Support NeoGAF

[BarringGaffner]

It's setting a standard that I won't support.

And lol at people saying this will help smaller developers... only publishers like EA pull this shit off. They will always get as much as people will allow because they put a lot of time and money into figuring out exactly how far they can push.

 

[timetokill]

This is the natural result of focusing on "core" gamers and the rising cost of AAA game development. Core gamers are willing to spend more, and publishers need more from them to reduce the risk of producing these games.

Honestly this is the best way to do this. They've been trying to get people to preorder, using tchotchkes and whatever content, or trying to pull more money via day 1 DLC.

Is it really so bad to let people that want to pay to play earlier do so? It's just like the current market, where paying $60 lets you play earlier than those who are only willing to pay $20.

 

[AntiFacebook]

Early access is awsome. What the hell are you taking about

 

[potatohead]

Some people just never learn.

Then ppl like me take their money so I don't mind

 

[brokenbeans]

I'm happy to pay extra to play early I would of done it with BF1 but I don't actually have the time this week.

I'd have happily paid even more to get my COD Legacy a few days earlier, guess I'm part of the problem.

Having said that I've only bought 4 games this year so I'm happy to spend a little extra on games I actually want.

 

[Conkerkid11]

It's setting a standard that I won't support.

And lol at people saying this will help smaller developers... only publishers like EA pull this shit off. They will always get as much as people will allow because they put a lot of time and money into figuring out exactly how far they can push.

Microsoft started it.

 

[GLAMr]

While I don't love the idea, it occurred to me that it could encourage studios to deliver a polished, complete product. 3 days (or more) of early adopters trashing an early release could reduce the number of purchases by the rest of the herd.

 

[SoulUnison]

Early access is awsome. What the hell are you taking about

For one, we need to stop pretending it's "Early Access" when it's really just that everyone else is being moved to "Later Access."

It's not some fun surprise the company managed to find they could manage to pull off in the run-up to release.
Shipping and stocking and marketing and the whole circus are decided months and months in advance.

You're not paying an extra $20 to play the game "early," you're paying an extra $20 to play on the normal projected release date.
It's just that the $60 customers are being artificially disadvantaged and held back.

 

[wapplew]

I don't care about this now, but if they do the same with the last guardian...

 

[nephilimdj]

Vehicle perks traditionally in BF games have made the vehicle take more damage/survive longer since BC

Launch day people do have a disadvantage. Heck see BF3, didn't even unlock rockets on jets til you leveled it up.

 

[Conkerkid11]

While I don't love the idea, it occurred to me that it could encourage studios to deliver a polished, complete product. 3 days (or more) of early adopters trashing an early release could reduce the number of purchases by the rest of the herd.

Nah. Even in the case if something like Forza Horizon 3 being ass on PC, people still bought it with the idea in mind that "it's not actually out yet, so maybe they'll patch it when it actually comes out."

 

[SoulUnison]

I don't care about this now, but if they do the same with the last guardian...

The idea that you'll care about something once it personally affects you is exactly why you should care about things preemptively.

 

[Vaporak]

They're not playing the game early, as the game is actually ready and released. You are just playing it late because you paid less. Whether or not you think play it later hurts you is up to you, but consider that if you don't think playing it later hurts you then why are you paying release price for it?

 

[ScientificPizza]

Microsoft started it.

No they didn't

For one, we need to stop pretending it's "Early Access" when it's really just that everyone else is being moved to "Later Access."

It's not some fun surprise the company managed to find they could manage to pull off in the run-up to release.
Shipping and stocking and marketing and the whole circus are decided months and months in advance.

You're not paying an extra $20 to play the game "early," you're paying an extra $20 to play on the normal projected release date.
It's just that the $60 customers are being artificially disadvantaged and held back.

If it were months instead of days I would understand this point. But it's not. Is day one really that important to you?

 

[Clint Beastwood]

None of the stuff you listed in the OP you explain how it hurt you.

 

[Matt]

It doesn't. And as much as some may hate it, games continue to cost more to produce (without the average sales of a title increasing), and without raising the base price of software, publishers are going to need to come up with other ways to increase their monetization. At least with this one the game design itself isn't impacted.

 

[AntiFacebook]

For one, we need to stop pretending it's "Early Access" when it's really just that everyone else is being moved to "Later Access."

Have you ever played a early access game?

They don't have all the content (to say the least) and they are full of bugs.

 

[krang]

For one, we need to stop pretending it's "Early Access" when it's really just that everyone else is being moved to "Later Access."

It's not some fun surprise the company managed to find they could manage to pull off in the run-up to release.
Shipping and stocking and marketing and the whole circus are decided months and months in advance.

You're not paying an extra $20 to play the game "early," you're paying an extra $20 to play on the normal projected release date.
It's just that the $60 customers are being artificially disadvantaged and held back.

That's not what Early Access is. Early Access is the pre-release code programme offered by Steam and Preview Program on Xbox.

But on your topic, is it actually late when release dates are usually specific days of the week? If the play early option wasn't there, the release date wouldn't move up from Tuesday to the Friday before because that's not when games are released.

 

[BarringGaffner]

That's not what Early Access is. Early Access is the pre-release code programme offered by Steam and similar on Xbox.

Yes exactly. THIS game is not early access. The game is ready, only being withheld a few days from people not paying $80.

 

[Shadowheart]

Your thread question doesn't make sense. Is this like a 'guess the answer' thing? And I am more concerned about why a game would hurt you rather than guessing the reason.

 

[Matt]

Well for now it's just days.

Then maybe it'll be weeks.

Then months.

Then games will just naturally cost way more.

Then you can pay even MORE to play a few days earlier.

Then a few weeks earlier.

Then months.

That's all very unlikely. This scheme only works because it's simply a matter of a few days difference. As soon as it's more you risk negatively impacting sales by diffusing the launch period too much.

 

[SoulUnison]

Have you ever played a early access game?

They don't have all the content (to say the least) and they are full of bugs.

That's not what Early Access is. Early Access is the pre-release code programme offered by Steam and Preview Program on Xbox.

But on your topic, is it actually late when release dates are usually specific days of the week? If the play early option wasn't there, the release date wouldn't move up from Tuesday to the Friday before.

I'm not using the phrase "Early Access" to mean the Steam program, it was just the first phrase that was applicable that came to mind.
I'm just using "Early Access" to mean "receiving the final retail version earlier than expected."

 

[Nosgotham]

this is what happens when everyone says ''ill wait til on sale'', ''ill buy it used'' or ''ill wait til its in a humble bundle''. publishers are reacting by using microtransactions, early access and season passes? If people don't want it, the trend will die. if people do want it will continue. it could be another Online Pass or...maybe not. i could give a shit less until it effects the game like aeful microtransactions ala Naughty Dog

 

[texhnolyze]

It's pure greed betting on consumer's impulsiveness and financial illiteracy.

And if the consumers can't hold their own impulsiveness, who should they blame if not other than themselves?

These publishers are only giving the consumers the options. They're not forced to pay more to play a little bit early.

 

[krang]

I'm not using the phrase "Early Access" to mean the Steam program, it was just the first phrase that was applicable that came to mind.
I'm just using "Early Access" to mean "receiving the final retail version earlier than expected."

But you responded to someone saying "Early Access is awesome". If they are referring to the Steam programme then you can't just reply with why you think it's not good, but are referring to something completely different.

 

[BarringGaffner]

this is what happens when everyone says ''ill wait til on sale'', ''ill buy it used'' or ''ill wait til its in a humble bundle''. publishers are reacting by using microtransactions, early access and season passes? If people don't want it, the trend will die. if people do want it will continue. it could be another Online Pass or...maybe not. i could give a shit less until it effects the game like aeful microtransactions ala Naughty Dog

yeah all those people waiting for battlefield 1 in a humble bundle screwed us.

lol at blaming consumers for publishers trying to make more and more profit.

But you responded to someone saying "Early Access is awesome". If they are referring to the Steam programme then you can't just reply with why you think it's not good, but are referring to something completely different.

Exactly, he didn't call it early access first, the other poster called it that.

 

[sTiTcH AU]

Bought the Ultimate edition which was less than RRP and got to play a few days early. Sounds fine to me.

 

[Matt]

yeah all those people waiting for battlefield 1 in a humble bundle screwed us.

lol at blaming consumers for publishers trying to make more and more profit.

Publishers are not making more and more profit.

 

[SoulUnison]

And if the consumers can't hold their own impulsiveness, who should they blame if not other than themselves?

These publishers are only giving the consumers the options. They're not forced to pay more to play a little bit early.

You say they're not forced to but it would be extremely easy for companies to incentivize the "Early Release" programs with additional content or early unlocks, or bonuses similar to pre-orders, etc. That's on top of the EXP/Level/Equipment grinds in multiplayer games these days, and how getting into a game a week behind so many other people can be an insurmountable gulf to playing catch up and getting on even footing.

Then you're going to have situations like groups of friends wanting to play something together but not agreeing on what price to pay, or kids wanting to play with their friends and parents balking at the idea of jacking the price up an extra third just to play a couple days earlier.

This isn't even just *one* slippery slope.
It has the potential to blend with DLC and Preorders and Microtransactions and all the other wallet-grabbing bullshit to become a veritable Hydra of anti-consumer practices.

 

[BarringGaffner]

Publishers are not making more and more profit.

I have good news for you! EA most certainly is.

 

[SoulUnison]

But you responded to someone saying "Early Access is awesome". If they are referring to the Steam programme then you can't just reply with why you think it's not good, but are referring to something completely different.

Exactly, he didn't call it early access first, the other poster called it that.

I just assumed, based on the context that the thread we're in provides, that he was talking about the same issue the rest of us are discussing.

If he wasn't, then "Early access is awsome. What the hell are you taking about[sic]" is a completely unrelated drive-by shitpost.

 

[mdubs]

When you think about it it's actually just what we've normally been doing. The longer you wait to play a game, the cheaper the price gets and the bigger savings you get. It's always been like this.

Exactly- I can buy Battlefield 1 for $80 today, $60 if I wait until Friday, or $40 if I wait until Black Friday

 

[F4r0_Atak]

The basic idea of Early Access is awesome ... the porblem is that on steam it basicaly became a distribution model. Games that are forever in early access and don't even plan to exit it

But I think triple A games are pretty safe from this destiny

I would agree with the fact that early access can be great thing for devs to get feedback and build potential hype momentum for their games, buy I don't think that AAA are safe from this destiny... don't forget the rumored Kombat Pack season 3 for Mortal Kombat X, the fact that people who bought Star Wars Battlefront at launch didn't get the full content yet even with the Season Pass and so on. Games that have a priced season pass are all, to some capacity, early access games, with the worst offender being No Man's Sky with many important features missing left and right (while not having season pass).

 

[Shiggy]

It doesn't. Some people just feel entitled. This is simply price discrimination. I don't like paying 60 EUR for a game either, and so I wait till the game is 20 EUR. Yet I don't complain about others playing the game for half a year or even more already.

Of course, I would also rather play the game on day 1. But when others pay 60 EUR and now even more, that's not gonna happen.

 

[Matt]

I have good news for you! EA most certainly is.

EA has improved its results in the last few years, that's not a bad thing.

Companies making a profit is not a sign they are doing something wrong. It means they are making healthy decisions for their own company, and their situation would be very different if not for some of the practices people complain about (often with good cause).

 

[krang]

I just assumed, based on the context that the thread we're in provides, that he was talking about the same issue the rest of us are discussing.

If he wasn't, then "Early access is awsome. What the hell are you taking about[sic]" is a completely unrelated drive-by shitpost.

It's no more a shitpost than OP saying it's bad without any explanation.

 

[shintoki]

This is like the most petty, easily passable thing a publisher has done. If people are willing to pay a bit extra for a few more days. I have no issue with it at all.

Hell, the benefit is they'll be the ones to tell us if the online is a broken PoS or not too.

 

[kyser73]

The internet is decades old now. I'm going to accept the premise that things were "ok" (which is highly debatable) back in the "good ol' days" and thus we should be fine with them returning. We have tons of trouble nowadays with preorders and cryptic season passes and manipulative DLC and microtransactions, and that's WITH the full force of the internet and word of mouth behind most things.

We have tons of trouble in a world that the most transparent we've been able to manage, and you're still looking to the 90s with rose tinted glasses?

And you keep acting like people who want to buy a product on day 1 are some kind of rabid obsessive consumer which is incredibly disingenuous. People make plans for when things release and generally like to stick to those plans. People get excited for things and experience anticipation. I don't buy EVERY game I buy or even MOST of the games I buy Day 1 or at $60, but that doesn't mean the choice should be taken away from people or that they should be charged more for the same.

This is, to me, something sort of akin to the online gaming-gambling communities.
Companies aren't creating additional content, they're just finding ways to monetize harder and harder, and it's already the largest single entertainment industry.
The companies that are large enough to risk the poor optics of trying something like this are the same companies that have no need of additional lining in their pockets.

It's pure greed betting on consumer's impulsiveness and financial illiteracy.

Make plans for day 2 then?

There's always the plan b of overthrowing capitalism.

As a consumer you make a choice whether to pay a premium to get a thing before general release. You don't have to do it.

This whole thing about 'Wah but I'm getting it later!!!' Is hand-wavey shite. You're not prevented from buying anything, you just need to wait. Plenty of posters here are excluded from regular pricing if the number of 'I'll wait for a couple of months/humble bundle/buy preowned' posts are anything to go by.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

They didn't pay to get the game 3 days early, they paid a price premium to get the game on time, and everybody else got a 3 day delay. That's how it "hurts you".

I can already see the argument companies (and then the defenders of the practice) will use though, they'll say that there's a time delay between sending the discs out and inventory getting to all the stores in the world so that they can release it on time, and that therefore they didn't delay the game for everyone else! The people are getting it early instead! The obvious retort then being why are you bothering to embargo the release at all, why not make digital copies available literally the second the game goes gold and leave the rest of the suckers to wait between 3 and 21 days for their plebeian copies? We have street dates for games for a reason, and now they're charging a premium to break them for no reason other than greed.

 

[Matt]

They didn't pay to get the game 3 days early, they paid a price premium to get the game on time, and everybody else got a 3 day delay. That's how it "hurts you".

I can already see the argument companies (and then the defenders of the practice) will use though, they'll say that there's a time delay between sending the discs out and inventory getting to all the stores in the world so that they can release it on time, and that therefore they didn't delay the game for everyone else! The people are getting it early instead! The obvious retort then being why are you bothering to embargo the release at all, why not make digital copies available literally the second the game goes gold and leave the rest of the suckers to wait between 3 and 21 days for their plebeian copies? We have street dates for games for a reason, and now they're charging a premium to break them for no reason other than greed.

That's just not true. Games aren't released digitally before retail in order to maintain good relationships with the retailers. Publishers would LOVE to sell digital copies first.

 

[CouchMaster]

I have to imagine that back in 2006 someone made a thread wondering why the existence of a $1.99 Horse Armor affected them.

I just read through those threads, its hilarious to see people blowing up over a piece of cosmetic dlc that's actually cheaper than cheapest microtransaction bundles today. Oh how far we have come.

 

[Clint Beastwood]

Microsoft started it.

How?

 

[krang]

They didn't pay to get the game 3 days early, they paid a price premium to get the game on time, and everybody else got a 3 day delay. That's how it "hurts you".

I can already see the argument companies (and then the defenders of the practice) will use though, they'll say that there's a time delay between sending the discs out and inventory getting to all the stores in the world so that they can release it on time, and that therefore they didn't delay the game for everyone else! The people are getting it early instead! The obvious retort then being why are you bothering to embargo the release at all, why not make digital copies available literally the second the game goes gold and leave the rest of the suckers to wait between 3 and 21 days for their plebeian copies? We have street dates for games for a reason, and now they're charging a premium to break them for no reason other than greed.

Games are released on days conducive to sales charts, i.e. early in the week. Specific weeks are also chosen to fit in between other games and to match certain holiday periods.

The game wouldn't be moved to a formal Friday release, or even released the week before without this type of scheme.

 

[mrklaw]

Never in a million years will this happen. Most games are already on sale 30 days out.

So the developers and publishers make a ton of extra money and I have to wait a few extra days to play? Why is that a bad thing? If you have 100 dollars and dgaf then you should be free to do whatever you want. Once the game is in my hands it doesn't change how I play or effect me.



It already has. Forza, BF1, and Gears.

You can be sure that EA etc are closely watching the numbers of early access buyers. If they feel the number of people willing to pay $80 is high enough, that starts to move towards the standard price. Maybe they'll encourage that by offering 7 days early access, or extra bonus content (they'll always pitch it as 'extra' even though it could easily be seen as removing that content from the $60 version)

Basically they will want to recalibrate people's price expectations and this is one way to start doing that

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

Explain to me how games like Nuclear Throne and Darkest Dungeon being played early hurts me.

I think he might be on about the state of early access on pc with games never been finished.

 

[mrklaw]

While I don't love the idea, it occurred to me that it could encourage studios to deliver a polished, complete product. 3 days (or more) of early adopters trashing an early release could reduce the number of purchases by the rest of the herd.

The one game I did buy early- Forza Horizon 3 - was (and still is) pretty bad on PC and I think many people regret buying in early for that

 

[texhnolyze]

You say they're not forced to but it would be extremely easy for companies to incentivize the "Early Release" programs with additional content or early unlocks, or bonuses similar to pre-orders, etc. That's on top of the EXP/Level/Equipment grinds in multiplayer games these days, and how getting into a game a week behind so many other people can be an insurmountable gulf to playing catch up and getting on even footing.

Then you're going to have situations like groups of friends wanting to play something together but not agreeing on what price to pay, or kids wanting to play with their friends and parents balking at the idea of jacking the price up an extra third just to play a couple days earlier.

This isn't even just *one* slippery slope.
It has the potential to blend with DLC and Preorders and Microtransactions and all the other wallet-grabbing bullshit to become a veritable Hydra of anti-consumer practices.

I'm perfectly aware that this is just a small slip that won't happen again. I'm all against those practices, I never buy DLC/microtransactions before unless it's a GOTY edition bundle. But after all these years of gamers accepting everything that devs/pubs throwing at them, I have no faith that this new trend will stop right here. If anything, it'll become a new unstoppable trend for the upcoming years. There's nothing that we could do and it's indeed frustrating. I'm already at the point of 'accepting' everything, because no matter how hard I resist these practices, the majority of gamers have been voting with their wallet. They're more than willing to support these practices.

 

[Paz]

This battle is already lost because people refer to it as the CE buyers getting it 'early' rather than the regular buyers getting it 'late'.

Genius move AAA publishers, game set and match.

Edit - basically this:

They didn't pay to get the game 3 days early, they paid a price premium to get the game on time, and everybody else got a 3 day delay. That's how it "hurts you".

 

[AntiFacebook]

I just assumed, based on the context that the thread we're in provides, that he was talking about the same issue the rest of us are discussing.

If he wasn't, then "Early access is awsome. What the hell are you taking about[sic]" is a completely unrelated drive-by shitpost.

If you are going to post in a thread, at least read the OP:

Early Access (as in real early access not play a few days early)? Mmmm fuck off.

 

[chillybright]

Couldn't you argue it's a slightly different experience though? As bad as it sounds, the thrill and excitement generated by playing the game before launch is going to be unique to that early access version,and therefore to some, worth the additional $20.00 (you could maybe liken it to buying fast pass tickets or something, ultimately the same "product/service" you can just pay extra and skip the wait).

Firstly, as many posters in this thread have explained, the game has already launched and there will be no content alternation in the "actual launch version". No one is actually playing the game early and the "thrill and excitement" are purely artificial.

Secondly, even if we assume that the $80 experience is better because of the "premium VIP treatment", however they derive this this "first-class citizenship" exactly at the expense of $60 players, as they would definitely feel inferior because by paying the same amount of money as before they couldn't have the same "day1" feel again.

So a certain group of players must be hurt. You cannot have it both ways.

They didn't pay to get the game 3 days early, they paid a price premium to get the game on time, and everybody else got a 3 day delay. That's how it "hurts you".

This.