Support NeoGAF

[Fbh]

It doesn't.

I mean, the one argument I've seen is that in competitive multiplayer games it will give an edge to the people who have it early. By the time the game is out for everyone the early owners will have better/more gear and a better understanding of the maps and game mechanics so they will have an advantage over new players..... for a few days until everyone catches up anyway.
Which is true, I guess, but will only be relevant for a few days and only if you are a hardcore competitive player.


But in terms of ways for devs to get some extra money it's by far the best one yet. No content is being taken away for me and I have a bunch of people testing the game for issues before I'm even able to buy it. Now I have both reviewers and regular people giving me their impressions before release. Now more than ever there is even less of a reason to pre order games

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.

Games never go on sale as soon as they are ready. They have set release dates defined by the publisher.
Games are also ready when they are sent to reviewers a few weeks before the oficial release date

 

[MikeyB]

It's a shift towards value based pricing, which is generally about squeezing as much out of the consumer as possible. It has historically been seen as gouging and many consumer protection laws have provisions against it (though those provisions are generally focused on the price not being out of whack with similar products, so as all firms shift towards value based pricing, those provisions become ineffective.)

Profiteering during war and Martin Shkrelli's approach to pricing drugs are examples of value based pricing.

There are questions about its impact on the economy. Basically that it reduces consumer wellbeing. Let's say you need to repair a garage so that you can get to work. A value based contractor would charge you the maximum you could afford. A cost based contractor would charge you for materials and labour with a reasonable profit margin in mind. If the former, then you reduce spending in other aspects of the economy and are probably generally worse off.

All that said, the majority here seem to have taken the "maximize shareholder profits" as scripture, so I don't think the above criticisms will sound convincing or even make sense to them. Value based pricing is a natural extension of maximising shareholder profits.

 

[Doc_Drop]

To me it's a slightly scummy way of increasing the base cost of games and I'd rather companies just raise the price honestly than creating a timed difference between the have and have nots.

I understand no one is pointing a gun to anyone's head but it is exploitative of the same mindsets that are exploited by gambling, and general uninformed purchase decisions.

It's capitalism 101 but it's the side of capitalism that I feel only benefits sharholders rather than the system as a whole

 

[Sylas]

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.

How is it swindling if it's 100% honest and open? That's the opposite of swindling--it's presenting an option. The marketing around it might hype it up, but the marketing for CEs, LEs, etc have been hyped up for years.

They want you to spend more money because they spend more money. Where do you think "unreasonable" sales figures come from? Sometimes it's outta someone's ass but we even hear from indie developers that they need to ship a whole ton of copies to break even.

I digress. If people want to spend the money and the option is presented to them--and it's an option that objectively doesn't harm them or try to get one over on them--it isn't swindling. It's transparent and you just don't like the fact. Call it what it is.

Now, I agree. If games suddenly launch on Friday with "early access" date being the Tuesday before (i.e.: the release day we've grown accustomed to in NA) then it's kinda shit.

But at the end of the day isn't it better for YOUR wallet if someone else wants to drop some extra cash? Someone getting it 3 days earlier just means impressions get pumped out 3 days before you can buy the game, and if recent history is any indication it's probably a great idea to wait for impressions before you buy a game anyway.

 

[wapplew]

Gamer spend more gaming budget toward a game means he/she will buy less games.
I can see whole game industry revenue concentrate on fewer games, only the big guys will make money.

 

[blurredvision]

It's amazing to me how NeoGAF users have changed over the years. I've been lurking here for a long time, even before I finally created an account a few years ago. GAF was the one place you could always go and count on the gamers striking back at publishers and developers and calling them on their bullshit. But over the past 2-3 years, there's been a noticeable shift (to me) in opinions towards siding with DLC, season passes, micro-transactions, and cash grabs like what we're seeing with BF1 early enlister access.

Whether this is good or bad (or whether anybody agrees with me) is inconsequential to discussion, I just wanted to post my observations.

 

[Cappa]

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.

who cares? Thats what most smart consumers should be doing anyways... waiting.

I think most people have learned their lesson that you shouldnt preorder a game unless your 100 and 10% certain you will enjoy it and it will be worth every penny to you.

Personally, Id rather wait until a game is on sale and get it for much cheaper. Im not worried about "spoilers" those are also easy to avoid.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

They're simply exploiting the fact the some of y'all can't help yourselves. As with predatory gambling DLC, if no one bought it, they wouldn't do it. Whales make the world go 'round, not average players.

 

[Munter]

I don't blame the companies, I blame the people who are willing to pay to get access/stuff earlier.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

who cares? Thats what most smart consumers should be doing anyways... waiting.

I think most people have learned their lesson that you shouldnt preorder a game unless your 100 and 10% certain you will enjoy it and it will be worth every penny to you.

Personally, Id rather wait until a game is on sale and get it for much cheaper. Im not worried about "spoilers" those are also easy to avoid.

Everyone should care. It's a way to inflate the base cost of a video game.

And your personal buying preferences shouldn't dictate the base level market for a game.

That's a very selfish mentality.

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?

Because the new release date is actually Friday. It's not releasing on a Tuesday anymore of its available to buy on the Friday before. I don't even see your logic in that. It's not like Tuesday is the magical video game release day and any games not released on Tuesdays don't count. A video game release date is whatever date it's officially on sale to the public.

And breaking street date isn't a great comparison here. There are repercussions to the stores doing that.

Now, I agree. If games suddenly launch on Friday with "early access" date being the Tuesday before (i.e.: the release day we've grown accustomed to in NA) then it's kinda shit.

This is literally no different than what is happening in this situation except for the fact that the days are different. Why does not matter to you when people can get the game four days early because they get it on a Friday compared to if people got it three days early because they got it on a Tuesday and pushed the non premium priced version to Friday? In both situations people who pay more get the game days early for zero reason. In fact, the method that you have less of a problem with is actually the shorter amount of time in between release dates.

It makes no sense.

 

[Zafir]

How is it swindling if it's 100% honest and open? That's the opposite of swindling--it's presenting an option. The marketing around it might hype it up, but the marketing for CEs, LEs, etc have been hyped up for years.

They want you to spend more money because they spend more money. Where do you think "unreasonable" sales figures come from? Sometimes it's outta someone's ass but we even hear from indie developers that they need to ship a whole ton of copies to break even.

I digress. If people want to spend the money and the option is presented to them--and it's an option that objectively doesn't harm them or try to get one over on them--it isn't swindling. It's transparent and you just don't like the fact. Call it what it is.

Now, I agree. If games suddenly launch on Friday with "early access" date being the Tuesday before (i.e.: the release day we've grown accustomed to in NA) then it's kinda shit.

But at the end of the day isn't it better for YOUR wallet if someone else wants to drop some extra cash? Someone getting it 3 days earlier just means impressions get pumped out 3 days before you can buy the game, and if recent history is any indication it's probably a great idea to wait for impressions before you buy a game anyway.

I can call it swindling because it's again taking advantage of people and the hype culture surrounding gaming. It's pushing people into spending more money so they can be a part of this day 1 hype experience. Punishing those who don't want to pay more by delaying the game for them.

 

[xVodevil]

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.

A game can release easily at a wrong time, when I can't play it for a few days, no matter what. So yeah, it's kind of a bigger deal than it should be. Also I don't think this could become a bigger thing with weeks between the standard and the play earlier versions...

 

[BigDug13]

This will only happen with games that are guaranteed to be brilliant. If the publisher has any mixed feelings about how the game will be received, they won't do it because bad word of mouth from the early players will cancel preorders and day one sales.

I see actions like this as a sign that the game is going to be really good.

 

[hbkdx12]

Are people against the idea of "early access" simply being a preorder bonus?

What if it wasn't about paying a premium to get it sooner?

 

[BlitzBlake]

At least you're getting something for the extra $$. I swear, some people feel the RRP should remain unchanged forever and ever...

 

[Assanova]

I remember paying $80+ for Nintendo 64 games. If this means that more developers are able to stay afloat and we get more games out if it, then I am okay with this model.they have to make their money somewhere, especially with the inflating costs of developing games. This tiered model is much better than paying $80+ for a game again. I am more than willing to pay extra for the games I really want if it is better for the industry as a whole.

 

[NoHeDidn't]

It hurts every gamer cause it condones this behavior going forward and I guarantee you will pay for it.Either with purposeful delays or the many other ways they hold shit ransom.Basically if it affects my fellow gamers it affects me cause lord knows money is tight and just buying their fucking game should get me the same access as everyone else who has more money.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I remember paying $80+ for Nintendo 64 games. If this means that more developers are able to stay afloat and we get more games out if it, then I am okay with this model.they have to make their money somewhere, especially with the inflating costs of developing games. This tiered model is much better than paying $80+ for a game again. I am more than willing to pay extra for the games I really want if it is better for the industry as a whole.

N64 games were $80 because cartridges were more costly to produce.

 

[~Cross~]

Is there an actual early access physical box set for the game or is it all digital?

 

[Doc_Drop]

I remember paying $80+ for Nintendo 64 games. If this means that more developers are able to stay afloat and we get more games out if it, then I am okay with this model.they have to make their money somewhere, especially with the inflating costs of developing games. This tiered model is much better than paying $80+ for a game again. I am more than willing to pay extra for the games I really want if it is better for the industry as a whole.

But you are paying $80+ for the game on release, a few days later it's $60, a month later less. This is the point,these companies are increasing the base cost of release day games but they're are being disingenuous. I'd rather they admit it but saying it bluntly they risk pr backlash.

 

[a.wd]

It doesn't.

 

[firelogic]

The problem is that you're not really playing it early. You're playing it on the day they wanted you to start playing it but instead of $60, you're paying $80. How does that not sound fishy to those that support this practice? Then those that don't pay the extra money have to wait x days to play it simply because they weren't willing to pony up more money to play it on the soft launch date.

 

[xRaizen]

It doesn't hurt you. But when those same games ALSO have season passes AND microtransactions (BF1 is going to have it sooner or later!)? That's where the problem is.

Publishers having their cake and eating it too.

 

[Clint Beastwood]

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.

Deus Ex tried to do it but people got upset because of how poorly they handled it.

NBA 2K17 announced the early tip off before Forza/Gears and also released before Forza and Gears. Also NBA 2K16 did it as well, and probably 2K15 but I skipped that game. While they didn't charge more, they still did the whole launch early thing, but sports games don't need a collector edition to make money. Just go into MyPARK on the day the game releases and see all the people with a 90 rating and a bunch of customization items

 

[Coxy100]

The problem is that you're not really playing it early. You're playing it on the day they wanted you to start playing it but instead of $60, you're paying $80. How does that not sound fishy to those that support this practice? Then those that don't pay the extra money have to wait x days to play it simply because they weren't willing to pony up more money to play it on the soft launch date.

Exactly. The game is ready - but they are forcing you to pay extra to play it when it's ready - or you can pay a bit less if you're prepared to wait a few days.

But the point is the game is ready - but to play it 'on time' you have to pay a premium

 

[simatron3000]

Everyone should care. It's a way to inflate the base cost of a video game.

Yes it's the cost raising the average revenue per copy sold, except the cost is being passed to the whales rather than everyone. Would you rather have a $60 game with a $40 season pass, which is my experience is rarely worth the money, or a $70-75 game?

 

[orthodoxy1095]

It doesn't. It's actually a boon for you since servers get eased in and impressions get rolled out to validate/invalidate your purchase.

 

[Heshinsi]

Because they aren't getting it early. This isn't an alpha, beta, or demo. The game is done and could be fully released.

Publishers are exploiting fans.

It's not about you being hurt because you have to wait, it's about creating a fake incentive to get more money out of players because they can.

Or they are rewarding fans that buy the deluxe version (which has always excited for Forza Horizon) of their games. Forza Horizon 3 DE didn't just give me 5 days early access, but also additional cars, season pass, bonuses, and increased XP accumulation rate. I don't see what's wrong with a company like Microsoft saying, "thanks Heshinsi for buying this version of the game, and as an added bonus, we'll let you play a few days early as an appreciation."

 

[Late Flag]

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.

This is exactly right. When you re-phrase it as "pay $20 more or you have to play it later," it's kind of easy to see why this ticks people off.

 

[haveheart]

I think it's quite cheeky selling a version of a game that costs 25% more than the standard version just to play 3 days earlier. I remember times when we were calculating how much an hour of gameplay costs. You know price/value.

EA Access is alright. It's 4€ per month and you get early access.

But the early enlister edition? The price difference is disgusting.

Just wait for games that cost 100€ so you can play 1 month before the other peasants.

And we're all prone to this marketing. Just look into a OT and look for the words hype or day 1, day 0...

 

[autoduelist]

This is exactly right. When you re-phrase it as "pay $20 more or you have to play it later," it's kind of easy to see why this ticks people off.

But that's exactly how it is now. People who can afford it spend $60 to play 'day 1', and others wait a month to grab it at $40-50. Now, people who can afford it spend $80 to play 'day 1' [renamed early access] and others wait some amount of time to get a discounted price.

Now, people might not like a price raise to $80, and I understand why [I don't], but it was always going to happen eventually.

 

[Doc_Drop]

Yes it's the cost raising the average revenue per copy sold, except the cost is being passed to the whales rather than everyone. Would you rather have a $60 game with a $40 season pass, which is my experience is rarely worth the money, or a $70-75 game?

Because taking advantage of whales is super and something we as a society should encourage