I'm shocked at the outrage, I even kickstarted this and think there's nothing wrong with them doing this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dev Comments On Planetary Annihilation Being Sold At Retail As Early Access Title
- Thread starter Kayant
- Start date
I don't see the problem with it either. Uber are are not some shady development team who are going to hop onto a boat to the Cayman Islands with all the dosh and not finish the game.
Not like children but like people who don't bother reading the small print / don't exactly understand what it means. Not everyone speaks "game distribution models" lingo fluently.
there's so much shit on steam greenlight, there's so many shit apps on iOS that people buy for 99c and think it'll get them custom lock screens when it's just wallpapers (even though it says the app is just wallpapers somewhere in the app description) - i know because an app like that is always on the appstore top lists. I think these kinds of scams should be banned from said marketplaces.
Just like i think scams like "lose weight fast - with these pills" and "make money quick - from home" should be taken action against.
I don't think the market should be a darwinist jungle but people should be able to trust in getting their money's worth / not getting scammed.
(we're going kind of OT here, since what Uber is doing is far from these shady practices. I just think acceptance of these precedents is what opens the door to much shadier cons)
Also a potential issue here is the fact its alpha/beta stuff (the concept, not necessarily this case) will also destroy consumer protection too, you arent guaranteed anything or even playable state.
It's buyer beware. No one is forcing anyone to buy this. If you don't want it wait until the full release. There's nothing wrong with doing this.
CecilRousso
Member
Not necessarily, no.
I'm sure they are, but that's their problem. I see an issue with what you can require from a customer when developer start messing about restrictions to a product with DRM info in small print, but not when they slap a large sticker right in the middle over the box. If they see a text, don't understand it, and then don't ask about it any of the available channels before they buy it, they will have to blame themselves about it if they don't like what that large warning text meant.
harrypmgaga
Member
I dunno about you, but "Early Access Edition - Includes Free Upgrade to Full Game" seems like it should make sense towards the general audience that's picking up the product,
should the Full Game ever be released, that is.
You're purchasing something that includes a promise. What if the promise falls through, can you return the box because said "Full Game" never got released?
Honest question, actually.
I do believe you get a DLC season pass (which is kind of similar to this, no?) refunded, if the promised DLCs are never released. I'd have doubts Best Buy will give you a refund on this, though.
This is presupposing you know better then someone willing to take the risk. People make a choice not to do due diligence in a product and take a risk. Using a subset of uneducated consumers who will be burned by this isnt a particularly strong arguement against this. Allowing people to buy into the potential of a product with an unfinished release is not "dawrwinistic" some people actually like to go to preseason games, where it means nothing, and some people will want to buy a alpha/beta with the hopes of it becoming more. You cant punish 1 subset of consumers because you want to protect a different subset of consumers. You shouldnt have that right, imo, and the argument you're making is very close to the argument on the war on drugs(consumers are too stupid and need to be protected by the better people).
Fraud is against the law, and if there is enough to prove that there is fraud that happened, you absolutely can punish that, currently, under the law.
it's also similar to the war on guns, where i'd also argue to limit access to firearms even more, even if that "punishes" a subset of customers. We're obviously getting political, though.
buyer beware isnt a strong argument, theres tonnes of consumer protection law out there. I see this as loopholing current protections by (fat end of wedge) being an empty box for £40 that can remain that way till the end of time, or a dev could roll a game back/massively change design etc.
My stance is really more on how to adapt consumer protections and avoid shady practices from becoming the norm. Also the price is still obscene (its £10.20 in steam sale right now) [though obvs theres the GAME-Gouge markup involved)
We're not getting political, we're getting silly.
We are talking about the "danger" of people maybe buying a game which doesn't fulfill their expectations (a danger which, by the way, already existed before as well) here, not shooting sprees.
What you are suggesting is inherently political, what do you mean we're "getting" political? As for your gun analogy, look at the UK before 1920, when gun laws were lax as the US and look at it now(even compared to the US). It's fine not to like something, but to take something away from someone, you dont like that something, you need a hell of a lot of proof to justify it, that the end result would be a positive. Having personal beliefs held by a subset and then forcing those beliefs on a different subset is damaging, imo.
And what is that? Consumers will buy up all the bad beta's that wont come to fruition? The only precedent it would send, if it does well, is that people want it and are willing to take the risk.
I think it's a greedy slap in the face to people that actually finish their projects before charging people money for it.
Let's just let every fucking game developer sell us their half finished bullshit. Why should anyone need to ever finish anything before attempting to profit from it?
Because consumers want them to? Does there need to be a better reason? Do you think there is no risk for a company to do this?
Hellsing321
Member
You should have gotten an email about them adding the beta key to your account. Everyone who got a tier that gets them the game has beta access now.
39.99 for a PC retail title....what in the holy fuck.
This will sell 0 copies here , Game already treat their PC section like a dirty secret , hidden away in a tiny corner in the back of the shop , strange looks given to anyone who wanders into said area.
Gotta love how people are welcoming the normalisation of a model that's charging full price for games that developers have zero obligation to actually finish.
This will sell 0 copies here , Game already treat their PC section like a dirty secret , hidden away in a tiny corner in the back of the shop , strange looks given to anyone who wanders into said area.
Gotta love how people are welcoming the normalisation of a model that's charging full price for games that developers have zero obligation to actually finish.
I think it cheapens the industry. I think a trend of developers being able to sell their games before they even finish them can have long term, damaging effects on how games are made and perceived by consumers.
In 10 years, fucking everything on Steam will be Early Access, by the looks of the way things are going now. And now that Planetary Annihilation is going to retail, it could happen there, too, if PC retail wasn't already dead.
Hellsing321
Member
If people are willing to pay for it in the state its in why shouldn't they be allowed to sell it?
If it's done bad the consumer will dry up from it or become picky or completely fracture. Either way the indsutry will adjust to what consumers demand. If they, on average, make most consumers happy it will stay, but if most peoples demands are being met then it means it is what consumers want. Demand drives companies from doing what they are doing, if they burn consumers enough times the well will dry up and there will be readjustments(just like 1984).
If in 10 years almost everything goes early access that just means that the indsutry moved on for people like us who dont want that sort of thing...that doesnt mean we have to go to the party, but that also doesnt mean that the party other consumers are having is a bad thing.
I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to sell it, but I certainly think people shouldn't support this practice.
But people are clearly willing to accept short-term gratification in spite of potential, far-reaching harm to the industry.
for the record I hate free market theory
That's fine, most people do, everyone wants the one that suits them the most. Point to a better one, in use.
There is so much malinvestment in the industry seems silly, imo, to think this is the key to the downfall. IMO, this has more of a chance to burn people in a more recognizable way, and you can bet if there is a chance fraud can be proven in court by a client who can prove that the developer made claims they didnt mean or see to completion, there will be lawsuits.
sickvisionz
Banned
I don't see the issue. There is a big yellow police tape biohazard warning on the cover that says the game isn't done. Consumers will make their decision on whether or not they want to buy it. It's not like they're tricking people with some microsized font on the back that says the game isn't done. It's big as hell on the front of the box. What is the issue with this existing in the marketplace?
You don't have to buy it. You can just wait until the final release is available and purchase it then. I don't even see it starting a bad trend unless you're banned from buying the final version unless you purchase this one. There is always the option to not purchase or simply wait until the final version comes out and its same as usual.
You don't have to buy it. You can just wait until the final release is available and purchase it then. I don't even see it starting a bad trend unless you're banned from buying the final version unless you purchase this one. There is always the option to not purchase or simply wait until the final version comes out and its same as usual.
Think it kinda disproves itself, dont really need a competing theory. I dont necessarily believe all things will balance out, I dont necessarily believe serious harm wont be done while it balances. I also believe it could taint and change my relationship with the industry. I believe current consumer protections arent fit for this model.
A lot of my complaint is against this being a wider practice and to allow for consumer rights to adjust. People shouldnt be exposed to unnecessary risk regardless of warning labels (and I mean this in the sense someone still should be allowed to return the product given the right circumstances. Beta access having no guarantee of ever getting any features or final state does seriously question what options you have left to return it. Its also a significant amount of money).
for this case: Yeah I'd like to see back of the box, also I dont like the term 'early access' it just sounds like backwhen you could play an mmo a couple days early. Should be called 'Beta version' or someshizz.
PastorOfMuppets
Banned
Again,
The video game industry is rife with examples like this but this is the first case in which the company is being honest about what it's releasing.
One of the more infamous incidents like this was from an obscure turn based strategy game called Outpost released by Sierra back in 1994. The game received an Editor's Choice Award from PC Gamer was released in what could only be describe as an Alpha. Many of the touted features in the PC Gamer review and on the game's own box were not in the actual game and had to be patched in later. PC Gamer claimed that the review copy they had been given was not the complete version and took the company at their word that the complete game would be released after the review.
I have grown increasingly cynical of the video game industry's claims and I no longer trust the press to give me accurate information so with a case like this, I actually find it way more refreshing and respectable than EA forcing Dice to release Battlefield 4 early and lying about it being a finished product.
The video game industry is rife with examples like this but this is the first case in which the company is being honest about what it's releasing.
One of the more infamous incidents like this was from an obscure turn based strategy game called Outpost released by Sierra back in 1994. The game received an Editor's Choice Award from PC Gamer was released in what could only be describe as an Alpha. Many of the touted features in the PC Gamer review and on the game's own box were not in the actual game and had to be patched in later. PC Gamer claimed that the review copy they had been given was not the complete version and took the company at their word that the complete game would be released after the review.
I have grown increasingly cynical of the video game industry's claims and I no longer trust the press to give me accurate information so with a case like this, I actually find it way more refreshing and respectable than EA forcing Dice to release Battlefield 4 early and lying about it being a finished product.
molnizzle
Member
Exactly.
Remember when horse armor DLC came out and defended it? It's not that bad, you don't have to buy it, it's totally optional, etc. That's where Early Access is right now.
Early Access is the worst shit to come out of the gaming industry in over a decade.
All you are describing though is your feelings, and that is fine, but you are also describing heaven, and heaven is a dream. You will never get a market without risk, the only difference would be who would be making the risk, the few or the many. What you are advocating, to me, sounds like you want the few to decide for the many, I've not ever seen that workout long term nor do I want the special few to make market decisions for me, on the whole.
Maintenance
Member
It shows that it is not ready, so I don't have a problem with it.
how does consumer protection affect the many for sake of few? What im asking for is a better definition of this model in law. everyone, bar companies that want to cash out, benefit.
Also whats wrong with striving for 'heaven'? just because the extreme isnt possible doesnt mean you shouldnt venture in that direction.
wild wests suck.
also to bring up and think about as a tangent thats not leaning either way in this chat: magazines/sites are now going to have to properly review early access, opposed to more editorial/preview style articles. interesting times ahead.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
Planetary Annihilation is a case-study in how Steam is affecting (for better and for worse) the non-AAA PC market. It launched as Early Access way above the normal $60 due to how it was priced in the Kickstarter. Which - in all honesty - showed a lot of integrity on part of the devs.
The price has continued to drop in line with how the original Kickstarter was tiered (I believe it dropped to $50 or 60 once it reached "beta"). Again, showing a lot of integrity on behalf of the fans who paid good money to Kickstart it.
I picked up PA this past week during the Steam sale for ~$15. And during that sale the game probably will sell more than all the previous months combined. Same thing happens to most indie non-AAA PC games on steam. Steam drives the price of games into the dirt and as such devs have to find any means possible to get more money. I'm not saying Steam is to blame, per se. Certainly, being on Steam and being a part of a Daily gets a game plenty of attention. But I think we've gone past that hump of the increase in visibility being offset by the price drop...a great deal of Steam gamers simply wait for the sales and the game languishes at the "full" price set by the dev when the game launched. Either that, or you just have to set the price low (like 15 or 20 bucks) from the get-go.
That's a long way of saying that I support the devs for doing this. The game is great and I hope they get plenty of money from the retail version. Indie titles are already nearly-non-existent at retail but Minecraft showed the value of offering a disk for your game, even if the game isn't yet finished.
The price has continued to drop in line with how the original Kickstarter was tiered (I believe it dropped to $50 or 60 once it reached "beta"). Again, showing a lot of integrity on behalf of the fans who paid good money to Kickstart it.
I picked up PA this past week during the Steam sale for ~$15. And during that sale the game probably will sell more than all the previous months combined. Same thing happens to most indie non-AAA PC games on steam. Steam drives the price of games into the dirt and as such devs have to find any means possible to get more money. I'm not saying Steam is to blame, per se. Certainly, being on Steam and being a part of a Daily gets a game plenty of attention. But I think we've gone past that hump of the increase in visibility being offset by the price drop...a great deal of Steam gamers simply wait for the sales and the game languishes at the "full" price set by the dev when the game launched. Either that, or you just have to set the price low (like 15 or 20 bucks) from the get-go.
That's a long way of saying that I support the devs for doing this. The game is great and I hope they get plenty of money from the retail version. Indie titles are already nearly-non-existent at retail but Minecraft showed the value of offering a disk for your game, even if the game isn't yet finished.
Because consumer protections is relative. Having to make sure your breaks meet a certain standard to sell your car is consumer protection, preventing people from being able to buy into an early access of a game with the hopes of enjoying a full game is telling people what they can or cant do. I dont even think this matters that much, early access only has so much rope and only so many dev/pubs willing to risk this. Early access is a massive gamble that could completely tank a project because the alph/beta build isnt as good as a final product. Early access is only a good as the strongest early access that failed. Watch a AAA game like a gears of war or something fall on its ass in an early access and watch it shrink into nothingness.
Early access, imo, is a stupid gamble but if devs want to risk it fine, but I think more bridges will be burned then built by a long shot. Sure, you will hear of the successes but will probably not hear about all the failures(just like the app market and digital book market). The pool will be diluted because of early access and I think most publishers/devs will suffer. Me personally, I think companies who do this are either desperate or stupid, because the risks far outweigh the pro's imo.
BibiMaghoo
Member
Ok I never said this. Ive been really trying to say im saying laws should be updated to deal with the weird kind of promising these games do. Hell I said about returning a game, this implies im saying people can buy the games....
harrypmgaga
Member
While it may not be as simple as returning it to the store, you can totally claim for damages if they promised something which was not provided for.
General_Frags
Member
Why are people outraged, it says early access on the box, probably says not done/finished on the other side too.
I don't know how you can cheapen an industry that sells a game with only 15 maps and no single player for 60$. Not to mention all the 60$ products that are buggy messes.
DirgeExtinction
Member
I've airways been scared of buying Early Access games, fearing they'll never be finished.
VibratingDonkey
Member
Where's the disclaimer saying the game is an unfinished, broken, buggy mess that might stay that way forever? If it's nowhere or in tiny print on the back they can fuck off with this.
.....Isn't this a bad idea?
I mean, in the digital space, early access works due to the expectation of the game being complete being somewhat realistic and possible (you can download the game if you get it digitally, so updates/patches are very possible to receive).
With this being retail....it just screams issues; people who buy retail games a good deal of the time get them due to NOT having a internet connect, so, buying a game so dependent on receive updates just doesn't work out to well. We saw this happen with Battlefield 4 and the (justified I might add) backlash it got; people paying 60 bucks for an broken game.
Early Access coming to retail is bad; it is something that HAS to strictly be within the digital realm....if it become retail and it sparks off....we could end up with TONS of incomplete games coming to retail and said games not getting the support they desperately need.
We all must have seen Jim Sterling's videos of how crappy Early Access is? If that catches on (with retail being the next target for the option), then bigger companies will really start pulling this with games (or in EA's case, do it more frequently X().
I mean, in the digital space, early access works due to the expectation of the game being complete being somewhat realistic and possible (you can download the game if you get it digitally, so updates/patches are very possible to receive).
With this being retail....it just screams issues; people who buy retail games a good deal of the time get them due to NOT having a internet connect, so, buying a game so dependent on receive updates just doesn't work out to well
. We saw this happen with Battlefield 4 and the (justified I might add) backlash it got; people paying 60 bucks for an broken game. Early Access coming to retail is bad; it is something that HAS to strictly be within the digital realm....if it become retail and it sparks off....we could end up with TONS of incomplete games coming to retail and said games not getting the support they desperately need.
We all must have seen Jim Sterling's videos of how crappy Early Access is? If that catches on (with retail being the next target for the option), then bigger companies will really start pulling this with games (or in EA's case, do it more frequently X().
CambriaRising
Member
The 2 things you quoted seem to miss the big picture. Early access is a very niche subset decidedly with low budget games that were already funded. Early access has more exposure to damage then DLC ever did. Bad early access will be more damaging to a dev/pub then dlc ever would. Jim may think it's bad for the industry, but imo, it's short sighted thinking it's more damaging then the potential in DLC. This risk only makes marginal sense with already funded projects and already funded projects have clear goals on paper that allow them to be pursued by litigation if they fail to make good on promises made on paper. DLC, people can BS all they want and not really have much damage to them by comparison.
Seriously, the fear of early access is much to do about nothing in regards to the damage it will do to the industry. The industry is already damaged, early access is just a dumb idea devs have. Early access is a great idea for companies that do it right(broforce), but it will produce many more failures then success's, the idea that this hurts the industry is unfounded and at best speculative.
CambriaRising
Member
Of all the things I might dislike or think are bad about the gaming industry, I'm happy that early access exists. I think more unique and interesting things may tend to come out of that than normal traditional game studios.
I prefer it over the F2P trend, the Call of Duty trend, the zombie game trend, the MOBA trend, or the DLC trend, for example (if it's fair to say those are "trends" in some sense). If anything, consumers being able to fund experimental games they are interested in may help counter the problem that may exist of games becoming ever more expensive to develop by huge studios.
I prefer it over the F2P trend, the Call of Duty trend, the zombie game trend, the MOBA trend, or the DLC trend, for example (if it's fair to say those are "trends" in some sense). If anything, consumers being able to fund experimental games they are interested in may help counter the problem that may exist of games becoming ever more expensive to develop by huge studios.
Not really any similarity outside of them both being things in their infancy.
I like how he typed out a long, well-thought out response and you came back with this.
Until microtransactions stop being profitable, none of this shit will stop. Early access though is not the same thing, imo, its a stupid risk that only really draws in profit if the game is good enough or breaks laws/regulations and gets away with it(which is a separate issue).
Early access is a new market tactic in a new market(digital distribution) there are going to be growing pains, this is just one of them, but the risk to the consumer isnt near the same compared to the dev/pub.