OMG.. Steam 'early access'

[Hertston]

And so the fall into the Darkside is complete... "Slitherine, Gothic Labs and The Lordz Games Studio" may "really see Early Access as a unique opportunity to gather relevant feedback on all parts of the game and enhance it accordingly". Those of us with working BS filters see it as originally a good idea for small indie developers lacking in resources perverted into a "we can't be arsed to finish it but want the cash from the kiddies now' scheme for others without that excuse. Bah.. Shame on you. [:@]

Kinda hoping 2by3 and a couple of others follow Panther in jumping ship at this point. Anyone from L&L passing by with new contract papers?

[IainMcNeil]

I know early access has a bad reputation but if you've tried any of the Early Access programs we've launched (this will be the 3rd), you'll know all the games were fully playable when they went in to Early Access and all were completed with significantly enhanced features because of the early access feedback. Space Program Manager changed so much it was more like a sequel than just a completed game. We added multiple extra playable sides, multiplayer and the competitive race to the moon.

[Erik Rutins]

Hi Hertston,

ORIGINAL: Hertston
And so the fall into the Darkside is complete...

I don't understand your reaction at all. We've already done early access twice before and in each case it was the appropriate decision for the game and resulted in a complete game with full community involvement. As far as I can tell, it was a positive both for customers and developers.

You'll note that at the same time, the vast majority of our games do not go to early access. We look at each project individually and I think we've made it clear for a while that we do what we feel is best for each project and each community. There are really very few "one size fits all" rules here.

There's absolutely nothing preventing you sitting on the fence until the early access period is over and only purchasing once it's complete, if the idea bothers you so much.

Regards,

- Erik

[Kuokkanen]

What's the deal with early access? Is it betatest which betatesters pay for in order to get a game before its completion or what?

[IainMcNeil]

We've run an extensive beta test on Sovereignty so its stable, bug free and playable but we just feel it has the potential to be something more and Early Access is a way of doing this. The beta testers have been invaluable in getting to where we are but we need fresh eyes on the game to really make this the game we want it to be. Most other developers would release the game and if it sells well support it and if not, move on to the next game. With Early Access we are committing to extensive ongoing development, unrelated to the sales level.

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

And so the fall into the Darkside is complete... "Slitherine, Gothic Labs and The Lordz Games Studio" may "really see Early Access as a unique opportunity to gather relevant feedback on all parts of the game and enhance it accordingly". Those of us with working BS filters see it as originally a good idea for small indie developers lacking in resources perverted into a "we can't be arsed to finish it but want the cash from the kiddies now' scheme for others without that excuse. Bah.. Shame on you. [:@]

Kinda hoping 2by3 and a couple of others follow Panther in jumping ship at this point. Anyone from L&L passing by with new contract papers?

Tbh, I do not agree when it comes from titles launched by matrixgames. I bought SPM as early access, and never regretted it at all. It allowed me to voice my concerns and thoughts, and since Matrixgames have devs that actually listen to the players, I think it is a good idea.

Might be just me though...


Terje

[zakblood]

i also think it's a good move and more than fine with it, lets hope it does well and good luck to all those involved

[vonRocko]

For what it's worth,I agree with Herston.

[wings7]

I think it is an excellent move, the more feedback and suggestions the better the game...bring it one! [:)]

Patrick

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

We've run an extensive beta test on Sovereignty so its stable, bug free and playable but we just feel it has the potential to be something more and Early Access is a way of doing this. The beta testers have been invaluable in getting to where we are but we need fresh eyes on the game to really make this the game we want it to be. Most other developers would release the game and if it sells well support it and if not, move on to the next game. With Early Access we are committing to extensive ongoing development, unrelated to the sales level.

I'm not of any opinion here. But if you need new eyes why not call for another group of beta testers to be those set of eyes. Just my observation.

[VPaulus]

ORIGINAL: Zap
I'm not of any opinion here. But if you need new eyes why not call for another group of beta testers to be those set of eyes. Just my observation.

I believe there were already more than one group of beta testers involved.
In my opinion, and this is just my opinion as I have never discussed this with Iain or Erik at the office, that only a small minority of beta testers are really vocal. I'm not referring to this game in particular, but rather with what I witness with most beta testing. Those players that are really vocal, are really committed and quite passionate, and help tremendously in turning the game into a better one.
At this stage, we need a different approach/feedback and like Iain said, repeat the good BASPM experience.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I don't understand your reaction at all. We've already done early access twice before and in each case it was the appropriate decision for the game and resulted in a complete game with full community involvement. As far as I can tell, it was a positive both for customers and developers.

OK, I may have over-reacted, or at least overgeneralized somewhat and apologies for that. Point taken on Buzz Aldrin, although as I recall I bought that direct from yourselves on 'early access', not Steam? I guess you deserve some benefit of the doubt.

Just a couple of general points on why I dislike EA so much, though, based on experience.

Firstly, a large degree of trust and confidence in the developer is required. By getting in so much of the sales revenue before the project is completed, the incentive to complete it is much reduced both by choice and, not infrequently, by economics. Many, many games have been dumped unfinished, usually with a half-arsed alpha/beta masquerading as a full release (for a second entry on the 'new release' list and a final cash grab).

Secondly, and this is a huge problem even when the game is very good and the developers trustworthy, particularly when there is any emphasis on multiplayer, the darned game is 'dead' by the time it's 'finished'. Most folks have moved on to other things, and if I'm honest that usually includes me. So in many cases, the gamer has two choices; either buy early and play an unfinished product, or wait as you suggest only to find nobody is playing any more. So where applicable, no MP opponents, no mods, no reason for expansions, etc, etc.

In the early days, you knew the risks you were taking with EA, just as you do/should with Kickstarter. You took/take them to help a project you were interested in get done, as without that funding it just wouldn't happen. Now, with bigger and bigger players seeing an opportunity, EA is frequently just a marketing choice.

[budd]

I don't have any problem with early access. I've bought 6 or 7 early access games and have only been disappointed in one of them, not because it was never finished it just wasn't as fun as i thought it would be and its only the second one to go to full release. The others are still in alpha or beta and stable,fun and still having things added to them.I make sure i do my due diligence and my basic barometer is the game has to be stable and be fun and have enough content where if nothing else gets added i would feel i got my money's worth. I have seen the games i jumped in on grow greatly as a result of early access and a couple i consider poster childs for early access done right.

[marcpennington]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

Kinda hoping 2by3 and a couple of others follow Panther in jumping ship at this point. Anyone from L&L passing by with new contract papers?

Sorry, I find that comment a little unintentionally funny, given than LnL are currently releasing Command Ops for sale in a beta state.

But that said, I do share many of your concerns about early access in general, but have confidence that Matrix (or LnL and Schwerpunkt for that matter) when they do do it will do so in such a way that is fair to the customers and to the long run benefit of the games. I really don't see any of those companies pulling any of the vaporware scams that admittedly are a part of the Steam Early access scene. And, as an example, I think Schwerpunkt's WW2 in Europe is a game that has already benefited tremendously from being released early as a paid beta with the designer being extremely responsive to player's comments.

Hell, if DC3 is sold early on the Matrix site as a paid beta, I'd be the first in line to buy it...

[Ranger33]

Call me crazy, but I often find myself drawn to Early Access games. There's something fun about playing a game off and on as it gets more and more features added. Also, many of them have more interesting ideas than most mainstream games (Kenshi, Kerbal Space Program, Space Engineers, Overgrowth). There's plenty of stinkers and clones of Minecraft, etc. too, but one can easily sift those out.

Sovereignty looks pretty neat, by the way.

[aaatoysandmore]

As long as the price of the game in early access is below $20 I'm all for it too. [:D]

[gradenko2k]

Early Access is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It's essentially all a matter of "how early is early", which can vary from game to game, developer to developer.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: map66

Sorry, I find that comment a little unintentionally funny, given than LnL are currently releasing Command Ops for sale in a beta state.

Actually the core module, while in beta, is a free download. Not many scenarios, but enough to see what you are getting and remove any risk element. You need to buy the scenario packs, and they have a rather odd paid upgrade model for those, but even so I'm quite happy to pay a miserly $50 for the whole kid-and-kaboodle for a game the main principles of which at least are well tried and tested, version one of which kicked backside.

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

Early Access is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It's essentially all a matter of "how early is early", which can vary from game to game, developer to developer.

Not really, as long as it is made perfectly clear which it is. Some devs do and some devs don't, and in neither case does that alter what I said above. aaatoysandmore mentioned $20; well it 'ain't going to be that I suspect even with a launch discount, but something has changed as well - they used to be substantial price reductions for buying in early in many cases. No more. Indeed we are now seeing the reverse in a few cases, with GalCiv 3 being the most extreme to date ($100 at first!). Knowing from Sins that in the Stardock lexicon 'beta' really means 'pre-alpha', well, would you pay it? Obviously some people did. Sure, there are exceptions, but those are generally the few games that are real smash hits like Kerbal, Prison Architect and most famously Day Z which have revenue streams such that there is virtually no need to ever leave 'beta' at all. When those dry up, suddenly it will be 'full release' time. [;)]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Hertston
OK, I may have over-reacted, or at least overgeneralized somewhat and apologies for that. Point taken on Buzz Aldrin, although as I recall I bought that direct from yourselves on 'early access', not Steam? I guess you deserve some benefit of the doubt.

Thanks, glad to hear it. If and when we do an early access, you can be sure that the game will be completed and that the reason for it is that we feel the development process and the customers will both benefit. We're not doing it because we need the money up front. We also do not charge extra for early access.

I understand what's going on in some other parts of the market, but I ask that you please judge us by our own actions and track record.

Regards,

- Erik

[Ranger33]

On charging extra for Early Access, the thought there is that they only want people who are passionate about the game to be involved at that point. I think it's a reasonable approach. I've yet to see anyone be forced to buy a game because the developer held a gun to their head. Of course, people will buy in and then complain that they paid a high price for an unfinished game [8|]

I was one of the people who bought into GalCiv 3 at $100 but that was because purchasing at that point also netted me ALL future content for the game, which I imagine will eventually be a substantial amount of stuff between 3 planned expansion packs and various other DLC. As a big fan of the series that's a good buy in my book.