Support NeoGAF

[Vintage]

Because these early-in players aren't really playing the game "early," everybody else is just playing it "later."
They simply created a new "product" by artificially hamstringing the existing one.


That, and I already have top dodge spoilers from releases in differing regions - can you imagine the sheer level of entitled asshole we're going to see when they want to talk about story details when 80% of the community doesn't even have the game?
"If you were so worried about spoilers you should have paid the extra 20 bucks."
I guarantee you we're going to start seeing people who feel that's a legitimate line of reasoning.

This, absolutely this.

Early release editions are just artificial value. There's no additional content or anything, no effort from developer, this is just publisher bullying customers. There's no justifiable reason to do this. If you are defending this, you are rooting for publishers wallet, nothing else.

How does it hurt customers? It's intimidating normal customers who buy standard edition. Before, if you bought full-priced game on release, you were a prime customer who was able to play the game at the earliest date possible. Now you are forced to pay extra to be like that.
Just look at Gears situation: GAF OT was up with early release (and threads on other forums, youtube, etc.), people been playing the game, sharing how much they enjoy it, but you sit there like an idiot and can't participate in discussion (or even read it - spoilers) because you can't play the damn game. What's worse is that early release was before weekend, which is a prime time to play games.

This is psychological bullying.

Oh, you say it doesn't hurt because you always wait for sales? Good for you, but majority of sales are made through pre-orders and on first day of release, so this does affect the market.
Or you can look it the other way - they are just raising a standard price to 80$ and the 60$ version is already a discount.

 

[BBboy20]

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.

 

[SPCTRE]

But how can we hashtagjointheconversation if we don't play early?

 

[membran]

The game is done. It's not that these people are playing it early. They're making everyone else play it late.

We have a winner.

 

[SirPinkyNose]

Do videogames have limited seats?

Yes it's called servers.
Also for "Delaying date" argument. Most games have a fixed release date planned long before. The game being finished before that date or not is pretty irrelevant.

 

[SlickShoes]

Nothing people in this echo chamber of a site moan about will ever go away, this stuff is marketed towards Joe public, just like dlc and early access.

The practices being adopted are grim but look at the statistics, people buy this shit up every single time.

Moaning at fellow users of a niche forum won't fix this, all that will fix it is for the general public not to have the disposable income to support these models any more.

 

[Dannymate]

I agree as well that everyone else is just playing late but there's also the psychological aspect where the version that you're getting a few days later actually seems to be a good deal.

If say a game is being released for £60 early and is then £40 a week later it feels more like 30% off rather than an entirely different product. There's also the aspect of superiority for both sides. One side who feel like they were more patient than those who bought early and the other who feel part of the "elite" for buying early just for being able to spend the extra money. Dividing a community like this can only be an advantage to the companies at play here.

Another interesting idea is that the people buying the game early are more likely to have an interest in a game and are far more likely to enjoy it. These early adopters then generate a large amount of positive buzz for a game that may only be lackluster in reality, this in turn pulls people who would otherwise be uninterested in a game into buying later on.

Just a few of my own ideas as I wanted to point out there is a lot more to this than just time and money.

 

[hbkdx12]

I don't have a problem with playing the game early. The problem for me is that idea that you're paying a premium to do so.

NBA 2k did something similar this year and last year where you got to play the game 3 days early if you preordered. For me, i'm fine with this and it seems like a happy medium

- Its basically the best preorder bonus you can get. For your commitment to buy a game before it's released/reviewed, you get to play it sooner

-It takes some of the edge off from people feeling like early players would have an "advantage" Everyone is still paying the same $60. No one is paying for a premium play early experience. By design, people who preorder are convinced that it's a game that they'll like and are willing to buy it without really knowing if they will, Those who don't preorder generally don't subscribe to the same rationale therefore it should be less offensive to know that only those who "blindly" invest in a game get to play it early

-We all know how much preorders placate publishers so this should be a model that they appreciate as it incentivizes preordering while not really giving up much in return. Charging a premium is just a greedy means of illustrating that there's too much money being left on the table by doing the above "for free" Why give away for free what you can easily charge for?

I would even go so far as to say this system should only be available for digital titles. As it gives you a small benefit for buying a game that you essentially can't return anyway. If the game is a dud and you hate it, you're still stuck with it, pre-order or not so at least you have the consolation of playing early. If it's great and you like it, well then it's an extra 3 days that you get to play. From a retail perspective, if the above system were more wide spread, there really wouldn't be much of a reason to not preorder unless you just don't want to go through the hassle of returning a game.

 

[mugwhump]

It's probably slightly delaying the date you get the game. They're not playing it early so much as everyone else is playing it late, unless the early folk are getting a not-quite-finished version.

I find I don't mind all that much, though.

 

[dd492941]

How can waiting 3 days or even month to play a game hurt anyone? There are thousands of games out right this second. No one on this site or anywhere can say they can't find a game to play at any moment. Why does it matter to anyone when a game is released as long as it comes out and is fun to play? That's the purpose of games. Why am I entitled enough to tell these companies "it's not fair to make me wait!" Just freaking play something else for the 3 days, the week, the year. It just seems petty. They don't even have to make the game at all. They could just refuse to sell it to you. They are the ones making the damn games.I'd rather they target people willing to pay more money for early access or "on time" access than for them to just straight up say as an entire industry. Ps5 and Xbox4 games will be starting price 99.99 for everyone. No 60 dollar version available.
Season passes gives me the option to pay more for more content if I want it.
Microtransactions allow me to personalize my game more or cheat, or whatever they put in there to do for the game, for more money if I want it.
Now, there is an option for me to play the game earlier than I would if I wanted to pay 60 dollars if I want to.
Companies have budgets and payroll to fill. We want more games, bigger games, more epic games, more variety of games, better graphics, better technology, etc. But yet are not willing to spend more than 60 max for a game? Get the hell out of here. I go to a restaurant and order two entrees and 2 beverages and maybe an appetizer and tip and I'm spending close to that if not well over that amount for one meal. This is an entertainment industry and we are here to be entertained. These are artists, engineers, sound designers, producers, actors, directors, editors, qa staffing, and the worst departments of all to be a part of in this industry, customer service and sales. Every single person wants their paycheck.
We don't want to pay it, but truth is, if we want to play it, we should pay it. I don't understand the mentality that we have towards these seemingly "bloodsucking" companies that are "leaching off us." They are trying to entertain you and you need to shut up and pay! You have no right to say video games are not worth more than 60 dollars or any amount they release at for that matter. To someone, maybe not you, maybe not anyone you know, but to someone it is absolutely worth it. Probably more. And if the companies do want your money and you want that product they will eventually make it to a price point that you think is fair. If not then don't buy it from those bloodsuckers you so badly want goods from. The price of goods is going up. Deal with it. I want these companies to continue entertaining me, so I support them. They don't have a gun to my head and force me to buy their game at a certain price regardless of what the price is.

 

[Hjod]

I'm kind of curious how reviews will be handled, will outlets get a review copy at the same time as people who payed extra or at the later date?

Will be interesting going foward.

I'll just add that I don't really care if people gets to play the game earlier than me. But I should care, because as we have seen AAA-gaming know how to take everything too far.

 

[hbkdx12]

I'm kind of curious how reviews will be handled, will outlets get a review copy at the same time as people who payed extra or at the later date?

Will be interesting going foward.

I'll just add that I don't really care if people gets to play the game earlier than me. But I should care, because as we have seen AAA-gaming know how to take everything too far.

Most outlets tend to get the game a week or so before release. So the issue would be when the embargo would be up. Would it be the early play date or the actual day 1 date?

I think this is even less of an issue if they based this play early system on preorders as i detailed in my post above. You could still have an embargo for day 1 or sometime between the early play date and day 1 because the only people who are playing early are those who preordered in which case they're decision isn't based on reviews anyway.

 

[Com Truise]

The game just got more expensive on release day. So now you might need to wait a week for your highly anticipated game while dodging spoilers or something for no reason at all except corporations wanting more of your money.

I certainly at least don't see any upsides to any of this.

 

[wapplew]

I think it hurt me psychologically.
Launch days feel special for me, now I have to pay more to get that day 1 feel. Some of those whales might spoiled stuff on twitter, I have to suffer from internet blackout just because I don't pay more...
It's kinda sucks already when illegal early copy leak and spoiler all over the internet, now people can officially do that, make it impossible to avoid spoiler.

 

[Anhkow]

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.

People play the Battlefield series primarily for the competitive online mode. A mode in which you level up and unlock new weapons and equipment. The people that get an early access to the game will have an edge over everyone else with an expanded arsenal and map knowledge. This could be considered unfair.

 

[sammyCYBORG]

I think it's scummy and I don't like it on multiple levels, but one of the main reasons I don't like it is because it waters down the "release day" experience.

There's something cool about everyone getting a game on the same day, experiencing it at the same time, etc etc.

When you have a staggered launch it takes away the "event" feeling.

 

[simatron3000]

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.

On the contrary, season passes, early access etc are an alternative to increasing the cost of the base game for everyone. Would you rather some people willingly paid $40 extra for a season pass or everyone paid $10 more for the base game?

 

[Gxgear]

Content gated by a paywall is not that hard a concept. Now it's being creeped into full-fledged retail titles and still some still don't see how that might hurt us as consumers.

 

[Cipherr]

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.

Games should have started costing more a long ass time ago. This shit is due, and we don't want to admit it. We expect more from these games production wise, and we get it, but the prices haven't stayed in line. Its been frozen in place around $60 for a LONG ass time. This sort of early release to some people is (in my eyes) the least offensive form of making more money on these games.

 

[E-flux]

Nothing people in this echo chamber of a site moan about will ever go away, this stuff is marketed towards Joe public, just like dlc and early access.

The practices being adopted are grim but look at the statistics, people buy this shit up every single time.

Moaning at fellow users of a niche forum won't fix this, all that will fix it is for the general public not to have the disposable income to support these models any more.

So you are suggesting that everybody shuts up and just goes whatever publishers throw at us? Also neogaf is far from niche, we have a fairly huge number of people here who have worked or works in the gaming industry and if i remember right i have seen plenty of times gaming news that sourced it back to neogaf, or just used comments from neogaf as part of the article.
EDIT: just for the sake of it i want to add that quite a lot of shit has also gotten the start from here, harassment to unnecessary witch hunts which obviously are not good things.

 

[SmokedMeat]

On the contrary, season passes, early access etc are an alternative to increasing the cost of the base game for everyone. Would you rather some people willingly paid $40 extra for a season pass or everyone paid $10 more for the base game?

Has there been a single instance this gen where a company skipped all of the LEs, early access, and microtransactions, and simply charged more for the base game?

I've seen it mentioned like it's the obvious result, but have yet to see one instance of it happening. Actually I just paid less for Overwatch because it lacked all of the bullshit that I didn't care about. $40 for just the game.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Its Marketing. Lull people into thinking they're part of some exclusive community of special little snowflakes, and you can extract more money from them.

Just call it a thank you to your most loyal fans (that they have to pay for lol) and you're set.

 

[Saty]

Because the game is done and it's ready to be played by everyone. Because you already paid $60 to play the game. Because the publisher is manipulating it's most excited fans to pay more to play it earlier - which practically means you set a new rls date and it's not you playing early, it's others getting it later. It's yet another money-squeezing tactic.

 

[BashNasty]

I think it's scummy and I don't like it on multiple levels, but one of the main reasons I don't like it is because it waters down the "release day" experience.

There's something cool about everyone getting a game on the same day, experiencing it at the same time, etc etc.

When you have a staggered launch it takes away the "event" feeling.

I very much agree with this. Very surprised GAF, a forum filled with hardcore, impatient gamers is defending this practice. Like many others, getting a game as early as possible is important to me, it's why I wait eagerly at 11pm (or sometimes, annoyingly, 2am) for whatever game I'm looking forward to to be released. Look at any thread around the launch of a game and it's clear that many, many other people feel the same way. The launch of a highly anticipated title is an event. Fracturing that launch is a shitty and disruptive practice that reduces that delightful launch day hype.

I'm absolutely fine with most micro transactions, far more so than many people here, but paying more to get a game "early" is really shitty. And don't kid yourself, many, many people who pay the extra money are not paying for whatever extra content you're getting, they're paying more because they're impatient and want to play as soon as possible. I know the feeling, and if this awful practice keeps up, it'll eventually get me too, and that sucks.

 

[Wil348]

I'm pretty sure that previous DICE games were launched 2-3 days earlier in the U.S than the EU, digital and physical. Seems to me this is their way of being able to have a simultaneous worldwide launch and still launch on Tuesday to some capacity.

 

[oni-link]

It just pushes me to keep on doing what I've been doing for years

Wait ages and pick AAA games up for a tenner 6 months to 2 years after release, and then fill the gaps with all the retro and indie games that I want to play

Waiting means you get the games all patched up as well, the only downside is for multiplayer games, and I personally don't care about those so I'm all good

From my perspective I'd rather they do this to generate extra money than micro transactions or anything else that has an impact on game design

 

[Stallion Dan]

When some story heavy game does it and there are spoilers everywhere days before people can play it, then is the time to care.

 

[Camp Freddie]

Simple. The game is ready and you are being told to wait.
Some people getting it early is equal to other people being told to wait.

"Pay $5 a month to join our club and play games early" is a really cheeky price-gouging activity.

 

[Q8D3vil]

When it becomes the norm it will hurt everyone.

 

[Zeuanimals]

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.

Soon, we'll be getting access to control a robot watching the devs brainstorm for what their next project will be.

 

[Lupercal]

It's been going this route ever since people started paying for Xbox Live for no other reason than MP gaming.

You started this Xbox fans !

 

[SlickShoes]

So you are suggesting that everybody shuts up and just goes whatever publishers throw at us? Also neogaf is far from niche, we have a fairly huge number of people here who have worked or works in the gaming industry and if i remember right i have seen plenty of times gaming news that sourced it back to neogaf, or just used comments from neogaf as part of the article.
EDIT: just for the sake of it i want to add that quite a lot of shit has also gotten the start from here, harassment to unnecessary witch hunts which obviously are not good things.

No I don't think we should shut up about it.

Also the things you refer to are just gaming things, I'm talking about the general public that never consider themselves gamers, they are buying all this DLC by the bucketload.

 

[The Cartographer]

Let's just enjoy watching the suckers fall for this new trend.

 

[Silent Chief]

For most games I wait from 6 to 18 months to buy the game for $20 or so. I certainly have no problems with people paying extra to play even earlier.

 

[MindGamingMantis]

Eh, it's just a bonus for those who want the special edition. If it bothers you pay for the special edition or get the game on its release date.

I think people are mad for the same reason they buy games day one; they want to be in on the conversation.

 

[J 0 E]

As I said on the other thread

This would be unacceptable if they delayed the game just for this milking scheme, the game will ship on it's original date to everyone... no harm done I think.

 

[Enter The 36 Chambers]

It's pretty shitty, but as long as people spend the extra money, and they will, it's gonna continue.

Gears was the only game I'm buying on launch this year and I easily avoided trailers and spoilers the whole way until it came out. Fuck paying extra to play it a few days early.

I was lucky to even have time to play on launch between work, gf, friends and everything in between. I'll gladly wait and keep my money

 

[Monkey_Plunkett]

Now USA gaf knows what it's like for us in the UK with a good amount of people getting to play games earlier.

 

[tootsi666]

The game is done. It's not that these people are playing it early. They're making everyone else play it late.

Bingo

 

[Aztechnology]

Now USA gaf knows what it's like for us in the UK with a good amount of people getting to play games earlier.

That's not really what people care about, it's a small problem. It's that they are withholding a completed game in order to squeeze more money out of certain types of people.

 

[PillarEN]

The "hurt" part comes from the game being sold at a high premium on release day. There is no early release. It is the release and it is charging more than full price. Others have to wait for the full price discount at an arbitrary date. Nobody is getting anything early. It's simply paying a huge amount on launch day under the guise that you get to play early.

 

[Admodieus]

For all of the people complaining about this practice - how many still bought Gears of War and Forza Horizon 3, or intend to? How many are still buying Battlefield 1 or even have it pre-ordered?

The thing about gamers is that they complain about these practices (like exclusive DLC for pre-orders) all the time, yet they still pre-order the game and buy it on Day 1. All of the whining on internet forums is meaningless if you are unable to find a shred of willpower and not give the publisher your money.

 

[Exploratory]

You're being ridiculously obtuse about this.
This is such a weird issue to throw your weight so fully behind if you're just an average consumer.

"I don't mind paying more, and you're just a wimp if you hate prices being arbitrarily/manipulatively raised."

Seriously. What publisher do you work for? How much are you being paid to make it seem like this isn't something people should/do care about?

We're moving towards a future where we have less and less rapport with development houses while titles are being made, there's massive review embargoes, if a title is lucky enough to get a review release at all, and yet they're raising prices because they know so many people don't have the patience or self-control to wait to see if something is worth their $60, much less $80. There is an intentional environment where devs and publishers are making sure you know as little about a game as possible EXCEPT for their custom tailored marketing materials, so that when the title is available at whatever price they try to gouge you at, you're as excited as possible with the least information available.

We're being treated like idiots and you're applauding.

lol jesus christ.

Listen we are knee deep in an industry is becoming more and more expensive for creators but as consumers we don't like new revenue sources. Gamers have hated all new revenue sources since the PS2 era but the reality is video games are a business and people making them have to eat.

I think people with your mentality are just being supremely childish. It's a push a pull and it's not black and white. Some things that publishers try should absolutely be called out and negatively affects me but the reality is any new revenue source is going to have push back from gamers because it's not about us it's about their bottom line. I like video games though and if the people who make them can make more money without hurting my gaming experience I'm perfectly fine with that.

"I don't mind paying more" I'M NOT. If this were a standard 20 dollar price increase I would be livid. It's not. No one says you have to play a game early and yes it is early because the game has a launch date at a specific price point for everyone at 60 bucks.

And for the record I would love early review embargoes but if you don't have enough sense not to fall for the hype and make an informed decision you're probably lost anyway.

 

[giancarlo123x]

It doesn't, there are just people that will find anything to complain about. I can't afford to buy any edition of bf1 at the moment so does it make it right if I complain to those that can? If you can afford the early enlister edition then good for you.

 

[Sylas]

Hasn't this essentially been happening in Europe for years now? Except they have to deal with the entirety of NA having a game--for sometimes months--before they do. Isn't it a thing for a lot of JP games? Is it just a matter of population, or are you getting upset because something that's been a reality for years is finally affecting you?

The spoiler thing rings really shitty to me, but that's just me.

Or are people really trying to tell me that there are PRINCIPALS involved in the release of a video game?

The game has always been done before you got it. People were always playing it. Now you can just pay for it instead of scrounging around a local mom and pop store. I wonder where all the people crying, "I know the game is done just give it to me I'll pay extra!!!" are?

 

[ironmang]

I don't think it's a bad thing. Helps me save money by not buying games that feature this dumb shit. Same thing happened when EA went full milking mode with selling online advantages. I used to buy NHL and Madden every year now I buy 1 copy of each per generation just to have it for local multiplayer.

I know my protest doesn't mean anything to them but it makes me feel better not supporting these business strategies.

 

[Manu]

The game is done. It's not that these people are playing it early. They're making everyone else play it late.

I don't get this. Do you believe every game that doesn't do this isn't done until release date? Some people even get early physical copies thanks to broken street dates.

Also, AAA games release on Tuesdays. If the game is still releasing on a Tuesday and a small, tiny portion of the playerbase is getting it the previous Friday, how are you getting it late?

 

[Woo-Fu]

Other people playing early put you at a competitive disadvantage.

They'll have 3 days of map knowledge, 3 days of weapon familiarization, 3 days of "this works great, this doesn't work at all". So when you finally get to play multiplayer with your starter weapon on maps you don't know, objectives where you don't know the best offensive/defensive approaches, vs. people using the best weapons in class with map knowledge you're going to be cannon fodder for awhile.

Some people care about stuff like that, some don't.

I've been watching Twitch and the meta is already changing. What I'm starting to see is full squads dedicated to locking down whichever point spawns the Tank Sniper.

 

[Zafir]

Hasn't this essentially been happening in Europe for years now? Except they have to deal with the entirety of NA having a game--for sometimes months--before they do. Isn't it a thing for a lot of JP games? Is it just a matter of population, or are you getting upset because something that's been a reality for years is finally affecting you?

No.

Yes, we get games a few days late sometimes because our release date has always been a Friday while America remains a Tuesday. Yes, sometimes we end up having to wait a year because certain Japanese companies never really thought the localisation process through. No one was being swindled out of their money so they can play early. Those were symptoms of other issues.

 

[Conkerkid11]

How?

No they didn't

Recent Xbox One / PC play anywhere titles have been the first offenders.

Namely Forza Horizon 3 and Gears of War 4, both of which require you to purchase a $100 version of the game to play early, versus Battlefield 1's early access with an $80 version.