Support NeoGAF

[wizzbang]

It seems you can barely find a new full release these days. I honestly think the whole alpha/beta testing should be on the dev website and the full release on Steam. It is flooded with early access games.

What do you guys think?

I don't use steam very much at all anymore but I agree with you, that shit would slowly get on my nerves.

 

[markot]

You dont have to early access them >_<

And its obviously great for devs and gamers, I mean 4/5 of the top selling games on steam are early access.

It brings games coming out soonish some buzz.

If you didnt know a game was coming out soon, you can learn more about it, and put it on your wishlist.

And devs get feed back and some extra money to polish their product prior to launch, rather then after it when its too late.

I think more games should do this.

 

[Eusis]

Actually, I really should've addressed this point:

It seems you can barely find a new full release these days. I honestly think the whole alpha/beta testing should be on the dev website and the full release on Steam. It is flooded with early access games.

What do you guys think?

On the other hand Steam is probably a great, reliable way to keep everyone up to date on the latest build of the game rather than wasting time building their own setup or wasting bandwidth uploading new builds all the time. At most I'd compromise that you have to go to their site to buy a KEY but it's not publically listed on Steam, though I think there's a lot of good early exposure this way in a manner similar to Minecraft, I'd never have known about Assetto Corsa had it not been on Early Access and getting threads here, or at least it'd take longer. Not that I've bought in admittedly, but it's on my radar and something I'm seriously considering anyway, and thus more likely to grab sooner at a higher price.

 

[jaundicejuice]

It's funny to see people complaining about how games being financed is changing on a platform that, arguably, changed how games are distributed.

 

[Eusis]

It's funny to see people complaining about how games being financed is changing on a platform that, arguably, changed how games are distributed.

And I think most people would have to admit this is probably preferable to microtransactions: alpha/beta access can potentially greatly improve a game, whereas microtransactions are at best just a cynical grab for more money, at worst can wreck design for maximum profitability.

 

[Iseeyou]

You probably shouldn't "have" to "resort" to third-party add-ons to have the stuff you own get highlighted either, but the rest of us just fix the problem instead of getting all worked up about it.



Being the gatekeeper and vanguard of the current sizeable and diverse renaissance in PC gaming?.

If indie, early access and F2P games are the future of steam, its not something I want to be apart of. I'm the customer here, not the fan, the backer not the friend, Valve should treat steam as a store not kickstarter 2.0.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

It's quite exciting but at the same time annoying. I see an interesting game, I want to buy it, but then I realize it's still a work-in-progress. I'm simply not dropping $20 on an unfinished game.

Exactly this, buggy beta test games can screw off. It's already becoming part of the budgeting process for developers I bet. Will also lead to the unfinished project syndrome, where the consumers just end up living with a load of bugs the devs just don't get done. I won't ever support this again, did it once or twice, felt like playing a half assed disappointing game. Don't want.

 

[Zarx]

If indie, early access and F2P games are the future of steam, its not something I want to be apart of. I'm the customer here, not the fan, the backer not the friend, Valve should treat steam as a store not kickstarter 2.0.

Most consumers on Steam on the other hand seem more than happy to consume all those things so they aren't going anywhere. All you can do is support the stuff you want to see more of, there is still just as much full release content as there ever has been in the past.

 

[Messofanego]

If indie, early access and F2P games are the future of steam, its not something I want to be apart of. I'm the customer here, not the fan, the backer not the friend, Valve should treat steam as a store not kickstarter 2.0.

Well, bye then.

I don't see the issue with more options available to players and developers. It's a good change and expansion.

Many busted games come out because they don't have early feedback, and the developers are so close to the project that they cant get a user perspective to see what design decisions are just not working. Steam is the biggest service for PC games, so them allowing some of the development to be unified at one place just seems convenient with the constant and quick free updates possible.

 

[CecilRousso]

If indie, early access and F2P games are the future of steam, its not something I want to be apart of. I'm the customer here, not the fan, the backer not the friend, Valve should treat steam as a store not kickstarter 2.0.

Valve are doing what they always does - they are letting the developers, publishers and customers decide. If it it's wrong, or just too much of them, then the market will show that.

 

[mclem]

I can understand people balking at the prices those games are at for Early Access, but you have to understand, they're set at those prices so that Kickstarter backers don't feel like they've been screwed. Wasteland 2, for example, is set at $59.99 because purchasing it with beta access through KS came at a minimum of $55. It wouldn't be very fair to those backers if it was now being sold through Steam at a lower price.

Also, that's with a bunch of benefits from the KS release which won't be in the final retail product. Think of it as early access, but you can only early access the collector's edition.

 

[xelios]

You get a huge banner warning it's early access, and you have the option of participating in the alpha/beta for a game you think looks interesting. If not you can easily keep an eye on it until it's a full release. Don't really see the problem.

 

[Carcetti]

While the OP maybe be hyperbole, I'm really feeling this is starting to become an issue. When before I was happy to dig out interesting indie games on Steam now I become pissed, again and again, when the whole greenlight section seems to be turning into an early access pre-alpha fest. It's not that I don't mind testing those games out but really, couldn't there be some other channel for this. Steam at least needs good sorting tools so I can hide the pre-access stuff completely if I want to from any searches and browsing.

TLDR: The pre-alpha mass of games on Steam are flooding over the actual finished games and making it harder to find released indie games making Greenlight section half useless.

i like early access. without it, we wouldn't be playing kerbal space program, starbound, prison architect, assetto corsa etc so early

Yeah, I like testing out Prison Architect, Starbound, Star Forge, Space Engineers and what not... Again, what Valve needs is better sorting tools and categories. Split Greenlight/indie section into clearly separate released/prerelease stuff, please.

 

[Eusis]

Also, that's with a bunch of benefits from the KS release which won't be in the final retail product. Think of it as early access, but you can only early access the collector's edition.

Admittedly I wonder how heavy the Kickstarter bonuses will be for that one specific tier. Still, I think there can be something of an issue when basic access comes at too high of a price, it's probably why Divinity: Original Sin is just opening up alpha access to all backers that are getting the game rather than keeping it to $90 and higher, and refunding and offering extras to those who did pitch in for Alpha. Wonder if they may lead a change in h ow that's handled in the future?

 

[xelios]

Hasn't Greenlight always been full of games that aren't actually finished?

But yeah, I can get on board with better filters/search and separation for everything on Steam.

 

[Dryk]

They just need to work on the giving people that want to filter out Early Access that ability. The system is just another option and its one that lots of people like so I think its fine. It's also a much better alternative to the "Early Access" games just getting thrown in with the rest of them with no warnings, which was starting to become a problem before the system was implemented.

 

[Haunted]

It's a great feature.

The kind of flexibility only an open platform can provide. Simply impossible on consoles due to certification/lotcheck/update policies etc.

Small indie teams managed before. Usually thanking the friends and family testers in the credits.

If that's your argument, I say the current situation with the possibility of early access is a clear improvement in the quantity and quality of beta testers.


Dylan Fitterer on Audiosurf 2 - early access pros and cons:

I'm convinced that this is the way to make highly-replayable games the best they can be. If I'd kept Audiosurf 2 to myself these past couple months it wouldn't be nearly as far along as it is now. I'd have focused on the wrong things (less aligned with what players want) and would have been a lot less productive. Working with frequent feedback from real, passionate players is a massive improvement over working in isolation. So, as you said, it's easy to see why early access is interesting to developers. I want to see Audiosurf 2 advance as far as possible and this is the way.

Of course, some players care enough about Audiosurf (or music games in general) to want to help push this part of gaming forward too. To those of you who have bought in early to play and give feedback - thank you! Development is thriving on your input. To those of you who have gone another step and implemented/shared ideas on workshop - double thank you! Finding bugs is very useful, but helping shape the game's growth is even more valuable.

The downside to early access has been the customers who bought it and didn't get what they expected. Seeing regrets posted on the forum at early access launch hit hard. Hopefully it will live up to what they wanted soon. I did see a post over the weekend from someone who expressed regret at first, but was now glad to have it and that was good to read.

 

[MaxiLive]

Seems like a 1st world problem to me. Yes loads of games on Steam are early access but loads of games are coming to Steam that wouldn't be. Plus you don't need to purchase them just ignore them to they are fully out and join their first Steam sale to celebrate meaning a win for consumers

 

[Seanspeed]

I think its great.

"I would never pay $20 for an incomplete game."

Then don't.

I'm enjoying the Assetto Corsa early access. I suppose it helps that its a racing simulator so there's not really anything to spoil or progress to lose or anything like that. But I got this game cheaper than it would have been on release, so, I mean, I *could* just never play it until they release version 1.0 and just treat it as a pre-order that saved me money, but its been good fun with the drip feed of content and features. They update the game every other Thursday, so its always something to look forward to.

The game is shaping up great, for anybody interested. Physics are phenomenal.

 

[Coldsun]

To be honest, I think its great. I wish some AAA titles would offer it too. If I'm really interested in a game, I'd totally buy in early. Much more likely to do so through steam instead of kickstarter as well.

 

[Twinduct]

Nothing more to add that has not been mentioned but honestly people need to get off this strange topic of having the inability to not 'ignore' a minor fucking thing.

if shit like a new listing of a game you have zero intent to buy riles you up you might want to rethink some life choices.

 

[megalowho]

I don't like the idea of paying more to beta test an unfinished product, regardless if it's coming from a AAA studio or indie developer. That's not what I come to gaming for, to be part of the process, though I see how it can be appealing for others. Wouldn't want to burn out on something I'm interested in before it's finalized anyway.

Can't fault it for existing, but there's something to be said for putting your best foot forward out of the gate, which Early Access rarely is.

 

[marvelharvey]

I'm enjoying the Assetto Corsa early access.

Assetto Corsa has more polish than 99.9% of 2013's fully-released games.

That being said, 2013 has been a particularly poor year for PC polish (rFactor2, Battlefield 4, Sim City, ARMA 3 and many many more are still all unfinished products)

 

[Seanspeed]

Assetto Corsa has more polish than 99.9% of 2013's fully-released games.

I'm holding out judgement til I see how online aspects are handled.

 

[mcfishstick]

I love early access for allowing the creation of some of my favorite games which otherwise would probably not exist.

Don't Starve and Kerbal Space Program are really unique gems, though Don't Starve has actually now released.

War for the Overworld, Maia, and Spacebase DF9 are my most anticipated games now. I normally play them a few hours each update so I don't get burnt out on them.

 

[GeoGonzo]

If anything, someone needs to explain why Rome 2 wasn't flagged as Early Access.

 

[Dorfdepp]

Early access is a good thing imo as most developers use that also as a means to gather feedback. Just look at Audiosurf 2, the game has improved so much since the first version available on Steam.

 

[d00d3n]

I agree with the sentiment expressed in the OT. The front page advertising in Steam focuses too much on early-access games. Some of these titles should not be sold in any form, even if they are clearly labeled as early-access. I can understand the "people want to be able to shape the game from an early state" argument, but even if you accept this, it does not make sense to advertise these games for a mass market audience on the Steam front page.

I have personally felt ripped off after buying some early-access games which were advertised with lofty promises, but failed to deliver anything worthwhile. To market boring pre-alpha shit like Under the Ocean on the front page using deceptive screenshots and descriptions (targeting the Terraria demographic ofc) gives a bad name to the early-access process. The whole situation is really quite unfortunate, because on the other hand you have fantastic early-access projects like Starbound which give plenty of value to early customers.

 

[Brazil]

I'm sorry OP, but you're basically complaining about having options.

 

[Seanspeed]

I agree with the sentiment expressed in the OT. The front page advertising in Steam focuses too much on early-access games. Some of these titles should not be sold in any form, even if they are clearly labeled as early-access. I can understand the "people want to be able to shape the game from an early state" argument, but even if you accept this, it does not make sense to advertise these games for a mass market audience on the Steam front page.

I have personally felt ripped off after buying some early-access games which were advertised with lofty promises, but failed to deliver anything worthwhile. To market boring pre-alpha shit like Under the Ocean on the front page using deceptive screenshots and descriptions (targeting the Terraria demographic ofc) gives a bad name to the early-access process. The whole situation is really quite unfortunate, because on the other hand you have fantastic early-access projects like Starbound which give plenty of value to early customers.

That sort of argument stands for full release games though, too.

"Oh, this game wasn't nearly as good as it looked as if it would be."

Ultimately, every game is buyer-beware. If you're curious about an Early Access game, try and find some user impressions. That shouldn't be too hard to do.

 

[Grand Funk Carwash]

I don't mind early access as a concept.

Valve needs to kick a few indie arses though because some are taking the piss with indefinite development and poorly defined goals. 3-4 months should be the maximum between going on early access and releasing. I played Kerbal Space Program 2 years ago and stopped to wait for the game part to be finished...still no news on that front.

 

[Zemm]

I think it's an excellent idea personally. Plus I wouldn't be playing Prison Architect currently without it.

One thing Steam need to do, and this isn't Early Access related, is to make more tabs for genres and so on, the store looks good but it could do with a few tweaks.

 

[Category G]

I'm surprised people still get hung up over version numbers or something being in Early Access. As other's have mentioned in this topic, we're increasingly seeing how arbitrary an actual "release version" is: on the one hand you have games which are just broken at launch (BF4, Rome 2, X Rebirth etc.) while there are some games which are better in their early access form than others (Minecraft of course being the most famous example). Seeing people discount games simply for being Early Access just strikes me as rather short sighted.

That said I do agree that there should be better functions on the site in regards to Early Access. Certainly if people want to hide the games then they should have the option (I'd actually like the option to see Early Access games appear in the New Releases section personally ).

I would also like Valve to be a bit stricter in the required information which developers give for Early Access. I feel there should be a greater need for developers to offer proper road-maps (e.g. the game is currently y% playable, in two months it'll be z% we plan to launch in x months) as well as being mandated to offer routine announcements on the game (so you can't go months without any news from the developers) though looking through the Early Access forums this seems to be less an issue than I thought.

 

[Caerith]

I clicked into this thread because I thought it was some amusing bug that had flagged thousands of games as Early Access, but no, just hyperbole and whining.

I like Early Access. I haven't personally bought any Early Access games, but I like that it exists. It is vastly preferable to AAA titles that come out in an incomplete state and are never fixed.

I think the Steam store needs a lot of work.

I am okay with people having things I am not interested in.

 

[SentryDown]

The recent Broken Sword is a very bad example IMO : it's not an episodic game and you simply pay for the full game while the second half will only come later through a patch.

Very, very bad idea to sell half-games.

 

[Saty]

While consoles are still wrestling with adapting the self-publish business model, already a new one emerged on PCs. And that's great. Prison Architect is very near to 300k copies sold in Alpha state. It's Introversion's most successful title to date yet it's incomplete and far from being 'officially' released.

 

[d00d3n]

That sort of argument stands for full release games though, too.

Well, I guess. In my opinion, Steam should be more active about evaluating and excluding full release games also (on technical grounds).

 

[Caerith]

Well, I guess. In my opinion, Steam should be more active about evaluating and excluding full release games also (on technical grounds).

Valve used to be more active about evaluating, etc. People complained about how few games were actually being added to Steam. Greenlight and Early Access were answers to that.

 

[PaulLFC]

If indie, early access and F2P games are the future of steam, its not something I want to be apart of. I'm the customer here, not the fan, the backer not the friend, Valve should treat steam as a store not kickstarter 2.0.

You are not the customer, you are one customer. One of many. Others may like the early access model. I'm fine with it personally, have bought a few games through it and have enjoyed them. As has been pointed out if a majority of customers determine by their purchasing/viewing habits on Steam that giving such prominence to early access games isn't a good business move, it will be changed.

 

[Minsc]

Having early access brings more games for purchase, so I see nothing wrong with that. It's very possible an early access game provides more enjoyment and gaming time than a finished game, and it's possible a finished game is a less complete package than an early access game, so I see little reason to hate early access across the board. As long as the early access is clear about what is playable and what is coming, let the user decide when the time to purchase is.

The recent Broken Sword is a very bad example IMO : it's not an episodic game and you simply pay for the full game while the second half will only come later through a patch.

Very, very bad idea to sell half-games.

You don't really explain anywhere why this is a bad idea, the game is being sold with the information available to the purchaser that it is an early access purchase, so why not sell it to people who are excited to play that first half right now.

 

[Mikeside]

I've got absolutely no problem with them, but I would like to know what will happen if and when a game on Early Access fails or turns out radically different than the original promise.

Will Valve offer refunds, or will we be stuck?

 

[Chairmanchuck]

It depends on the Game. One thing I find kinda strange is, that some Early Access Games costs more than they will cost at release (at least according to some devs).

You are essentially betatesting some of these Games and even have to pay more than the consumer when the finished product is released.
I think it should be vice versa. Pay less when its early acces.

 

[KorrZ]

I think the ability to buy games as a WIP is one of the coolest things to happen on Steam. Starbound is an early access game and I've had more fun playing and watching that game evolve than I have playing many full released games. It's great to be able to jump in early where your feedback can actually lead to significant changes.

 

[Labadal]

I've bought 3 games in Early Access status. I didn't have to but I did because I had the option. None of those three games are fully released yet but it is nice to see how the game gets improved upon with each update.
The games are:

Blackguards
Grim Dawn
Mercenary Kings

If a game looks interesting enough, I'll buy it and consider it in the beta phase. I'll get to play the full game eventually if nothing goes wrong. I do admit that I'm very picky and don't just buy anything that looks cool. I look up the game and devs for useful info and see if I should go for it or not.

 

[969]

It's a great feature imo and i don't see the problem tbh.

As others have said you can either opt in early or wait for the full game to be released.

Plus some early access games are really great and very much playable at their current state; games like Insurgency, Contagion, Grim Dawn, Betrayer, etc.

Hell, they are more stable than Battlefield 4 from my experience.

 

[keezy]

I think ARMA3 had a good concept of letting people buy the game for less while it's still in Alpha/Beta phases. People were basically beta testers and got the game for less before the full version was released for "full retail".

 

[terrdactycalsrock]

I kinda dislike it as well. Then I think, well, it could be a better experience with more cash then maybe thats okay. I also think its better than every game just having a real money currency system in it. Or even worse, a fake in game money system and a real money currency system

 

[Tagyhag]

Early Access is like pre-ordering a game, at sometimes a cheaper price than release, and being able to play it while its being worked on.

The alternative would be just a preorder with no gameplay, or no preorder at all.

You are NOT forced to buy this, you can just wait for the game to be complete. Even that will not guarantee the game will be "full".

How people are actually not happy with more options as a consumer is beyond me, with that kind of thinking, big companies will gladly take advantage of you.

 

[AlfeG]

Title is hyperbole, a lot of titles are early access but not all

Most of the time AAA releases are free beta testing. 3-4 patches make game cheaper and released

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Thankyou for making this thread.

This is starting to piss me off. I love indie games, but I hate betas. I wouldn't even play an unfinished game if it was free. So why would I pay full price for the priviledge?

There has to be a way to unclutter the storefront from early access games for those of us consumers that want nothing to do with them. Put them in a separate section, or allow consumers to hide them from the storefront.