Opinion on Early Access?

[jurew2]

I've seen the concept in a lot of games rise in the last couple of years. This is the process of paying the developers of the game in order to play their (usually) alpha version of their unfinished, unpolished, and usually buggy game. I really don't like this type of a concept, because I don't really want to pay for a game that isn't already finished, so I don't know if it will be good or bad. What is your opinion about the early access?

 

[GlacialDoom]

It is a sick thing. It's basically giving developers money for a game you might not get in the end. Before Early Access, we had "early access" for free, with something called private and public beta. Steam just monetized that system, and it's really sad that it caught on.

 

[Ridge]

I don't mind early access games.

If you believe in a studio and/or their games (or even their idea for a game) it gives you a chance to show some early support. With a lot of smaller indie studios that early cash injection can really help them actually have the funds to be able to finish the game. If you don't like early access you can easily just not buy early access games, but overall I think having the early access option is good.

 

[Miles Hansen]

I think it has a lot of upsides and a lot of downsides. Valve's early access program is essentially a way for developers to charge full price for a game that for all intents and purposes isn't finished yet. That sounds really bad when you say it like that, but there are, of course, some things about this that makes the early access program good for smaller developers. You can get a feel of what gamers want out of your game, you can fix bugs, you can get an economic boost so you'll have the means to finish your game. All of these are good things, but then again, does this outweigh the negatives, which is that you can't be sure about whether or not you will ever get a finished product for your money.

Aside from that there's also the problem that unlike traditional games, reviewers can't really slap a lable on an early access game, because it isn't finished. This makes it hard to get a clear view of whether or not you'll actually get anything of worth for your money.

I don't think Valve's way of doing it right now is a solid way, but I think that with some tweaks to the program it could turn into something great.
It's really all up to the individual consumer when it comes down to it, and I am mostly fine with that.

 

[Miles Hansen]

I think it has a lot of upsides and a lot of downsides. Valve's early access program is essentially a way for developers to charge full price for a game that for all intents and purposes isn't finished yet. That sounds really bad when you say it like that, but there are, of course, some things about this that makes the early access program good for smaller developers. You can get a feel of what gamers want out of your game, you can fix bugs, you can get an economic boost so you'll have the means to finish your game. All of these are good things, but then again, does this outweigh the negatives, which is that you can't be sure about whether or not you will ever get a finished product for your money.

Aside from that there's also the problem that unlike traditional games, reviewers can't really slap a lable on an early access game, because it isn't finished. This makes it hard to get a clear view of whether or not you'll actually get anything of worth for your money.

I don't think Valve's way of doing it right now is a solid way, but I think that with some tweaks to the program it could turn into something great.
It's really all up to the individual consumer when it comes down to it, and I am mostly fine with that.

 

[theGIJST]

Well it is good, and bad as well. Since you can play some of the upcoming games a long time before their actual release, you won't have to wait as long, but of course, the product you'll get won't be finished yet, and chances are, that by the time the game releases, you'll be bored of it since you played a lot of Early Access. I hate how some games stay in Early Access for a very long time, like DayZ. DayZ has been in early access for about a year, right? Still hasn't released properly, still tons of bugs and tons of things to be added in the game.

 

[MrHurricane]

I think Early Acces can be a good idea when executed and used properly, see Minecraft for example. Although it is much easier to see the failed products, or ones which abused the Early Access model, such as Starbound which lost quite a lot of players over the months with no stable updates, or DayZ with that more than one year in EA, and still 1-2 more to go. By the time DayZ actually gets a "release" version, no one will care about it in my opinion, as anyone who was interested in it played it extensively by then.

 

[Squigly]

Many early access games have failed to deliver on their promises, and eventually released as a full-game missing many key features which was the reason why people bought it in the first place. Personally I won't buy any early access games. The few early access game that went right, like DayZ and Prison Architect are the exception rather than the norm, sadly.

 

[Nate5]

I think early access is a terrible thing, and it's just a way for game companies to milk more from the consumer. People who order early access are expecting some sort of special early access privilege that makes them special. Instead, all they get is a buggy game that won't pass for a good game 10 years ago. I feel like people who buy early access have become essentially game testers that pay rather than get paid. If they're already earning money, what's the motivation to fully develop the game? However, there are exceptions to this, like Minecraft, which made it super cheap to buy and a legal copy you can own for life.

 

[cyberpinoy]

HoN Uses Early access situation as an advantage for them to make a little extra money. Whenever a new hero is released ( remember HoN is a free to play game) they first release the Hero in Early access. This allows only people who spend real money to buy the heros and its avatars not only to have early access to it but get it pretty more affordable than if they would wait and try to buy it with the games virtual currency (silver) I think it is a great idea to give them a chance to see a few things first they will see who really is dedicated to their game, who is willing to spend cash on heros and avatars, and it gives them a chance to make a few extra bucks before the heros are released in the F2P area to be purchased with the games virtual currency.

 

[Avex]

If it's practically guaranteed to be completed, I'm all open for it, gives the developers more funds to further progress their game. However if looks like it's going to be a flop and not completed I find it rather pathetic and an attempt at getting some quick money' I mean, it's rather easy to create a basic zombie survival game with limited functions to begin with... put it up on steam, get early access for it, earn some money while "progressing the game" or adding minor updates and dropping it once satisfied with amount of money.

 

[BluBird]

I think early access is good in theory, but that 25% statistic is why it's not so good in practice, although as mentioned, the successes are usually great. I guess early access is better than nothing with some games? And yet we have companies releasing "completed" AAA games that are just as buggy - if not more - than early access games.

 

[DMCampos]

When I buy an early access game, I buy the game I'm seeing and I normally don't expect more than what is developed already, so I can't really be disappointed when the developers fail to live up to their promises. It's a pleasant suprise when they do fulfill those promises (Prison Architect for instance).
On the other hand, I understand why some buyers may be worried with this type of games being the norm, seeing as many developers promise a lot and end up releasing a game that's not like what was expected at all. For me it's just like crowdfunding websites, there's always some risk involved.

 

[Morvack]

I think it is ultimately a good thing, and I'll explain why. Paying for early access helps the game developer, which means it has a better chance of actually coming out as a polished game. Even better, is if you have payed for the early access, most companies will give you the finished game for free. At least I know for sure dayz is doing that. You also help with the beta/alpha, to make the game better.

 

[globulon]

I agree, the concept is great in theory. Why not pay a reduced price to have access to an interesting looking beta? You contribute to the game's development and if you love it, even better! You'll get a deal when the actual game comes out.

Unfortunately, in practice I don't think I've ever bought an early-access game and had it turn out well. The strategy just seems to be a way for developers to quickly grab cash for an product that was never meant to be finished.

 

[kittyworker]

There have been a few games that I have bought on the early access model. Minecraft was probably my first, a streamer on Justin.tv (What became twitch.tv) named Ickum was playing the game and it looked interesting enough that I gave it a try. This was back when the game was still in the 'indev' phase. Most of my experiences with Early access have been good. Theres few that I feel really burned me. Okay, theres probably NONE that have burned me as I've got a good chunk of time played in each of them and have certainly got my moneys worth from them.

How do I feel about the model? I think its great as long as people remember that what they are playing is an unfinished build of the game. I do wish developers would be more realistic with their goals, but cutting features happens all the time in games and people need to understand that they shouldn't purchase a game based on the features promised but rather the features present.

 

[tournique]

I think early access is another term for Alpha and Beta. Except this time, you pay to join it. An unfinished product that only breaks games who offer this possibility.

 

[Setari]

Early Access is an extremely bad business practice and should be stopped or limited to what progression is on a game. I very, very dearly consider how far a game's progress is along with if there's a road-map for development and stuff like that. If there is no road-map, I will not even look at the game again until a few months down the road 99% of the time. The 1% chance is for Steam friends who tell me that the game is good. This has happened with 7 Days to Die, along with Prison Architect. I am also considering TUG but everything else I've seen just screams "We don't know where we're going, but we want your money!"

However, I do agree with the sentiment that the term, "Early Access" is definitely code for, for most games, alpha. In my opinion there are only a few games right now that qualify for a "beta" tag, in my opinion. There are definitely certain criteria that need to be met before considering something a "beta", and most EA games on Steam do not match this criteria, unfortunately. And a lot of them suffer from lazy developers who only push out an update once a month, if not once every two, three, several months. I understand life issues, but when you get money from people who purchase your product, you're telling them that you are going to be fixing up your game and pushing content and updates frequently. Frequently to most people means, in the early stages of a game, or in general in the "alpha" stages, probably a few fixes a week to maybe one update per two weeks, consisting of content and bug fixes.

Anyway, I am not okay with Steam allowing Early Access titles without certain criteria to be met first to be released onto Steam. And with the Greenlight service being taken away soon... well, it's gonna be havoc.

 

[kittyworker]

Early Access is an extremely bad business practice and should be stopped or limited to what progression is on a game. I very, very dearly consider how far a game's progress is along with if there's a road-map for development and stuff like that. If there is no road-map, I will not even look at the game again until a few months down the road 99% of the time. The 1% chance is for Steam friends who tell me that the game is good. This has happened with 7 Days to Die, along with Prison Architect. I am also considering TUG but everything else I've seen just screams "We don't know where we're going, but we want your money!"

However, I do agree with the sentiment that the term, "Early Access" is definitely code for, for most games, alpha. In my opinion there are only a few games right now that qualify for a "beta" tag, in my opinion. There are definitely certain criteria that need to be met before considering something a "beta", and most EA games on Steam do not match this criteria, unfortunately. And a lot of them suffer from lazy developers who only push out an update once a month, if not once every two, three, several months. I understand life issues, but when you get money from people who purchase your product, you're telling them that you are going to be fixing up your game and pushing content and updates frequently. Frequently to most people means, in the early stages of a game, or in general in the "alpha" stages, probably a few fixes a week to maybe one update per two weeks, consisting of content and bug fixes.

Anyway, I am not okay with Steam allowing Early Access titles without certain criteria to be met first to be released onto Steam. And with the Greenlight service being taken away soon... well, it's gonna be havoc.

I agree that Steam needs certain criteria. I don't agree that the format is bad. Games with even a clear development roadmap may have technical issues or staffing problems along the way. Games with early access need to be at least playable, and then you may paying for playing the game at that current state and supporting the developer. You shouldn't expect that all bugs and issues with the game will be fixed.

 

[Setari]

No, that wasn't what I was implying. Sorry if it seemed like it. I mean, there's a reason it's in Early Access right? Bugs are going to be plentiful and need to be weeded out. But I think putting the game up for sale while making people stomp out the bugs for the devs without sometimes even having a playable game, is pretty bad. It's definitely okay if it's playable but there are people out there who will release something and not interact with the community, or even acknowledge bugs until a few builds down the line, possibly gamebreaking bugs.

It's all pure opinion though tbh, that's just my stance on it, but I can see your viewpoint too.