Support NeoGAF

[JABEE]

When we're getting into months territory this is already the case cause games go on sale.

Yes. $80 is the price for new release titles. $60 if you want the game later

 

[blame space]

i wanna be a fly on the wall during the Activision meeting where they thought of the day 0 edition of AW.

 

[TylerDurden4321]

Well... there you go. Not sure what there is to add, really. I guess the idea that people will pressure each other to get the early version, dragging their friends into spending an extra $20 that they wouldn't have otherwise?

.
This "peer pressure" argument thing is important in my opinion. Don't just think of the effect for yourself, but how it effects other gamers, social gaming, teens, parents and how it could change the industry should this concept become a huge success.

 

[Falchion]

The people that pay extra aren't getting it early, they're getting it at the normal date that it would've launched in the absence of such a program. Everyone else is getting it 4 days late which sucks.

 

[predalien27]

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.

Isn't this how it pretty much works already? The longer you wait to play a game, it will get cheaper. (Unless it's Nintendo titles. )

 

[Burt]

I'm not wholly opposed to the idea of paying to get the game a few days early, at least not as much as a lot of the other stuff that already goes on, but it does have the potential to sour people on their new purchase, especially considering these are generally the most hyped games were talking about here.

Example: I was in the For Honor alpha the second it went up. I played like 4 hours the first day, and probably more than that the second. On the third day, people were still logging in for the first time, and my gear level was like 50 on the raider. Not only was I incredibly more skilled than these people, I could basically two shot them with my gear. Not the sort of situation I would want for my first taste of a game, especially one that doesn't fit typical norms like that one.

And yeah, maybe servers, matchmaking, and balance would be good enough to avoid that problem in the first week of a full launch

Haha just kidding

It's 2016

 

[RoboPlato]

It's frustrating for me because one of the most fun parts of game launches is playing alongside a bunch of other people playing for the first time. This pulls a lot of that shared experience away by gating releases for those who won't pay more.

I really hope story driven games don't start doing this.

 

[SmokedMeat]

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.

I can say the exact same thing about Microtransactions. I'm not affected if someone has a paid dlc outfit I don't.

 

[Hexa]

I can say the exact same thing about Microtransactions. I'm not affected if someone has a paid dlc outfit I don't.

Cosmetic microtransactions are cool. It's the ones that effect game play: the pay2win obviously, but shortcut type as well, that I don't like because I feel it's having an effect on how games are designed.
I don't see them designing the games to be different to take advantage of this.

 

[Mechanized]

I can say the exact same thing about Microtransactions. I'm not affected if someone has a paid dlc outfit I don't.

The questions in that case though become; whether that content should be in the base game, was it only made because DLC was in mind from the start, if it's on the disc you bought you should be entitled to it, is the game content sparse if you don't invest in dlc, etc...

Not really something you can compare to paid release dates.

 

[shadow_shogun]

I remember the good old days when games were released on Tuesdays...

 

[DOWN]

The game was ready the day it gets sold to people. You are playing later because of this practice. You are not playing on launch day while other get it early. They are launching it at a higher price and delaying it a few days for those who won't pay higher.

 

[OldMan]

You're committing to the games infrastructure by playing games early, only way it can hurt you, op, is opposing players having a head jump on online map routes and unlocks?

 

[DevilSnake]

This is just something people in EU/UK have gotten used to over the years, but off the top of my head I suppose if you've waited years for a game only to have pretty much everything accidently spoiled on the internet it ruins a lot of the surprise. I'm not really fussed about Battlefield but I've seen practically half the game on the internet without intentionally searching for it.

Also for people who really love week 1 multiplayer when everyone is practically on a level playing field it kind of sucks. Despite supporting the game Day1 they'll already be outclassed.

Gears had a co op campaign & people who couldn't afford the more expensive edition could get left behind by their friends.

The only thing that annoys me personally is the fact BF1s servers will still completely implode day 1 despite the warm up.

 

[Vital Tundra]

People didn't see a problem with horse armor and look where it got us. Give them an inch and they take a mile. Same thing here.

 

[LordBaztion]

I think, if you are upset for someone playing a game earlier, or for you playing it later, you are a victim of the same hype culture that leads those guys to pay more to play it before you.

Actually, in the case of MS, I don't think you are paying more for early access, I see it as MS rewarding their most valuable customers (those willing to pay for the season pass in advance).

 

[Mechanized]

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.

Well for the reasons I listed. People getting taken advantage of should bother you. It's a predatory practice, you're looking at it from the perspective of "well it don't hurt me if someone has money to blow", and that's not really the case for all of the people playing early. This is an irrefutable predatory business tactic. They take advantage of the hardcore fans and gouge them because they know they'll pay. They don't care if some dude misses his rent, or has to eat ramen for a few weeks, and as sad as it is, that's the reality. Some people will give up something, maybe even an actual life necessity, to play early. You can shrug it off and say well that's his problem, but it doesn't discount the fact that it happens and the companies don't care. Again, nothing wrong with it from a business perspective, it's just shitty. There's also nothing wrong with the people who have money to blow and will pay the premium, except they are getting taken advantage of which may, in turn, lead to hurting fellow gamers in the long run if this business tactic seems profitable enough, and judging by that other thread it was a roaring success.

But I'll put forward another reason; in a competitive multiplayer game, time invested = skill/knowledge = advantage. A few days isn't much but when the regular release date comes there will be players with a deeper understanding of the maps, modes, weapons, etc... that will set them on the path to be better at the game than people coming in late. I would argue that does indeed hurt players who don't pony up cash. Of course that only applies to people who want to be there day 1 but don't want to/can't pay the premium, but those are the very people affected by this.

These aren't world ending problems, of course, I just can't see how it can't bother someone if you take more than a cursory glance at the situation.

 

[Odrion]

it's a poverty delay

 

[John Kowalski]

Seems to weird that they would reward invested customers by asking them to spend more money than everyone else. You'd think a better long term investment would be to make it easier for those customers to get these games earlier than regular costumers. As it is (or as my understanding of it seems), it just feels exploitative, which i bet can't be fun to be part of when you're a developer being bossed around by market directives of ill ethics.

 

[chillybright]

Like many posts have said: it is literally a price increase.

So the question becomes an obvious one: why does a price increase hurt consumers?

 

[shandy706]

Hmmm...two threads...nearly the same, but opposite sides.

I can just post the same thing, heh...

Doesn't bother me one bit. Exclusive clubs exist everywhere.

It's a video game, you can get early access if you want. It doesn't hurt my feelings in the slightest. (I don't think it's a big deal)

 

[jdmonmou]

Seems like the publisher is confident in a game to allow early access. If the game is bad that strategy would backfire since low review scores would lead to lower sales. I'm not bothered by this because spending an extra $20 to have a game a few days early is not worth it. I have plenty of other games to play while waiting for the proper release day.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

This is slippery slope bullshit though. The market dictates what we can and can't do. Micro transactions got out of control because we as a market allowed that to happen. We didn't allow online passes to happen or online only consoles.

And this doesn't even make sense why would a publisher do this? How does this make them more money?

It's not really bullshit when you can cite examples of it happening. We as a market might have fended off a few of these bad ideas, but we also let in quite a few and in many instances are worse off for it.

For example, we might not have let online passes happen, but we did allow subscriptions for online access to happen on consoles.

And don't these early access games cost more money because they come with season passes or something? You could argue that publishers will make more money from people who wouldn't have bought those passes if there wasn't already the added bonus of getting the game early. Especially if they start bringing them out earlier and earlier.

Sure, three days isn't very much, but if they extend that to a week or two it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that people would spend the extra $20 just to play it early.

 

[The Faceless Master]

in SP games.... maybe spoilers?

in MP games? you're at a immediate disadvantage vs players who have been playing on just basic things like map knowledge and technical familiarity. that's not even counting any advantages gained from in-game earnings like weapons, accessories, etc that they have gained before you even start.

 

[Harmen]

This can also backfire for developers/publishers. If the response to a game is negative, the people who still have two weeks to decide can cancel their preorder or refrain from buying on release. I do think the quality has to be there for this strategy to actually bring in extra money.

 

[defiler76]

In a game where unlocks are very crucial to kills/counter, early access is basically pay to win in the first few weeks of multiplayer. Not so much two months or more down the road.

Just my opinion as a broke man.

 

[Cosmo Clock 21]

It doesn't really hurt you but it's a real dumb move that doesn't have any direct benefits for the consumer. Founders Editions of GTX cards are a similar situation, and the distaste for those has been well borne out over the past few months.

 

[Harmondale]

I support early access, I would never in my life purchase it, but surely a good thing to cover more AAA budgets without hurting me. Could not care less

I also support in game cosmetic purchases, something I spend Money on

I hate "DLC" in terms of small things...really puts me of, for example the DLC plans of FFXV. Like 10 DLC planned wtf. On the other hand I love full blown expansions, one per game. If a second expansion is needed I rather see that as an sequel to the game

 

[Xumbrega]

It doesn't.

And as I said earlier, this is way better than DLC map packs who divide the community (do DICE still do this I think?), raising the price for ALL games to 69$, 79$ whatever, pay 2 win bullshit and etc.

Actually there's positive things about this. It can help us to decide when to keep a pre-order based on early impressions and can be a pretty good feature to prevent hammering the servers launch date.

I have no problem at all with this, it's just 5 days (Gears, Forza) to 3 days (BF1) earlier.

 

[Htown]

They're not playing it early. You're playing it late.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Because it literally encourages companies to do the things you explicitly stated you don't like, and the more acceptance they get, the more they'll try to pull off. Seems incredibly short sighted to think it doesn't affect you just because it doesn't affect you now

 

[30yearsofhurt]

This is like Dark Souls III early Japanese release all over again.
Gamers getting angry for the sake of getting angry.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

It just sets a bad precedent. At what point is your $60 game going to feel like it's no longer a $60 game? I guess in reality that was gone long ago thanks to things like DLC and season passes tacked on.

If this was somehow used to keep costs down then so be it but it isn't.

 

[PapaEmeritus]

Online passes? Don't like em.
Micro Transactions? Don't like em. Hell I hate em.
Expensive season passes that don't tell you what you're getting? Don't like em.
Early Access (as in real early access not play a few days early)? Mmmm fuck off.

Some people who play the game a few days early? Well...so?

The only thing I'm worried about is spoilers but otherwise I feel like people are making this a bigger deal than it is. If you don't even know this is happening you live in a state of bliss. Hell you get to play games like BF1 on Friday (which is dope I hate games coming out on Tuesday). And...what else?

What am I missing ladies and gents?

I mean if anything these poor saps can bug test for me before launch.

Want me to post up battlefield 1 youtube thumbnail spoilers from suggested videos? No. Thought so.

 

[blame space]

EA has been doing deluxe editions of all of their sports games for years now. you don't even get those early, you just get extra online codes and packs.

they've noticed that people are willing to pay more. and people are. you're not going to be able to stop that willingness. just buy what you want at a price you deem reasonable.

 

[Kelegacy]

Its success can create a precedent the same way DLC and microtransactions did, which then can in turn "hurt" you eventually. But gamers obviously don't care since all these terrible things always become a reality.

A big industry crash could help, ala the biblical flood, but I think it would only pave the way for more mobile stuff to take over, so it's a lose lose to me.

But as an aging gamer, I am a hopeless pessimist.

 

[firelogic]

It's a slippery slope. For example, a game publisher decides to release say, FFXV on November 29, 2016 (this is before they publicly announced it). Then they think to themselves, wait a minute, why don't we charge extra for people that want to play the game a week early? Ok, how should we do this? Hmmm, let's announce the release date as December 6 instead of November 29 and have our idiot customers pay $20 more to play the game "7 days early" when in fact, they're playing it on the very day we were going to release it in the first place! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! And to our cheapass customers, they can wait a week cuz screw them.

 

[J_ToSaveTheDay]

It's kind of weird.

I admit I've been the type of person that's attracted to "deluxe" edition, and this year just so happened to see the release of TWO of my favorite Xbox-exclusive franchises (Gears and Forza Horizon) that just happened to be partaking in the "early access" trend. I would have gotten Ultimate Edition discs on pre-order regardless, but opted for digital because of the new Play Anywhere program. I, more or less, coincidentally got early access with those titles. I thought it was nifty I got to play the whole weekend before the traditional Tuesday release, but it honestly wasn't my main motivator -- I pre-ordered Horizon 3 the day it was put onto the Xbox Store (which I believe was shortly following E3 conference), so it was more or less blind fanboyism that got me in there. Took me a while to warm up to Gears 4, but I decided to just pre-order the day I picked up my Xbox One S.

I had no interest in Battlefield but I admit the hype from the EA/Origin Access trial and the usual Monday review embargo got me excited enough to do an impulse purchase of the Deluxe Edition so I could get in. I don't personally regret it, but I do find it suspect and a bit odd that I couldn't be playing right now if I had opted for the 59.99 version, which is what I had intended when the impressions/reviews rolled in. It's Tuesday, and the game apparently "releases" on a Friday this time around, so I agree it's like they've just pushed it back based on consumer willingness to pay for this title specifically, and I'm not sure if I feel completely comfortable with it as a future practice. I am fortunate enough to have had the ability to just pay the extra Deluxe tax to get that access yesterday, but I still can't comprehend that urging people to buy a more expensive edition of the game for immediate access would create more revenue than just having all versions of the game available immediately. I think EA would've made more money if the standard edition folks could've just started playing the same time as Early Enlister folks yesterday.

 

[Admodieus]

This is like Dark Souls III early Japanese release all over again.
Gamers getting angry for the sake of getting angry.

Yup. Oh man, other people get to enjoy a game a few days early by paying more? So what - you can easily find something else to do during that time.

You're not entitled to parity of service just like publishers aren't entitled to your money. Vote with your wallet.

 

[toddhunter]

The problem becomes when more people take advantage of this offer. Then the people paying to play early are no longer really getting the game early. The only way to fix this is with early, early access, which will have to cost more.

Before you know it, people are paying huge amounts of money to play games before they have even started production. The risk is that game companies may no longer exist at the point in time in which they created the game, if it is not successful enough before it is started. Worse, some games may be played from companies who never existed in the future at all.

I think this is a situation the games industry should have worked to avoid over the coming years.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[JayhawkerStL]

Somebody explain to me how some gamers paying $80 to play sooner is different than people paying $60 to play the game sooner than people waiting for the price drop.

 

[Suburban Thug]

The game is done. It's not that these people are playing it early. They're making everyone else play it late. It's creating a class divide amongst gamers.

It's not a major deal to me, but I don't like the principal of it.

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.

This is how I feel. I'm worried it will get out of hand.

 

[Suburban Thug]

Somebody explain to me how some gamers paying $80 to play sooner is different than people paying $60 to play the game sooner than people waiting for the price drop.

Because one is a situation where the publisher restricts access and the other is where the consumer restricts their own access. I'm not up in arms over early access but I get why some hate it.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

It's just salty people who want the game but can't justify paying more for it, there's no downside to it.

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.

Explain to me how developers would be able to work if they don't have the revenue from their games months after it's done.

 

[JayhawkerStL]

Because one is a situation where the publisher restricts access and the other is where the consumer restricts their own access. I'm not up in arms over early access but I get why some hate it.

How so? If you pay $80, you get the game early. Only people paying $80 have access.

If you pay $60, then you get the game earlier than people willing to pay $40. The $60 is still giving the people willing to pay more access to the game earlier.

 

[outunderthestars]

I think, if you are upset for someone playing a game earlier, or for you playing it later, you are a victim of the same hype culture that leads those guys to pay more to play it before you.

This shit right here.

 

[SoulUnison]

How so? If you pay $80, you get the game early. Only people paying $80 have access.

If you pay $60, then you get the game earlier than people willing to pay $40. The $60 is still giving the people willing to pay more access to the game earlier.

One is a natural effect of supply and demand. Games that are no longer the hot new release go down in price over time.
The other is a purely artificial scarcity/delay intended to milk consumers for as much as they're worth while providing absolutely nothing of any new value.

This isn't about one community paying more to play "earlier," it's about the usual consumer community being held back for a few extra days and then still being charged the same $60.
Trying to argue for this from the stance of the publishers is just purely sycophantic.

Like, to the point that I have to wonder how many of the "it's no big deal" and "I support this" posters in here are real people and not corporate accounts that have weaseled their way in.

It's just salty people who want the game but can't justify paying more for it, there's no downside to it.

This is just downright idiotic. You're yourself pointing out that these people are getting the exact same product they always have and were always going to, but now it's arbitrarily an extra $20 on "release day" and the community is fractured, but there's "no downside?" I can't honestly believe you think that way or that you're blind to what the complaint is. You're basically arguing that games can be increased in price by $20 across the board and there's "no downside!"

It's like your worldview is entirely self-contained, or you're saying "I have extra disposable income, so everybody should!"

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?

"So the developers and publishers make a ton of extra money by doing absolutely no extra work, splitting the community, and artificially moving the release date back for what used to be the top bracket of customers. Why is that a bad thing and why am I so poor at critical thinking?"

They're not creating some new Extra Deluxe category of game release, they're just taking what you used to get for $60 and charging you $80 for it.
How can you not see this? There's no revolution or streamlining to introduce to the paradigm of buying games. We were already at the purest possible form of consumerism: Product is released -> Trade currency -> Receive product.

This just takes what used to be the standard "goods and services" transaction of buying games and artificially gimps it. You're not getting a new product or superior experience for your extra 20 dollars, you're just getting what you've always gotten and the company has figured out a way to squeeze another 33% of the MSRP out of you.

 

[Suburban Thug]

Explain to me how developers would be able to work if they don't have the revenue from their games months after it's done.

Isn't that why they make DLC?

 

[Randam]

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?

nothing to dicuss here, as it seems, when you don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[PeskyToaster]

I just like the steel book versions and that's usually the version that comes with extra days. And with the 20% discount from Amazon prime it's not really an extra if 60 is considered the base price.