform.

 

[bystander36]

You don't say? Please, continue with these revelations.



When did I ever say that I WAS paying for a finished product? Do you not understand the implications of the word "should" in my statements?

You should read more than you reply.

By saying you should be refunded for unfinished KS/AE games, implies you think you are paying for a finished product. If you understood what these are, you'd realize you should not be refunded, as the money on a product of this sort is being spent as it comes in.

It would make more sense if you said, "I wish".

If it's perfectly fine, then why are you preaching at me with these nobrainer sermons?

Because by what you think should happen doesn't make a lot of sense for someone who understands what you are paying for.

 

[Man I Suck]

You indeed were.

The idea of a 100% guarantee is not a suggestion for better protections for the customer. It's a demonstration of a fundamental misunderstanding.

No, it's a hope for the future to protect the customer. Just because you want to it to be something else so you can continue to pointlessly argue against it doesn't mater.

 

[Man I Suck]

By saying you should be refunded for unfinished KS/AE games, implies you think you are paying for a finished product. If you understood what these are, you'd realize you should not be refunded, as the money on a product of this sort is being spent as it comes in.

It would make more sense if you said, "I wish".



Because by what you think should happen doesn't make a lot of sense for someone who understands what you are paying for.

I don't like repeating myself, but I'll do it for you since you can't seem to read.

You conveniently ignore the timeline suggestion in my posts. You're ignoring the "within a reasonable period of time" and "more regulation" so you can cherry pick my comments and continue to argue. Why are you mad, though?

 

[bystander36]

No, it's a hope for the future to protect the customer. Just because you want to it to be something else so you can continue to pointlessly argue against it doesn't mater.

That is the problem. You aren't a customer on these types of products. These business transactions can't work on a guaranteed basis. These are games which don't have enough support to function on their own. The money you give them is so they can continue to create the game. If it fails, the money is already spent. There is most likely nothing to return. The best they could do is return any unspent money, which would make sense.

 

[bystander36]

I don't like repeating myself, but I'll do it for you since you can't seem to read.

You conveniently ignore the timeline suggestion in my posts. You're ignoring the "within a reasonable period of time" and "more regulation" so you can cherry pick my comments and continue to argue. Why are you mad, though?

The "within a reasonable period of time" doesn't really change anything at all.

I can't argue against "more regulation", but what makes you think there isn't enough regulation now?

And I'm not mad. You just keep saying thing that don't make sense and we've just been responding to them.

 

[sweenish]

No, it's a hope for the future to protect the customer. Just because you want to it to be something else so you can continue to pointlessly argue against it doesn't mater.

And that's the fundamental misunderstanding of the platform.

I'm not arguing against consumer/investor protections. I'm just being realistic that a 100% guarantee 100% of the time is completely unrealistic. Fraud generally implies taking the money and running, no? If the guilty party cannot be caught, it's not on Valve to pay us. They were a facilitating neutral party. In the case of an earnest but naive developer, they simply won't have money, and no amount of garnished wages will get everyone their money back.

Investing is a risk. Investors know this. The difference is that these platforms allow people to invest under the guise of a pre-order. Investors don't rely on the assurances to save their butts, they rely on solid research and due diligence to maximize profits and minimize loss. The types of protections they may pursue are last ditch efforts to save their investments, not the norm.

So, again. The protections you want are unrealistic and demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding. I also want some better protections for the consumer and some more responsibility and consequences levied on the people pitching, but you'll never see me suggest what you are, because I at least have a basic understanding of the risks inherent to the platform of investing.

/tangent
Honestly, that's my biggest beef is that this is the worst kind of investment. You pay in early for something that's not guaranteed, and you don't even get a cut if the product ships and is successful? That's the most bogus part, not the fact that you might lose out on your cash equivalent to a couple hours of work. It's much more the idea that none of these platforms allow you to actually invest, in the truest sense.

If a person wants to actually invest a decent sum but allow the devs to retain their rights to and ownership of their IP, they should have the opportunity to actually make money on their investment. Steam, easier than Kickstarter, could implement this.

 

[bystander36]

/tangent
Honestly, that's my biggest beef is that this is the worst kind of investment. You pay in early for something that's not guaranteed, and you don't even get a cut if the product ships and is successful? That's the most bogus part, not the fact that you might lose out on your cash equivalent to a couple hours of work. It's much more the idea that none of these platforms allow you to actually invest, in the truest sense.

If a person wants to actually invest a decent sum but allow the devs to retain their rights to and ownership of their IP, they should have the opportunity to actually make money on their investment. Steam, easier than Kickstarter, could implement this.

I have thought about this myself and is why I've only done one AE, but it was pretty far along and worth the money in the state it was. I agree with you on this 100%.

 

[Elixer]

If a person wants to actually invest a decent sum but allow the devs to retain their rights to and ownership of their IP, they should have the opportunity to actually make money on their investment. Steam, easier than Kickstarter, could implement this.

Hmm, this might actually work, devs would have to kick back x% of the sales.
Right now, as far as I can tell the devs have no risk at all, heck, I can see more devs do EA just so they can get more cash for nothing, or marginal changes.