|
Kikka posted:Early access is pretty much playetesters and PR research that pay you Not only are people paying to be testers, a job people normally get paid the other direction to do, but then they go all "you can't say bad things this is early access". It's a gold mine for shitlords. If you don't know what the game is worth playing today, don't invest in it. Early Access is supposed to be for games that just need some help getting to release, it's not Kickstarter. People investing money into pre-pre-alpha games only have themselves to blame. The only Early Access game I'm in right now is Kerbal Space Program- because KSP is awesome- And Planetary Annihilation, because I caught it on flash sale at some point or other for a reasonable price and the devs can be trusted to finish the game.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:23
|
|
ME
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Throwing money on a wing and a prayer is daft but that's not the only thing you can do with EA games. There's good ones and bad ones and generally, finding which is which involves not getting suckered into the hype. Same as with normal games. This is probably the best advice. Don't spend money on any game that's not already good, unless you're 100% okay with basically just being a patron who's supporting some developer's lifestyle while you get nothing worthwhile in return. If you do that, Early Access is a great model that enables a lot of cool games to get made that would never otherwise see the light of day. metricchip posted:They also need to pull all of the early access stuff and keep it in its own section away from the main page/listings. Even if there were an easy way to differentiate between early access and completed games WITHOUT opening the game's page it would be a massive improvement. Just a simple blue border around the game's thumbnail would be fine. This is definitely a huge problem that needs to resolution, and your suggestions are good. The Early Access warning on the game's page is obvious, and it's good they have it, but it's hosed up that all those games are just tossed in with the rest of the titles on the store pages with no differentiation at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:This is probably the best advice. Don't spend money on any game that's not already good, unless you're 100% okay with basically just being a patron who's supporting some developer's lifestyle while you get nothing worthwhile in return. If you do that, Early Access is a great model that enables a lot of cool games to get made that would never otherwise see the light of day. That's the main reason I buy them, those games just aren't available otherwise. They don't get made with traditional funding models.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:If you don't know what the game is worth playing today, don't invest in it. Early Access is supposed to be for games that just need some help getting to release, it's not Kickstarter. People investing money into pre-pre-alpha games only have themselves to blame. It did take me a few games before I stopped buying unfun, super-early "skeleton" games. At this point, countless games have shown that even as a fairly early alpha, it's incredibly possible to make a game that's super fun, something like Gang Beasts or the like. There's just no reason to buy an unfinished game if it's not already fun. That's not to say "gently caress you" to devs whose games aren't fun yet - like you say, they have a perfectly good funding route in Kickstarter and the like. But this is all really new stuff, both devs & consumers are still figuring it out. Hopefully with time, developers will start to get an idea about whether their game is best suited for Kickstarter or Early Access and people will feel a lot less ripped off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Also possibly consumers will apply the same logic they presumably learned buying games from brick and mortar stores for the past 20 years and not buy it if you don't think you're going to like it, and not basing whether you think you'll like it on the company press.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
I don't think we'll see much improvements to the games that get on Early Access as long as Greenlight exists. A lot of the games on Greenlight right now are either just started projects or poo poo that is still waiting for its Kickstarter campaign to finish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
XENA I LOVE YOU posted:I don't think we'll see much improvements to the games that get on Early Access as long as Greenlight exists. A lot of the games on Greenlight right now are either just started projects or poo poo that is still waiting for its Kickstarter campaign to finish. Aren't Valve getting rid of Greenlight, though? I thought the idea is they were going to just let everyone who wanted to use the Steam platform, and then offload that curation responsibility onto others, and with this latest update they've honestly gone a long way towards that goal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's the main reason I buy them, those games just aren't available otherwise. They don't get made with traditional funding models. Yep, this is the long and short of why early access/Kickstarter exists in the first place. Even games that have been super successful (Wasteland 2 made back half of its budget within its first couple days of selling) were often turned down by publishers as being too risky. That's the thing - when you're crowdfunding anything, the risk is divided between both the developers and the audience. It's up to the audience to do their research and figure out whether it's worth the risk. A simple rule of thumb (as others have pointed out) is that you should only put money down on a game that you are going to have fun with NOW. Even if it never gets another update, you'll feel like you've got your moneys worth, and everyone goes home happy, or at least only moderately disappointed if development fizzles out. Throwing money at things in the hope that they'll grow into something you'll like? That's for people with more disposable income, and a taste for gambling. People who aren't me, basically. I only own a handful of early access games, and haven't had the money or nerve to throw anything at Kickstarter (although if I DID have some money spare, I'd be funding Pathologic Redux right now). Some of the complaining about early access games is a bit silly to me though. Let's take Starbound as an example. You hear constant cries that there have been no updates in months and that the developers are just running off with the money to do other things. The truth is that the game has gotten dozens, possibly hundreds of updates in that time. They just haven't pushed them to the Stable branch of the game because that would gently caress over everyones mods and make people angry. They need to get everything interconnected and stable before they roll out a new major build, otherwise things will break. This applies to any heavily systems-driven game. The same has been happening with Starsector, too. The interesting thing with Starsector is that the players seem glad that development is being done this way, because the audience seem to understand the development process, and that unstable WIP builds being pushed out would break all the cool mods that people are using, and make it too unstable a platform to develop further on. Crowdfunded development is (generally speaking) a much more honest and open business than what you'd get behind closed doors at publisher-owned studios. It lets us see that this is a seriously complex business with a lot of issues. I really don't see much trouble with Early Access and crowdfunding, but work must be done to educate consumers as to exactly what is going on, what they're putting their money down on and the rough odds of it paying out as they hope it will.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Comparing starbound and starsector is interesting because I think it showcases a difference in audience. I do wonder if people don't just switch off their brains or something when someone appears on steam and find it easier to sling poo poo than to switch them back on again for a little while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Comparing starbound and starsector is interesting because I think it showcases a difference in audience. Yeah, Minecraft, Terraria and Starbound all share an audience, which tends to be generally younger, louder and less familiar with business than, say, Starsector's old-school space combat/strategy players. Remember the tears and flailing from the Minecraft community when they were reminded that they're not actually allowed to run pay-to-win servers? Yeah. An additional irony is that the Starbound devs have been amazingly open and communicative. Near-daily development updates detailing absolutely everything they've been working on, but you still get cries that the game is dead/abandoned. Starsector's developer posts small updates on progress once or twice a month. It's much less transparent, but the audience in general seems more mature and willing to wait.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Dominic White posted:Crowdfunded development is (generally speaking) a much more honest and open business than what you'd get behind closed doors at publisher-owned studios. It lets us see that this is a seriously complex business with a lot of issues. I really don't see much trouble with Early Access and crowdfunding, but work must be done to educate consumers as to exactly what is going on, what they're putting their money down on and the rough odds of it paying out as they hope it will. I agree with your view, though think you handwave away some of these developers being incompetent, or intentionally malicious as well. Consumers need to understand that EA is gambling. And if the developer fucks off to god knows where, or is lazy, or has real life issues, well that's your own fault, because you put faith in the wrong person. Matlock Birthmark fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Matlock Birthmark posted:I agree with your view, though think you handwave away a lot of these developers being incompetent, or intentionally malicious as well. I really can't think of any cases of intentional malice. There are a whole lot of things that can go wrong, and inexperienced developers do tend to have their ambitions outstripped by their capabilities. It's why you're generally better off going with more established teams if you want to be sure of things working out well. Of course, exceptions apply even there - DF-9 is winding down development simply because it was meant to be a self-funding project, but funds ran out - but such is the eternal issue with putting money on anything incomplete. At the end of the day, the thing that should be written a thousand miles high in flashing neon letters is 'If you don't want to risk your money, don't buy unfinished games'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Dominic White posted:At the end of the day, the thing that should be written a thousand miles high in flashing neon letters is 'If you don't want to risk your money, don't buy unfinished games'. Hmm, I swear I remember reading an article about an EA game that was just designed as a scam. Can't find it now though, so I might have imagined it, or confused it with something else. And ya, agreed on the big flashing letters parts. Edit: The game I was thinking of was Earth: Year 2066. Matlock Birthmark fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Matlock Birthmark posted:Edit: The game I was thinking of was Earth: Year 2066. Aah, yes, I remember that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mewqnxavdc4 Given that this was the Steam trailer for it, I must question the sanity of anyone that threw real money at it. It's literally a bunch of Unity prefab items and the worst audio I've ever heard. Edit: And the worst video editing, too. Dominic White fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
I've only ever bought one early access game and that was Assetto Corsa, a driving sim, I did this for two reasons: 1) Driving sims that look good don't come along amazingly often and you kinda know what you are going to get in the end 2) The company making it had a proven track record (hurr hurr) as they made another sim that was good So far the whole process has been unremarkable and dull, no dramas and no broken promises I feel let down tbh
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Early Access games tend to only be a good idea to get into when there's enough there for there to be a game and there's enough people reviewing what's there favorably. Also if it's plainly stated that it'll be at a decent discount to what the game will be at release. Avoiding games with zombies as the focus in this model seems to be advisable too. So far the best Early Access games I paid for were Minecraft 5 years ago for 11 bucks, KSP for like 8 bucks prior to it getting on Steam, and Prison Architect around version 20 when it was on a flash sale for I think 10. DayZ has been mostly a bad experience in this regard, still fun with goons, but what game isn't? If we look at Kickstarter poo poo gets crazier, and so far I, and many other goons, have been burned by massive delays and such things as getting half a game now and the rest TBD. Wasteland 2 seems pretty good though, and FTL is great. So basically you need to look at the developer's track record and also not get in on the ground floor to let it develop enough where there's a distinct opinion about the game. Kickstarter poo poo is pretty much 95% the former with 5% being pitch videos and concept art. Oddly you generally have to pay more than retail to get Early Access in the game on Kickstarter, so that's sorta hosed up really. This can of course be offset with a strong desire to collect cloth maps and getting Early Access with that tier anyway 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Brightman posted:So basically you need to look at the developer's track record and also not get in on the ground floor to let it develop enough where there's a distinct opinion about the game. Kickstarter poo poo is pretty much 95% the former with 5% being pitch videos and concept art. Oddly you generally have to pay more than retail to get Early Access in the game on Kickstarter, so that's sorta hosed up really. This can of course be offset with a strong desire to collect cloth maps and getting Early Access with that tier anyway Well, yeah, that's why Kickstarter generally doesn't make any sense if you use it as a store. But just because it may look like a store to some people, that doesn't mean it is one. It's not a store and shouldn't be viewed that way, that way lies madness. Kickstarters should only be backed if you're going to be happy just donating and supporting the team behind it, regardless of what the final outcome is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Well, yeah, that's why Kickstarter generally doesn't make any sense if you use it as a store. But just because it may look like a store to some people, that doesn't mean it is one. It's not a store and shouldn't be viewed that way, that way lies madness. Kickstarters should only be backed if you're going to be happy just donating and supporting the team behind it, regardless of what the final outcome is. I've backed a few games that I might never see completed (Ghost Song to name one) but I don't really care because I knew I was backing a concept, not a game. Early Access shouldn't be like that because you are supposed to be buying an early version of a game. If all you have is a concept you shouldn't be uploading it to Steam in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
I don't agree that looking at the track record of the developers is any help - compare Double Fine and inXile and you see all the same bullet points with regards to big names, record of published games, openness of development, but the results of their respective projects couldn't be any more different. There have been no shortage of goons who went up to bat for Double Fine, and no shortage of goons doubtful of inXile, and I don't think any gambler could have foreseen how things turned out.
MrBims fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:I've backed a few games that I might never see completed (Ghost Song to name one) but I don't really care because I knew I was backing a concept, not a game. Early Access shouldn't be like that because you are supposed to be buying an early version of a game. If all you have is a concept you shouldn't be uploading it to Steam in the first place. Yeah definite agree there, wasn't trying to say different or anything. KS and EA are very different beasts and should be treated as such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
I completely forgot I had Starbound. Guess its time to load up Terraria then! Grim Dawn and Starsector are the only two games that have paid off for me. Starsector was because there was a huge endorsement from Goons, and Grim Dawn is because I completely lucked out. Starbound has taught me to avoid early access at all costs since, well, its crap. With Grim Dawn they had pretty much the first Act complete and with most of the mechanics built up before they put it on early access. They've been adding content to the game instead of having to make the game actually playable, which is what I think early access should be. A polished beta with incoming content.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Yeah definite agree there, wasn't trying to say different or anything. KS and EA are very different beasts and should be treated as such. They're both gambles, KS clearly more so though. Sure it's not a store, but it's generally a "safe bet" that you'll get something if it's funded enough and the company is established and has actually produced games before. There's also been a decent number that were on KS that functioned as Early Access because they already had working demos, and also ones that were just using KS to show consumer interest to a publisher. For every 1 KS project that's a "safe bet" there's probably 200 at least that aren't and are something brain-dead like finding The New Black or making the best game ever with all these youtube updates on ideas but no talent and it's just one crazy guy. Hell we might be able to argue that KS is a better bet that Early Access because if a KS goes tits up it'll only waste your money, but an Early Access game could waste your money and your time. I know a few people that played Rust for a few days and are livid about wasting time and money on it. Brightman fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Since you're new I am going to do you a favor. You should not have made this thread. Your entire OP would have been right at home as a post inside the Steam thread though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:This, basically. I buy EA games that are cheap and cheerful, if they end up updating and becoming something amazing, that's awesome, but even expensive EA games are cheaper than most traditionally developed games, so even if they have less content, I don't mind paying a few quid for a couple of days diversion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
I think Next Car Game is cool and I don't care who knows it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
It feels weird as hell to type 'EA games' and say anything positive about it, believe me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Hace posted:I think Next Car Game is cool and I don't care who knows it. OwlFancier posted:It feels weird as hell to type 'EA games' and say anything positive about it, believe me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
I'd rather revel in the fact that the other EA games has apparently faded sufficiently from relevance that 'EA games' can mean something else now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'd rather revel in the fact that the other EA games has apparently faded sufficiently from relevance that 'EA games' can mean something else now. That would be the sweetest irony because EA in either case is still poo poo for idiot consumers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
How to win at EA : buy it if the CURRENT state of the game looks worth the price of entry. If it gets updated and finished after that? Awesome! If not? Well you got play time out of it. Awesome! Being belligerent manchildren because you don't feel EA isnt going the way/taking the time you expected just makes you look like the idiot. I payed 15 bucks for Starbound. I played it for probably 30 hours. If it never updates again, I'm still happy knowing I got thirty hours out of a 15 dollar purchase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
How about if an early access title is cheap? Like, super cheap?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Depressing Drawers posted:How about if an early access title is cheap? Like, super cheap? You probably actually get what you pay for then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:You probably actually get what you pay for then. I'm just thinking that if a dev puts up an early access title at a discounted rate than it's supposed release cost, that seems reasonable to me. The risk being it may never get released I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Depressing Drawers posted:I'm just thinking that if a dev puts up an early access title at a discounted rate than it's supposed release cost, that seems reasonable to me. If you put out your Early Access game for some amount of money, 10 or 15 or whatever dollars, then when most of the market audience for the game has already bought it at the low price point, you don't have much incentive to continue working on the game to get it 'worth' the higher price point you plan to have for release. Development stops in its tracks and we get to the exact place we're talking about here, where a game makes its development cost back in Early Access and then is never heard from again. The people who say "I'll buy it on release" are not a shiny enticement to developers looking to sustain their livelihood right now. As long as the people who buy games from looking at the Steam description are an easy way to get the money flowing, poo poo and runs will remain the general law of the market. MrBims fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
MrBims posted:If you put out your Early Access game for some amount of money, 10 or 15 or whatever dollars, then when most of the market audience for the game has already bought it at the low price point, you don't have much incentive to continue working on the game to get it 'worth' the higher price point you plan to have for release. Development stops in its tracks and we get to the exact place we're talking about here, where a game makes its development cost back in Early Access and then is never heard from again. It definitely happens, I won't disagree. But I can also think of examples where that's not true, it very much depends on the developer. Also I'd suggest a full release will likely get more coverage than the early access release, so the early adopters are likely to be the "hardcore" more over than "most" of the market imo, again depending on the game in question. Depressing Drawers fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Depressing Drawers posted:It definitely happens, I won't disagree. But I can also think of examples where that's not true, it very much depends on the developer. Also I'd suggest a full release will likely get more coverage than the early access release, so the early adopters are likely to be the "hardcore" more over than "most" of the market imo, again depending on the game in question. Steam news and front page are the best advertisement that a game can receive right now, and declaring that you have achieved 'release status' means you get to go on them again a second time, regardless of whether you have actually fulfilled features listed in your game description.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
MrBims posted:Steam news and front page are the best advertisement that a game can receive right now, and declaring that you have achieved 'release status' means you get to go on them again a second time, regardless of whether you have actually fulfilled features listed in your game description. Woe betide the dev who releases a game on steam without fulfilling the features advertised in the description, as the community will eat them alive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Depressing Drawers posted:Woe betide the dev who releases a game on steam without fulfilling the features advertised in the description, as the community will eat them alive. Towns generated over two million dollars in revenue before the developers left and put someone else in to 'continue' the project without that capital.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Since you're new I am going to do you a favor. You should not have made this thread. Your entire OP would have been right at home as a post inside the Steam thread though. Agreed dude, people should be afraid of making new threads and should just consolidate everything inside of massive megathreads instead. This is a good strategy that has worked for Games before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
I paid nothing for starbound so i got the best early access deal here, i think i will instead take my money and put it towards an open world crafting zombie survival game
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:16
|
|
