Green Card
Member
After WarZ (worth it at first to unplayable now) and DayZ (unplayable atm) I am pretty much done with buying early access games. I have learned my lesson.
-
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
CambriaRising
Member
Like Antitrop said above, it cheapens an industry that is already facing issues of the consumer being taken advantage of. If this becomes a common practice in the console space, the amount of people buying games could shrink due to being burned on grab-n-go early access titles. I don't think it will come over to the console space any time soon, as both MS and Sony seem to be uncomfortable with it, but you never know. Like others have said, DLC started off mostly harmless and now we have micro transactions in $60 games.
As opposed to you making this passive aggressive post? I didn't need any more words to say what I wanted to say.
But if Free Lives Games did an early access I would be defending it to the death, because that game kicksass at this stage. Your "argument" against supporting early access on face value of it existing is silly. Broforce doing a boxed copy would be great, maybe more people would play it.
Early Access doesnt cheapen the industry, it exposes the industry to more risk. Early Access can be a good thing or bad thing, it's all relative. Boxing it up doesnt really change anything other then exposing devs to even more risk. This will blow up in their face more then it will help.
I didn't... really make an arguement? I was largely voicing my opinion of distrusty towards Uber more than anything else.
Sorry, I saw your post and noticed people used that as a mindset to be against early access as a whole. I just used your post to make a point I wanted to make.
You find it strange that some people don't like the idea of someone selling an incomplete product?
I don't believe you. Thats an extremely easy position to understand. Some folks might be okay with it, thats fine I guess. But I certainly don't find it attractive at all.
They specifically say that it is early access, it would be totally different if they mention it.
This is yet another way of securing money. That's all it is. It's not a special privilege and wondrous magical thing, it's the dev/pub putting money in the bank - and cashing the check, since none of these are deposits.
It's not duplicitous. You know (mostly) what you're buying into. I can't help but feel the fears expressed here of this being a slippery slope into madness are correct, though.
It's not duplicitous. You know (mostly) what you're buying into. I can't help but feel the fears expressed here of this being a slippery slope into madness are correct, though.
Cool. Hope bigger publishers do this. I'd buy Smash right now if I could and I'd pay a premium. I paid $100 to start playing GCIII when it became available because I wanted to play Gal Civ III. Weird, right?!
I prefer this about a thousand times to Kickstarter because at least I have something I can use.
I prefer this about a thousand times to Kickstarter because at least I have something I can use.
I actually do find it incredibly strange.
Uber is offering a product.
People want the product.
They exchange currency for product.
Why would anyone be upset at this freely entered into exchange of assets?
The same way people don't like Pay 2 win in games, and the way people don't like microtransactions and more. Just because its a legal exchange of product for tender by customers that are willing to pay doesn't mean its going to sit right with everyone. I refuse to believe you TRULY find it strange. Perhaps you are okay with this, and feel others should be too. But you can't possibly seriously find it odd.
I find just about every instance of people getting upset about how other people spend their money strange.
I can understand people having different tastes, but I can't understand people wanting to limit other peoples choices, especially when it comes to buying a video game.
This industry is really good at ruining good ideas to turn a profit isn't it
LurkerPrime
Member
Use and play are two separate things.
Early access games should not be sold at a premium because they are a huge risk for the customer. Selling something that is not even alpha-level, with no real design document, goes beyond early access into investor or beta tester territory. Instead of paying people to test their games, they are getting the customers to pay them for the privilege to help aid the game's development. This strikes me as both backwards and wrong; it is as though they are preying upon some new form of whale-minded customer.
If a developer wanted to properly approach an early access release, they would put the game out at a lower price and increase it as the game developed into a less risky, version 1.0 state. But these developers can't, because they want it to double as a profit-maker for their studio, instead of a supplemental development income.
It is as if they are treating the early access as the game's full release. And this is why some of those early access games are hitting huge discounts, even long before they release. I mean, PA was -66% off and in the teens this week, when it initially released at - I think - $80? And now it's hitting retail... At what price?
The problem I see is that these developers set their ridiculous prices because they know a certain portion of their fanbase will bite, in spite of the price, and they set these prices not because of support for the studio but to gouge their biggest fans. These customers are not donating money for the sake of it, they are buying a product with the expectations that it will be finished and released in its promised state.
What developers like Uber (or Stardock) are doing is whale-hunting, and it's wrong.
What I have seen discussed (possibly a lot) regarding Planetary Annihilation is that they did not want to offer cheap early access on Steam -because- they were trying not to anger their Kickstarter backers. I was not a Kickstarter backer so I don't really know the situation there, however.
Is it too much to ask for developers and publishers to finish their game before selling it? BF4 was basically unlabeled Early Access. Would it have made it okay if they labeled it properly?
VibratingDonkey
Member
Is there a picture of the back yet?
You think the change would help them sell more?
How does this stop them from doing that? Why do you feel forced to buy a game before you feel it is ready per your tastes?
Conkerkid11
Member
But WarZ was never worth it, and was known by just about everybody to be a scam. And DayZ began as a buggy mod, and went standalone. It might not be as good as you might want it, but if you'd done any research at all, you would have known what you were getting into beforehand.
And that's what I don't understand about the complaints regarding early access titles.
How can people defend something like Next Car Game which has just about no content at all to Planetary Annihilation which could practically be released as a complete game?
Early access has produced several really great titles, and just because the consumers aren't willing to put out the effort to do some research beforehand, doesn't mean early access should stop altogether.
This is true. People scoffed at the $90 price tag when the game hit Steam, but $90 was chosen because it's what backers paid for alpha access:
An ounce of caution is worth a pound of cure. I don't want to see an industry where everyone sells their games before they're finished, because what's stopping them from doing so once Early Access becomes accepted and common?
In 10 years, every game could be BF4. Fuck that.
Because you are assuming early access is an automatic win? Early access is a risk. Doing what BF4 did is what happens without or without early access.
Pointing to BF4 is such a bizarre argument.
Games release broken and unfinished so lets stop letting developers let consumers know explicitly that as of now their games are broken and unfinished!
An "early access" label likely would've kept a number of people from purchasing BF4 on launch.
The only real issue here is that gamers need to adjust to the new environment and drop the idea that games are only worth buying the week they "launch."
Games release broken and unfinished so lets stop letting developers let consumers know explicitly that as of now their games are broken and unfinished!
An "early access" label likely would've kept a number of people from purchasing BF4 on launch.
The only real issue here is that gamers need to adjust to the new environment and drop the idea that games are only worth buying the week they "launch."
It's not games, it's anything.
I like seeing movies opening weekend because I can talk about them with my friends. Nobody wants to talk about some fucking movie from last year. I like talking about games in OT, rather than LTTPs that no one gives a fuck about.
Being part of the "hype train" is a perfectly reasonable reason to get in on ANY piece of popular media when it's on everyone's tongues. I like to watch Game of Thrones and then go on Twitter and see people's reactions. Can't do that if you watch it on HBO Go 6 months later, know what I mean?
Aren't you the one who said it's weird to care about how people spend their money? I don't care about how people spend their money, I care about how devs/publishers sell their games.
It's not about spending money it's about the culture of video games. Games aren't movies, they aren't static and not all games are narrative driven. PA certainly isn't. It's kind of a terrible analogy for most early access games (this could be selection bias as I only care about non-narrative EA games).
That said, early access isn't for everyone, so don't partake. Problem solved!
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
I'm really trying to figure out who is the audience for this type of robbery?
What am I supposed to do when every game is Early Access? Give this industry an inch and they'll take a fucking mile.
If your entire argument is "slippery slope" I'll leave you to it.
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
Except Planetary Annihilation is a solid title. I've had heaps of fun with it in spite of Uber versioning and non-shield-stance antics.
Divinity: Original Sin alpha/beta/early access/whatever has been great as well. Can't really lump everyone into the same basket.
LouisaFerre
Member
I don't think they should sell it in retail stores, but the existence of physical copies for early access games doesn't really bother me. I just feel like consumers shouldn't be paying under the impression that you're buying something totally different. If I buy an early access game, I essentially see the current state of the game as what I'm buying into, since there's no way to make sure the development of the game after that point is going to be what I want.
My only concern is how this might develop if people buy into games before the product is really in a state that they'd be satisfied with. If you can get away with(make a good profit) selling a game before you even meet the standards of your customers, I feel like that's going to have some really negative consequences.
My only concern is how this might develop if people buy into games before the product is really in a state that they'd be satisfied with. If you can get away with(make a good profit) selling a game before you even meet the standards of your customers, I feel like that's going to have some really negative consequences.
Sorry if my years of gaming have taught me not to have much faith in the magnanimity of the industry. Early Access looks ripe for exploitation.
Wait until its out of early access?
Its the same as it is now with EA, Ubisoft, Bethesda games. The customer gets screwed.
Bullshit. Customers need protection or, rather, recourse for an easy refund when companies scam them by releasing buggy, compromised products.
This assumes there is malicious intent in early access. Which is fine but if I believed it I'd find a new hobby.
Buy a game when you think it;s ready. Don't let the marketing cycles determine that for you, and you'll be better off.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Because people that don't like it may find that acceptance of this may lead to the proliferation of the concept in the world of video gaming, the world that they're invested into?
It's basically the same principle with any kind of protest in any kind of field wherever. I find it strange that it is such a difficult concept for you to grasp either.
What will ultimately happen is that each publisher will ask for the money up front from gamers on their site before anyone gets anything.
Basically everything will be crowd funded and they will raise more capital that way than risking their own capital.
Then the point of contention is what you actually get in the game of course. If you don't get what you pay for people will feel burnt on their purchase, particularly when everyone has different opinions and the developer is making one game to suit all tastes.
Basically everything will be crowd funded and they will raise more capital that way than risking their own capital.
Then the point of contention is what you actually get in the game of course. If you don't get what you pay for people will feel burnt on their purchase, particularly when everyone has different opinions and the developer is making one game to suit all tastes.
The only game that was actually good in Alpha and a well justified purchase was Minecraft.
Seeing it grow from the very, very beginning of Alpha and many conceptual stages it went through at the time, to release was really kinda cool for me.
It's sad that many abuse this system. (Day Z, Day Z clone#2, Day Z clone#3, survivial game #99 w/ dinos/Native-Americans/sp00ky gh0sts etc.)
Seeing it grow from the very, very beginning of Alpha and many conceptual stages it went through at the time, to release was really kinda cool for me.
It's sad that many abuse this system. (Day Z, Day Z clone#2, Day Z clone#3, survivial game #99 w/ dinos/Native-Americans/sp00ky gh0sts etc.)
Well I don't think its any different than any other form of crowdfunding, you're generally buying into products that you are interested in and are having difficulty being funded in a traditional manner. The risk of the game not turning out well will always be there, but that's really no different from the typical retail model anyway.
I had no idea people were so venomous and hostile towards the idea of early access. I think it is a fantastic thing for certain genres of games.
This one being an RTS is a fantastic use of the idea, since a small developer is able to get the game into actual players hands super early and use data from that for game balance. It will result in a more polished game for people who want to wait until it is finished.
This one being an RTS is a fantastic use of the idea, since a small developer is able to get the game into actual players hands super early and use data from that for game balance. It will result in a more polished game for people who want to wait until it is finished.
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
I can definitely understand the concern here in this thread though.
My belief is that if a dev takes advantage of their early access/kickstarted projects and abuses their customers goodwill and trust, then good luck asking for more money for their next projects. It's this little condition that keeps most of them on their toes and actually try to make good on their word.
If Uber drops support for LAN / offline multiplayer (they've been oddly quiet about it) then I will be very very angry.
My belief is that if a dev takes advantage of their early access/kickstarted projects and abuses their customers goodwill and trust, then good luck asking for more money for their next projects. It's this little condition that keeps most of them on their toes and actually try to make good on their word.
If Uber drops support for LAN / offline multiplayer (they've been oddly quiet about it) then I will be very very angry.
You don't need early access for that, though.
VibratingDonkey
Member
If people want to pay for potentially broken, buggy, unfinished placeholder-stuffed games lacking content and features, the state of which may or may not improve, that's certainly their prerogative.
Personally I think it's a terrible proposition fraught only with downsides. But thanks to those who disagree for the additional testing before the eventual 1.0.
If this game isn't clearly labeled as one such game, then I wish a BF4 upon the people responsible. Don't try to sell your unfinished software as a finished product.
Personally I think it's a terrible proposition fraught only with downsides. But thanks to those who disagree for the additional testing before the eventual 1.0.
If this game isn't clearly labeled as one such game, then I wish a BF4 upon the people responsible. Don't try to sell your unfinished software as a finished product.