Azure Dream
Member
The words that signaled the start of the next great videogame crash.
-
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
The words that signaled the start of the next great videogame crash.
But getting more money through KS only means they could make more expensive game (ie bigger). KS version was multiplayer only, that's was one of reasons I didn't kickstarted that project. Now they've added single player campaign.
If Pay2Win hasn't caused it nothing will.
I don't really mind the steps Uber are taking to try to raise money as they aren't being that deceptive about the state of the product.
Chris Taylor said that it would take about $10 Million to make an RTS like SupCom or Kings and Castles, and some of the decisions Uber are making seem to indicate that they need all the cash they can get (e.g. only having a single unit pool/faction).
The biggest thing that has irked me is them holding the local server software until 'release', and then releasing alpha, beta and gamma (wtf) builds of the game to early backers/buyers.
They will run out of Greek letters before some players will be able to host their own local games without horrible lag.
Chris Taylor said that it would take about $10 Million to make an RTS like SupCom or Kings and Castles, and some of the decisions Uber are making seem to indicate that they need all the cash they can get (e.g. only having a single unit pool/faction).
The biggest thing that has irked me is them holding the local server software until 'release', and then releasing alpha, beta and gamma (wtf) builds of the game to early backers/buyers.
They will run out of Greek letters before some players will be able to host their own local games without horrible lag.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Completely agree with your comments. I don't mind the idea of releasing the game in alpha/beta to particular backers who signed up or paid for that, but seeking additional funding through Early Access just seems disingenuous. That being said, I'm not a PC gamer at all, but generally I'm not fond of the idea of Early Access. To steal a point from Jimothy Sturling, Steam needs better quality control.
So your saying valve should remove planetary annihilation because it lacks quality?
Edit: also as a person who uses stream I've never been bothered by a 'lack of quality'.
If you don't like early access games then don't buy them and you have nothing to worry about. I find the idea that Valve must remove early access to be a pile of bullshit. Developers/Publishers have been releasing unfinished games long before early access and will continue to do it for as long as games are being made. The only thing early access does is warn you that the game you are thinking of buying is unfinished up front instead of you finding that shit out only after you bought it.
PaulExcellent
Member
"Why did you do it?"
"Why not?"
what a comment
Seriously, though. This seems like too much for me. It can't get worse right now...
Right?
"Why not?"
what a comment
Seriously, though. This seems like too much for me. It can't get worse right now...
Right?
Triggerhappytel
Member
No, I'm not referring to Planetary Annihilation with that comment. I'm talking about fucking shitty awful games which are sold under the pretence of being in 'ongoing development', like Earth: Year 2066, Air Control or Guise of the Wolf.
there is a general risk that more developers using kickstarter and early access means even more funding upfront with less and less liklihood of returns after you are 'finished'. Which will potentially force those developers into a cycle of kickstarter/early access because they'll have burned their income getting the previous game done.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
One of these times this is going to explode in a devs face. They're going to kickstart, early access, and then go bankrupt. Everyone who was promised a full game will internet riot.
it's why i don't kickstarter, It's too risky.
AzureSkies
Member
you can't make me pay for Uber products after how they supported Super Monday Night Combat.
if nothing else i think early access is a tremendously good thing because it's started to educate people about how game development actually works
there's lessons like "budgets run over". even really good producers and directors overshoot and sometimes need more money than they originally thought to finish a game. allowing a continuous stream of revenue during development can compensate for this and allow for desirable features to be added.
then there's "unfinished products are actually unfinished". big publisher "alpha" and "beta" tests are rarely ever deserving of those labels, getting consumers to understand exactly how games come together and get fixed later in development can be useful.
and i think the biggest counter-argument against the people who loathe the very idea of early access is that all of the abuses they fear are currently possible anyway, and if the slippery slope is real we'll be heading down it whether "early access" exists as a label or not. ever since it became more feasible to patch games over the internet automatically big publishers have been releasing broken messes and promising to fix them up later.
if the early access label goes away because of a popular backlash the only result will be to deprive indies, who more often understand the need to keep people happy with their products, of a means to make games that otherwise couldn't exist. big publishers will continue to abuse the system to get every dollar they can and won't care about the complainers because there's always another sucker who buys into the next game's hype.
if you are all really afraid of corporate abuse then you're barking up the wrong tree here.
there's lessons like "budgets run over". even really good producers and directors overshoot and sometimes need more money than they originally thought to finish a game. allowing a continuous stream of revenue during development can compensate for this and allow for desirable features to be added.
then there's "unfinished products are actually unfinished". big publisher "alpha" and "beta" tests are rarely ever deserving of those labels, getting consumers to understand exactly how games come together and get fixed later in development can be useful.
and i think the biggest counter-argument against the people who loathe the very idea of early access is that all of the abuses they fear are currently possible anyway, and if the slippery slope is real we'll be heading down it whether "early access" exists as a label or not. ever since it became more feasible to patch games over the internet automatically big publishers have been releasing broken messes and promising to fix them up later.
if the early access label goes away because of a popular backlash the only result will be to deprive indies, who more often understand the need to keep people happy with their products, of a means to make games that otherwise couldn't exist. big publishers will continue to abuse the system to get every dollar they can and won't care about the complainers because there's always another sucker who buys into the next game's hype.
if you are all really afraid of corporate abuse then you're barking up the wrong tree here.
hooijdonk17
Member
Behold the gaming industry:
Early Access is well and good but what I don't understand is why reviewers aren't reviewing them as full games; you are still buying a full priced game on the promise that it will be fixed and have more content. You can say that it is far more likely for an Early Access game to have its bugs fixed but there is never any guarantee with that. There have been instances where a developer has dropped an early access game when it didn't sell well enough and people were left with a worthless piece of garbage.
All in all, I can see how it is good for developers as it is very difficult to maintain funding for a title in development but if a developer is going to do that, they should be treated as if they are releasing a normal game.
All in all, I can see how it is good for developers as it is very difficult to maintain funding for a title in development but if a developer is going to do that, they should be treated as if they are releasing a normal game.
SliceSabre
Banned
We have gone full on stupid with this early access bs.
Basically open season to let devs release broken games.
Basically open season to let devs release broken games.
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
Yep this shits me too.
Big publishers cheated and started the season years ago.
I feel like the issues with early access are mostly related to consumer law. And that's going to differ from place to place. I guess it comes down to
a) What are the reasonable expectations associated with an early access game?
b) What is a reasonable timeframe for those expectations to be met?
c) To what degree is the consumer expected to tolerate any changes to to intended features, the timeframe, etc.
d) How much does vague/non-committal terminology like "probably" and "hope to" and "in the future" bail a dev out?
Hm, it's weird. Obviously the easy way to avoid these kinds of questions is to not do early access, but it'd probably be better if the murky aspects and/or shortcomings in consumer law were sorted out clearly and plainly. Ah, it's nice to dream...
a) What are the reasonable expectations associated with an early access game?
b) What is a reasonable timeframe for those expectations to be met?
c) To what degree is the consumer expected to tolerate any changes to to intended features, the timeframe, etc.
d) How much does vague/non-committal terminology like "probably" and "hope to" and "in the future" bail a dev out?
Hm, it's weird. Obviously the easy way to avoid these kinds of questions is to not do early access, but it'd probably be better if the murky aspects and/or shortcomings in consumer law were sorted out clearly and plainly. Ah, it's nice to dream...
hooijdonk17
Member
Empty box with with a serial is still a promise of a complete game down the line. The early access copy in a box sells you half the content and half the promise..
Interfectum
Member
There won't be another video game crash. What you're thinking about is the AAA gaming market and it's going to crash with or without early access games.
VibratingDonkey
Member
Yeah the contract between producer and customer does not end until the full game has been delivered. That's what they're selling, early access and continual updates until the game is finished. That the risk of projects potentially failing should wholly fall on customers is stupid. This is not Kickstarter where you're effectively donating. Early Access projects should need to detail when they aim to have the game done. When that date has passed, customers should be eligible for refunds if the game's still unfinished. Does that seem fair?
And if you can't fit all these disclaimers n shit on a box, then either make a bigger box or don't have one.
This is an actively terrible disclaimer as it both isn't one, and is purposed to advertise the game.
Again, is there a photo of the back of the box?
LurkerPrime
Member
If that's true, then I don't understand why they'd be putting it on sale.
I don't think it's fair to the consumer when the end-result is so nebulous and risky.
They're charging very high prices for acess to a test build of the game, not because they should but because they can. They know that a certain portion of their fanbase will buy it, no matter the cost, and the developers are taking advantage of this by setting the base price sky-high.
To be fair, I suppose I should have put an "IMO" in that statement somewhere, since there are people who see no problem in doing this. Oh well.
The higher Kickstarter backers gained access to playable builds earlier than the lower pledges. The Steam early access price tried to mirror the initial Kickstarter timeline.
I think that all of the Kickstarter backers ($15+) should have collected their keys by the start of 2014.
Prime crotch
Banned
I think this will do wonders for consumer trust. im being sarcastic btw
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
That fact changes nothing for me. Selling a game 3x the release/intended price is beyond acceptable in my opinion.
Ask DayZ
Messofanego
Banned
Don't know if pics were shown, but I saw this game at my GAME shop:
neogaffer1
Banned
I'm not saying it's common, I'm saying the possibility is higher and that it's stupid to say that there isn't some dev somewhere who puts out a broken game that gets a decent amount of downloads and then decides to not finish the game. Just because the internet will get angry doesn't mean no devs would do something like that.
There's no reason to be caustic. I'm saying, if you're a college student who makes a short little game to put on early access and you plan on expanding and making a great project because you need the money, then you get 100k downloads or something similar where you get a decent amount of money, there is a likelihood of you just dropping the game and then finishing college and getting a job outside of the gaming industry.
VibratingDonkey
Member
Thank you.Don't know if pics were shown, but I saw this game at my GAME shop:
Yeah that's not ok. Does not inform buyers that the game is currently unfinished and might suffer from all kinds of issues that may never get addressed.
if that's what you're worried about every box for every game should have that kind of a warning and your outrage should be running at full speed 24/7
What does "Includes Free Upgrade to Full Game" inform customers? It informs me that the full game isn't in the box. And that this is an early access edition. If you can put 2 and 2 together you should be able to figure out that it's not the finished game. I think you're seriously underestimating the intelligence of the average person who would be even interested in this game.
.
The game is out of beta, which is more than I would say for most games. It's fully functional and in my experience there are no reported crippling repeating bugs. It's in "gamma" which whatever, make shit up guys, so the idea that it will never be finished is just semantics and labeling at this point.
I don't think your average customer is going to be able to understand what Early Access means. I want to say you're over-estimating, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to fully understand what's being offered here.
What else could Early Access even mean in the context of a video game? I interested in knowing what misinterpretations people could even have with the term. If the norm is to get a game when it's finished then getting a game early would mean it is unfinished right?
I like when people generalize about the average consumer and how stupid they are. More to the point though, only certain kind of people are buying a PC RTS at retail. I'm pretty sure people can figure it out, or will do half a minute of research to see what it means.
Just because you think people are stupid doesn't meant the developer also has to think people are stupid.
Nova Bovington
Member
Exactly. I don't understand why people think the 'average consumer' won't get this. It's not fucking Latin or hieroglyphics. If you don't understand what Early acces edition: Includes free upgrade to full game means, I would be surprised at the fact that you can read at all. Reading comprehension is some basic shit, you guys.
SMNC was rushed into a full launch state long before it was ready, due to a mistake that caused it to be fully released on Steam months before they planned. It was a really unfortunate scenario and the game hemorrhaged players to the point where there wasn't much they could do.
Cymbal Head
Banned
As long as this is just a few games in the PC section of game-specific retail stores, I don't think there's anything worth getting in a tizzy over. But if this becomes standard practice, I think it could be harmful to the industry long-term.
I think that the consumer base for boxed, in-store game products is substantially different to the average kickstarter backer, steam-head, or gaffer. And I don't think the labeling here is sufficient. "Includes x for free," on a box in a store, with little other context--and let's be realistic about how much knowledge the average consumer has about what the phrase "early access" means--is going to imply that you get x when you buy whatever is in the box at the store.
Let's run a thought experiment here: pretend you're Jane Q Gamer (or John Q Dad whose kid loves games). You don't fucking watch Jimquisition or whatever.
You walk into the store and see a Wii U console advertising, "Includes Mario Kart 8 Free!" You buy the console, take it home, and find out that Mario Kart 8 isn't actually in the box--you'll get it when it hits full release at an undetermined point in the future. Are you justified in being pissed off and losing your confidence in Nintendo? I'd say you are.
I think that the consumer base for boxed, in-store game products is substantially different to the average kickstarter backer, steam-head, or gaffer. And I don't think the labeling here is sufficient. "Includes x for free," on a box in a store, with little other context--and let's be realistic about how much knowledge the average consumer has about what the phrase "early access" means--is going to imply that you get x when you buy whatever is in the box at the store.
Let's run a thought experiment here: pretend you're Jane Q Gamer (or John Q Dad whose kid loves games). You don't fucking watch Jimquisition or whatever.
You walk into the store and see a Wii U console advertising, "Includes Mario Kart 8 Free!" You buy the console, take it home, and find out that Mario Kart 8 isn't actually in the box--you'll get it when it hits full release at an undetermined point in the future. Are you justified in being pissed off and losing your confidence in Nintendo? I'd say you are.
Except when you buy Planetary Annihilation and you get home you get to play Planetary Annihilation
Cymbal Head
Banned
But you're not getting the full version, which is an arguably reasonable expectation to have given the labeling. Which was the point I was getting at using an admittedly imperfect example.
I'm not against early access games (although I doubt I'll ever pay for one). I just think there's a real risk of destroying consumer goodwill, especially with labeling like what we're seeing here.
People fall for bullshit on labels all the time--see for example all the food products that are proudly displaying "0g trans fat!" or "gluten free!" on their boxes despite the fact that an informed consumer wouldn't expect them to have trans fat or gluten to begin with (e.g. Rice Krispies).
How many people do you think see a cool game box in a store advertising that the full version is included for free are going to stop, go home, and do even a modicum of research? You can blame them if you want, and it really is partly their fault for being lazy consumers, but that doesn't mean they're not going to think twice before buying your next game if they feel they were misled.
I think a fair response to this is, if your game is on sale in some form, it's fair game for outlets to play and review it like they would any other commercial product as a service to potential customers. If developers think their game is too early to be dissected critically, don't smack a $50 price tag on it and ship it to stores (or Steam).
Absolutely. If you sell a game you should be prepared to judge it based on what they buy, not what is promised in the future.
I fail to see how this is somehow singularly related to early access games or why it means they are a problem. If a developer is confident in their unfinished game, sell it.