|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Leisher 
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 17 2014,07:11 |
|
   |
This is starting to get a bit out of control, imho.
I own a few, and some are awesome, but are we really cool with paying people to develop their game? Are we cool with paying to be someone's QA drone?
Isn't it going to be boring by the time it's done?
For example, I'm playing Unepic, which is Early Access, and I'm nearly done with the single player game. After I beat it, I'll never play this game again. It was/is fun, but there wouldn't be a point. Too many other games to play, and things to experience.
How many people are going to have similar experiences, except with multiplayer games? How many people currently playing Day Z are going to move on when it finally goes gold or shortly after that?
And not for nothing, but can't it also discourage developers? What happens when indy developers start seeing how other Early Access projects don't see a significant bump after going gold? I see a potential for abuse in this way.
Also, having watched this industry for decades, do you know how many games fail? The majority. How much more money is going to be wasted because we're buying games based on potential rather than actual features?
I don't know. I know I've grabbed some of these games and enjoy them, but at the same time, I don't like this trend. I'd rather have a finished game than an alpha.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2014,07:17 |
|
 |
I think it's a good thing in general, but not for everyone. It allows the small developers to get the funds needed to get the game out, which is good. Your points are all valid for most users, and I would agree that most people shouldn't be buying these, and no one should be buying them for every game. Ideally it's intended for those few people that are so obsessed with the game that's not out yet that they just have to have it. It should be more expensive than the final game, and priced too high for the average person to be interested in the early access.
It shouldn't be treated as an early sale of the game, but more of a mini-kickstarter of it as a way for the hard-core supporters to keep the development going. Putting them on sale and encouraging the general public to buy it is, IMO, a mistake in the long run for many of the reasons you stated.
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2014,07:30 |
|
|
(TPRJones @ Jan. 17 2014,10:17)
QUOTE I think it's a good thing in general, but not for everyone. Â It allows the small developers to get the funds needed to get the game out, which is good. Â Your points are all valid for most users, and I would agree that most people shouldn't be buying these, and no one should be buying them for every game. Â Ideally it's intended for those few people that are so obsessed with the game that's not out yet that they just have to have it. Â It should be more expensive than the final game, and priced too high for the average person to be interested in the early access.
It shouldn't be treated as an early sale of the game, but more of a mini-kickstarter of it as a way for the hard-core supporters to keep the development going. Â Putting them on sale and encouraging the general public to buy it is, IMO, a mistake in the long run for many of the reasons you stated.
Exactly.
Early Access games need to be put in a separate category, and shouldn't be on sale. It just doesn't make sense. I mean, they need money to develop their game, but they're already discounting it? What does that say about their final price point?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Cakedaddy
Group: "Members"
Posts: 6241
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2014,08:20 |
|
|
Just think if Duke Nuke 'em Forever had been early release.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2014,08:27 |
|
|
I don't know that it would have fixed their issues.
They were a team who kept seeing new technology, and would go back and start the game over. That's not logical. It's like they forgot that technology is always moving forward, and doesn't stop to wait for them to release their game.
No leadership over there at 3D Realms.
That being said, perhaps Day Z is the type of game to help alpha. I mean, if they're really doing to "spawn the items in the same spot" routine, someone should warn them about how badly that worked in other games.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 17 2014,11:33 |
|
|
It mostly applies to multiplayer games where you will need to have a pool of regular players to keep the game alive and interesting. Â If you push your alpha far and wide you will have a lot of the people that play it and never come back. Â Burning through your player pool before you even officially release the game could kill your multiplayer game dead.
The exception to that is if your game is just so good that people will stay, or at least come back. That's why it worked so well for Minecraft. But most games aren't going to be able to be that good, especially at alpha.
Edited by TPRJones on Jan. 17 2014,11:33
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Stranger
Bucket of Shit
Group: "Members"
Posts: 1542
Joined: Apr. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2014,10:49 |
|
|
Early Access, Alpha, Beta, release or launch... Its all just a relative term that someone determines when they wanna get the game into the hands of people.
Look at Mechwarrior, it was officially released a year ago. I started playing the game a good 6-8 months before that when it was technically still in beta. I'd still call the game in beta, as far as i'm concerned the game hasn't been fully delivered yet.
I think any game that is going to have ongoing development and support is subject to be abandoned at anytime and paying customers will be pissed.
--------------
O.I.C.
#OnlyInCleveland
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2014,11:57 |
|
|
QUOTE Early Access, Alpha, Beta, release or launch... Its all just a relative term that someone determines when they wanna get the game into the hands of people.
Look at Mechwarrior, it was officially released a year ago. I started playing the game a good 6-8 months before that when it was technically still in beta. I'd still call the game in beta, as far as i'm concerned the game hasn't been fully delivered yet.
I think any game that is going to have ongoing development and support is subject to be abandoned at anytime and paying customers will be pissed.
The difference is both the method of delivery to the consumer and initial cost. MW:O cost you nothing to play. To play this particular game, you had to get it through Steam and pay for it. Thus, MW:O, LoL, etc. wouldn't be good or fair comparisons.
QUOTE Then those people are stupid. "People are disappointed." That is an appropriate response. But those people that are pissed are doing it all wrong.
Eh, that seems like nitpicking.
I don't think you should condemn people for trying to help a product based on the developer's promises, and being upset when the developer backs out. More so in the case of a studio like Double Fine versus a true indy studio.
If I hired you to build a mall with expectations based on your promises, then that mall had better come with bathrooms and a roof. Legally, I could crucify you in this scenario, so when it's applied to video games why do developers get a pass?
If the developer promises X, then X should be met once the developer starts accepting money. It's legally binding in the real world, why not here?
Personally, I think Double Fine should have softened the blow by offering a game from their library for free to people who purchased Spacebase. I mean honestly, you essentially be giving away steam keys for products the people receiving them weren't going to buy ever anyway.
And perhaps some of this is on Valve? If they're going to run their own little Kickstarter, then maybe they need to put some guidelines into place so developers can't cash out and walk or prevent established studios from pulling stunts like this one? I honestly have no idea what would be best. Just speculating.
Kickstarter seems to be addressing the issue. Ok, that might be the most generic and unhelpful way to address the issue, but it's a step.
To me, Double Fine hurts themselves with this move. Those folks will be less likely to buy into their future games. However, their move might prevent some of these folks from buying into something else and having a "who cares?" attitude towards that result seems unproductive.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2014,12:03 |
|
|
QUOTE Legally, I could crucify you in this scenario, so when it's applied to video games why do developers get a pass?
Not exactly a good analogy. Â How about the other few thousand people that have also chipped in to build this mall?
QUOTE If the developer promises X, then X should be met once the developer starts accepting money. It's legally binding in the real world, why not here?
You aren't signing binding contracts and agreements for these games. Â Furthermore, I'm loathe to start the system of holding entire companies responsible down the line for some insane promises they made up front to garner interest and support.
QUOTE To me, Double Fine hurts themselves with this move.
More than anything.
Edited by Malcolm on Sep. 23 2014,12:06
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2014,12:22 |
|
|
QUOTE Not exactly a good analogy. How about the other few thousand people that have also chipped in to build this mall?
What about them? Because there's more than one plaintiff the argument is invalid? I'm not getting your point here.
QUOTE You aren't signing binding contracts and agreements for these games. Furthermore, I'm loathe to start the system of holding entire companies responsible down the line for some insane promises they made up front to garner interest and support.
Oh I agree, and I'm not stating "This is how it should be", which explains my questions marks and use of "perhaps" and "maybe".
However, I also don't think you can just leave it as a wild wild west and buyer beware, especially if you're Valve. You might not be sitting back letting scumbag companies steal money from your customers, but that's what those people will think.
Perception and whatnot.
There's got to be a happy middle ground, right? Somewhere the developer can make realistic promises to consumers who have realistic expectations?
Just a thought, but maybe Early Access games should be featured items? Maybe they should be in a section called Early Access? Maybe they should have a special banner they're required to use in all marketing material within Steam?
Also, I doubt it's a coincidence that gamers feel fucked over by something whose initials are EA.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2014,12:44 |
|
|
QUOTE What about them? Because there's more than one plaintiff the argument is invalid? I'm not getting your point here.
You've got thousands of other people with cash on the line. Maybe a few don't care about promised features that got cut. Maybe a few aren't ready to march up to Double Fine with pitchforks and torches.
QUOTE Maybe they should be in a section called Early Access? Maybe they should have a special banner they're required to use in all marketing material within Steam?
That'd be an improvement. I can't believe this is a feasible model for most software, though. Scope creep in extreme would be all too likely the result.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2014,14:02 |
|
|
QUOTE You've got thousands of other people with cash on the line. Maybe a few don't care about promised features that got cut. Maybe a few aren't ready to march up to Double Fine with pitchforks and torches.
True, but that's why I think instead of "This alpha isn't making us money so we're not going to finish it. Don't like it, tough shit." Double Fine could have said "We appreciate your support, but not enough people are buying this game to support it, so we have to end it. We're going to get as much done as possible to make it a playable game, and we'll release all the code to the public so development can continue there if anyone wants to take up the mantle. As a gesture of good will, we'd like to extend an offer to anyone that feels cheated by this process. You can select any game from our library for free."
QUOTE I can't believe this is a feasible model for most software, though. Scope creep in extreme would be all too likely the result.
This may fit your criteria.
QUOTE Well, in the mall example the company that failed will go bankrupt and you'll still never get a dime back.
Well, to fit what Double Fine did, they didn't go bankrupt they just didn't finished the job as advertised and walked away without punishment.
And I don't think they should go bankrupt either. I think folks upset by this shouldn't support their future games, and I'd certainly think Valve should be hesitant to approve any future game from them for Early Access.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
