• 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.

Should AA/AAA titles release as early access to avoid delays

Hot5pur

Member
I think we've all noticed the sad state games release in these days in terms of performance and optimization. Then over the next few months the game undergoes all sorts of fixes to bring it into a good state.

Games are more complex these days and take time, especially to fix things late in development. Games are also longer and need to be QAed. Regardless, due to investor pressure, studios push out half baked releases only to fix them later, charging full price in the process.

What if instead people embraced the early access (EA) method even for AA/AAA titles, where you release early but at a discount, and have people who just can't wait and don't mind bugs test the game for you (as sad as that sounds). When the game is truly ready, it goes to full price. This is what many indie studios doing EA have started doing.

We are far past the time where the game on disc is playable with how many day 1 patches there are, so why not just take these concepts to their logical conclusion in this modern age of game "development".
 

NickFire

Member
I'd rather not get flooded with marketing to pre-order early access to play the early access beta for full price.

I would argue many release in that state already even if they aren't explicitly called that.

I also share this belief. No need to encourage the pubs to get even worse.
 

FoxMcChief

Gold Member
No. Launches are already pretty much early access. If someone is “that” worried about spending money on something at launch that might not run as well as they’d like, then early adoption isn’t for you. Don’t let FOMO control you.
 
Early access games make sense if you have extremely limited resources and need audience feedback. Or if you have extremely limited funding and need to cash up front to even finish the game. You see this approach from indies and in that context it can make some sense.

No one else really needs to do this.
 

Ezekiel_

Banned
I've predicted before that we would see more games that are included in a subscription service, day one, go that way. Games without a signifiant storyline, obviously.

Make people with the subscription plan play the game and beta test it, while still getting funds. Release incremental updates.

Then release the 1.0 version on the sub plan and as a product. Say that it was 'built with the help of the community' or some shit.

Basically freeload that QA.

People already play shit on sub plans just because it's perceived as 'fReE'.
 

Ezekiel_

Banned
Early access games make sense if you have extremely limited resources and need audience feedback. Or if you have extremely limited funding and need to cash up front to even finish the game. You see this approach from indies and in that context it can make some sense.

No one else really needs to do this.
Explain Grounded
 

TheUsual

Gold Member
I don't want to give publishers even more reason to force games out early. I'm sure developers would absolutely dread this as they will the first ones on blast.
 

supernova8

Banned
The base game should be finished before being released. No problem with them adding QoL improvements etc. but if there are game-breaking/enjoyment-ruining bugs, the game should not be out until those are fixed. Also no day one patches. That's just stealth DRM under a different name.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
Slippery slope.

I’m cool with early access on PC and with indies, because the games are cheaper since you’re getting in early.

On consoles with AAA publishers they’ll be a full $70.
 

Jaybe

Member
You’ve successfully united this community in our collective dislike of this idea

Rhyming Leonardo Dicaprio GIF
 
Just don't give the release date until they're 99% certain that the game will be able to release on that date. Simple as that.

Netherrealm employed that strategy with Mortal Kombat 11 like four months before the game came out and it turned out to be the highest selling fighting game of 8th gen(unless Smash Ultimate counts).
 
Last edited:

Pelta88

Member
Something feels really off about this thread. I've never known a gamer to advocate for the release of unfinished games. Ever.
 

mortal

Gold Member
This wouldn't work for every game.
Besides, there are far too many games, both new and old, to play at any given time to be concerned about delays to such an extent.
If a game that you're anticipating happens to get delayed, then just find another game to play in the meantime. Sure It sucks when it happens, but it's really not that serious.
Play other games, watch a film or show, read a book or two, go do anything else. Stressing about something that will inevitably release is a waste of time tbh.
 
No, whilst I think that early access can be utilised as a powerful tool for developers, I think it has conditioned a lot us into thinking that most games (early access or not) will release in a less than ideal state but attached to that is the acceptance that they will hopefully be fixed down the line.

Granted, games are much more complex now and have a lot more moving parts so it’s rare to see a game release and it’s well polished.
 

EDMIX

Member
I think we've all noticed the sad state games release in these days in terms of performance and optimization. Then over the next few months the game undergoes all sorts of fixes to bring it into a good state.

Games are more complex these days and take time, especially to fix things late in development. Games are also longer and need to be QAed. Regardless, due to investor pressure, studios push out half baked releases only to fix them later, charging full price in the process.

What if instead people embraced the early access (EA) method even for AA/AAA titles, where you release early but at a discount, and have people who just can't wait and don't mind bugs test the game for you (as sad as that sounds). When the game is truly ready, it goes to full price. This is what many indie studios doing EA have started doing.

We are far past the time where the game on disc is playable with how many day 1 patches there are, so why not just take these concepts to their logical conclusion in this modern age of game "development".

They already do that, its called CP2077 lol

jk aside (not really though as the game is still being fixed, patched and ducktapped together)

I believe for online titles, maybe it makes more sense. If someone wants a deal, can't wait to start playing and will provide feedback or something, maybe we need some longer window until the games final release or something. BF2042 right now feels great, but it shows the game had no business releasing in the state that it did in 2021 and should have been worked on longer to even see what those map fixes should be, hearing feedback about the scoreboard missing etc.

For online titles...I feel this makes sense or a longer beta or something.

For single player titles, fuck no. There is no reason to be putting out a game and then years later still trying to patch in AI or something weird like that, its not an online thing, its a experience someone will go thru, hear the story and likely never return if they felt the issues hurt their experience.

They can't go in a time machine and pretend they didn't fucking hear the story, thus helping fix it after is such a hollow job as it helps others playing something like that for the first time, does very little to users who already ruined a playthrough waiting for them to figure out how to make bad guys drive cars or a train system work...

Even Grove Street games got trains working and enemies driving cars folks lol Didn't take em 8 years plus and some early access to achieve that and that game was a mess at launch and still did more then some of the "AAA" titles coming out today struggling to meet standard features expected.

So it depends on single player or online
 

EDMIX

Member
They already do lol, although no dev or publisher would admit it.

I want to see that internal document talking about "soft launch" and then another is like "REAL launch 24 months later" lol

I actually agree with OP though. You are correct as well, I believe not saying its "early access" doesn't mean that isn't what the team or publisher feels.

CP2077 is literally trying to patch in bad guys driving cars, some shit that needs to be in a game day 1, not 2 fucking years later. So clearly they knew it had issues, charged full price and basically you are paying today, for a game to might be, maybe complete and working years later lol At least be up front with consumers on this as its not like they'd care, some will support that, but be transparent about what is missing vs lying to consumers about the state of those games.

So maybe OP has a point. Discount, put out patches based on feed back from the community and roll out some sort of soft launch before a final one or something.
 
Top Bottom