Conkerkid11
Member
Is there a reason this thread's slope is so slippery?
-
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
What does Early Access have to do with BF4? There's nothing stopping widespread BF4 situations from happening right now.
Projects getting rushed out the door before they're ready is something that's always happened and probably always will. If anything, Early Access is an alternative that allows devs to avoid a catastrophic launch by testing their game with a much larger group than they could internally.
Sometimes the slope is pretty slippery.
I suppose the key point of difference is that BF4 was sold deceptively as being a finished product. For people who have been burned on that kind of product, its kind of brazen to see, even in another context, unfinished games openly being sold as such.
Demos should be free, and that's rightly the perception for these early access games.
Syph Medwes
Member
"Includes free upgrade to full game"
It's funny how they make it sound like they're doing you some sort of favour.
It's funny how they make it sound like they're doing you some sort of favour.
Something like Quake III Arena Test?
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
scytheavatar
Member
That might have been true if not for all those games that are struck as an early access, unfinished state forever.
They include that, because there is always someone who will ask.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
This is a good point and it's why I think the early access option is a good thing.
A good dev will bring the game to completion and - in theory - the final product will be better due to the community's feedback. I think this is especially valuable for games in need of multiplayer balance. There are real success stories of this happening in the indie scene.
A bad dev will neglect the game and let it languish. Doesn't matter if it's Cubeworld or Battlefield 4. Bad devs will continue to be bad devs.
I think there's a pretty big difference.
- Demos are meant to be a limited sample of a finished or near-finished version of the game whose purpose is to give people an idea of how it plays so they can decide whether or not to buy it. Because they generally try to represent the game in a flattering way, they have to come out fairly close to the final release date.
- An alpha or beta release is something you do in order to get the software into the hands of more people, test for bugs with a wider group than the internal QA you've already done, and generate some interest at the same time. They can range from completely private to totally free and open access to a mix of a queue system and guaranteed slots with preorders. The content and schedule also vary, from being highly limited to completely open. A key distinction is that getting into a beta for free doesn't grant you access to the paid version of the game.
- Early Access is a combination of crowdfunding and an alpha/beta version that you get by preordering. The idea is to have the current version of the game be continuously accessible like some alpha/beta programs, to engage with the community and take feedback from them while the game is still malleable, and in most cases to raise funds to continue development of the game.
I agree to some extent. I get that they might've needed a bit more funding than first anticipated, but couldn't that had been managed thru donations on their website?
Btw, love how the cover says "Includes _free_ upgrade full game". It better should.
Has Battlefield 4 and Titanfall completely ruined people's memory of actual, no-shit Betas that were released WELL in advance of the final game and had meaningful impact on development?
iD released Quake III Arena Test for free in April of '99 and the final game didn't even come out until December. And it never expired. Many people consider Quake III to be the best competitive MP shooter ever made.
Quake III Arena Test isn't a good example to use here, as it only happened when Id was forced to respond to a major unplanned leak of the game.
However, I agree that a large, free open beta that runs for an extended period of time is a good option for devs who don't really need extra funding and don't have too many concerns about releasing something that'll get hacked, reverse engineered, etc.
I'd have to think that would be one of the Counter-Strikes, but yeah.
Participation in betas well before release and giving feedback that actually changes a game is something that is non-existent now, yet was so helpful.
Nowadays, at best you just get somebody opening up an unfinished version of the game so they can sell their concept when they run out of money to continue development on the game.
At worst... you get World War Z/ 90% of the games on Steam Early Access.
That's because with AAA titles most pubs are not stupid enough to risk making consumers pay for a beta that will most likely work like crap. Again, you keep acting like early access is a smart idea... Small projects are getting away with it because they are small and the risk for them is lower. The big projects though? If it backfires and the alpha/beta turns early adopters off? They are most likely fucked. Early Access is a risk. 50 million dollar projects charging for full price? They better do a damn good job backing it up with a solid release or that pubs ability to do that again will be severely tainted.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
Single examples can swing either way. The example of Quake is bad, seeing how it was from a well-established company with plenty of successful games in their back pocket.
Remember Minecraft which released as a paid alpha? How'd that work out?
ShinMaruku
Member
When you put out early access as something to be paid for you remove incentive to actually finish the game.
Zombie James
Banned
Because it's not finished.
Huh? So you assume the return rate for early access, on average, is enough incentive to have you slack off? So what early access games are you using as an example of unfinished games, that should be finished by now, that have done good in early access? Why is a % of people willing to pay for early access to a game an incentive to not finish the game? Are you assuming they get what they need from early access people alone?
Yet people keep buying skyrim , GTA games, Dragon Age: Origins was a buggy mess as well, and ect... Clearly finished isn't the key to selling games(or what consumers care most about). "Finished enough" is what makes you successful.
If this happened 6 months ago I'd be up in arms about selling an unfinished game at retail. But right now, games perfectly serviceable and better than a lot of retail games. I'm not gonna lie, when I first got this game Early Access it was barely even a game and I did feel somewhat ripped off. Now? Not in the slightest.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
So what are examples of early access games that people have been burned by? If it's a small dev working on something ambitious or community/online driven it seems to make sense to me. Now I almost always don't buy these games (I'd rather wait for the finished product and I don't want to provide feedback to devs) but the ones I've looked at the developers are pretty clear upfront what you're getting into.
This particular game was being sold as early access for $100 on steam a while ago... it's come down a lot from there agree people pointed out it was a stupid price point.
I think they're over-compensating the tremendous failure of SMNC by getting every penny they can out of this.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
There was demand for the in progress build after the Kickstarter closed. In fact, it's in the top 10 best seller list on Steam right now. What's greedy about selling something that people want to buy? As for the boxed copy, what's disgusting about releasing a product that people explicitly demanded? What proof, logic or reasoning do we have to back up the claims that these actions harm the market?
Its amazing how many people are freakin out about this.. just don't buy early access and wait for the game to be done.. easy as fuckin that.
If someone else wants to buy a game early and wants to follow the game develop into its full finished product I dont fuckin see why thats such a damn crime.
If someone else wants to buy a game early and wants to follow the game develop into its full finished product I dont fuckin see why thats such a damn crime.
Why? do you have any legit reason for it being greedy? should they only let backers play it till its complete?
Yes, exactly. They should only let backers play it until it's complete.
I contributed to the Project Eternity Kickstarter and you better believe I'll be pissed if Obsidian throws up the PoE Beta on Steam as Early Access.
and you called them greedy? lol
The Project Eternity kickstarter was massively successful. Anyone that didn't contribute to it shouldn't hear shit about until they start demoing it to the press. PoE Early Access would be a disgusting cash-grab and would destroy my opinion of Obsidian.
The entire point of the PoE kickstarter was so that Obsidian will finally be able to release a game when it's ready! (South Park withstanding)
But you can still buy into early access. I dont understand why you differentiate where you can "pledge".
and they may be able to but to believe that any and every developer can survive on kickstarter alone to make a finished products is very short sighted. You act like this extra funding or what you call "cash crab" would have no influence on the game becoming better.
I still think you sound like the one being greedy. Not everyone is completely aware of kickstarters and such later wish they could have contributed. I dont see no damn crime with that. I for instance missed the Elite Dangerous funding.. and now they have an amazing beta that everyone is raving about. Why is it bad that I want to take part in funding that after missing the original kickstarter?
If anything developers refusing to accept more money for development after a kickstarter is dumb. Kickstarter should not be the one stop shop for all game funding needs. Hell look at Bugbear with Nextcargame. If they only relied on Kickstarter that game would not be fucking in development now.
I think it's okay for Obsidian to continue accepting pledges through their website as they're doing, but I don't want them, or anyone, clogging up the marketplace (whether Steam or retail DVD) with an unfinished product.
And what's the harm in more money to improve the game?
Ya, well, I pledged and I hope they make as much money as possible between now and launch. I dont care how a product makes its money as long as the finished product is something I want. You have given no compelling evidence as to why early access is harmful. Everything has the potential to be abused, but all of it has the ability to come back on the publisher/developer, just look at Zaynga. BS only lets you live for so long.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
This game started its price at like 90 bucks in steam... so my thoughts on this being the game that retails unfinished... very negative.
MrCunningham
Member
Hideo sold a 30 dollar demo at retail. But at least that Planetary Annihilation games clearly marks itself as an early access beta.
So you're just anti early access..
Don't buy or play early access then? Its clear as day... and I think some gamers really enjoy following along with development. I know I do. If being early access enables a developer to get some good feedback while also funding the game more what's the damn problem?
You are buying the game, by way of preorder, and the devs are giving you early access in return for fronting the full amount at an earlier stage. Depending where you buy it, that could be an extremely early alpha or something further along. Buying a beta would imply that you are not getting the full game at release, which is the typical free beta process. The option to buy now is for people to support the developer as the kickstarter did. Considering many major pubs offer beta access by way of preorder, or purchase of another game, I'm not sure what the issue is here.
You do realize it was 90 USD because the developers care about holding up their promises to backers, right?
"All these games" like what? I know of one. And it's not like there weren't plenty of unfinished retail releases, and have been for a long time now.
D
Deleted member 20920
Unconfirmed Member
I have no issues with the general idea of Early Access Games. I think it's a great method of releasing games when it comes to smaller or indie game companies and this method has helped foster many games that wouldn't have been developed over the past few years. They just have to be clear and indicate that what they are selling is a game in progress and I'll be cool with it. Just read up before buying to see if the dev is good with updates and whether the game at that stage is good enough to be bought and played. If it isn't I'll consider after they complete the game.
Not every company can get away with such a practice and I doubt they will anyway. It's the same reason why larger companies don't go on to kickstarter to make games or to do localisations. Also, just because a game is done and sold at retail like the way it is traditionally it doesn't mean the game is good or complete. Every purchase carries its own risks and returns. There have been early access games that have been described to be more fun and more full packages than so called completed AAA games. Don't let the way it is sold and distributed act as a major determinant to whether you should buy a game or not. Read up and decide if the game is for you, early access or not.
Not every company can get away with such a practice and I doubt they will anyway. It's the same reason why larger companies don't go on to kickstarter to make games or to do localisations. Also, just because a game is done and sold at retail like the way it is traditionally it doesn't mean the game is good or complete. Every purchase carries its own risks and returns. There have been early access games that have been described to be more fun and more full packages than so called completed AAA games. Don't let the way it is sold and distributed act as a major determinant to whether you should buy a game or not. Read up and decide if the game is for you, early access or not.
Only way i will ever support this if it has a 30 day money back guarantee no questions asked otherwise Uber can go fuck themselves. Paid boxed betas is a slippery slope and is not something i am conformable with. Uber are a terrible developer for what they did with SMNC and have not made a smart business decision ever since.
neogaffer1
Banned
I can't believe people are supporting/ok with this. I understand that the team might need money to finish the game (or not because they had a successful Kickstarter) but going full-on retail for an unfinished product is ridiculous. That price doesn't help either.
My main problem with Early Access stuff is that if someone puts out an unfinished game and it sells well (DayZ, Rust, etc) they have less incentive to actually finish the game. They have your money, there's really no reason to finish the game up other than getting more sales, but if they're happy with the sales they have and think it might be too much effort to finish the game, then why bother doing so?
My main problem with Early Access stuff is that if someone puts out an unfinished game and it sells well (DayZ, Rust, etc) they have less incentive to actually finish the game. They have your money, there's really no reason to finish the game up other than getting more sales, but if they're happy with the sales they have and think it might be too much effort to finish the game, then why bother doing so?
As someone who backs a lot of Kickstarters, I'm also completely for the developers putting said product on Early Access to make more money to further development. As long as I get what I paid for when I Kickstarted the product the developers can do what they want, the ball is completely in their court.
This logic is stupid. There's an even larger group of people involved if game is in Early Access, therefore there are way more people with pitchforks in the mob if they decided to dash and ditch. I don't know why people are implying this is such a common scenario either, it's not.
The difference is that you don't pay for your preorder until the finished game ships, and you can cancel at any time.
So I'm assuming you actually have numbers, SOMEHWERE to support such a theory? DayZ and Rust are getting imporvements all the time and both those games bring more enjoyment to a lot of their fans then non early access games. Show me a financially successful early access dev that doesnt have games comparable to finished titles? Even Wasteland 2 in beta form is better then a large % of games fully finished.
undu
Member
This would be only acceptable if you got refunded the money if the game doesn't release within a certain time and the consumer is not happy with it when it's released, otherwise it's just doesn't offer any protection to the customer buying it.
I'll admit the pre-orders in which you pay beforehand are worse since they don't offer anything when paying and probably should offer some kind of guaranty to the player too.
I'll admit the pre-orders in which you pay beforehand are worse since they don't offer anything when paying and probably should offer some kind of guaranty to the player too.
It already offers the best consumer protection. It doesn't force them to buy it. They can wait until release, and see how the reviews go. Early Access isn't supposed to be a free demo.
Your not forced to pay for early access either, you could always just wait till the game is done.
What is the difference between this and buying it on steam? Buying PC games at retail in Europe is simply an alternative delivery mechanism - if you have slow or capped Internet for instance. So there is no real difference between buying online or in a store - both situations you need to be aware of what you are buying.