Opinion on Early Access?

Setari said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think our viewpoints aren't really that different. We both want to support games, just the early access system through Steam is Flawed. I think so if they removed it a lot of developers will struggle to cover development costs.

For myself, I will only invest in early access games I know have dedicated developers or are trying to do something unique that I think I will enjoy. Others may have lower standards, does that mean they have a right to complain when not every game they invest in turns out to be good?

kittyworker said:

I think our viewpoints aren't really that different. We both want to support games, just the early access system through Steam is Flawed. I think so if they removed it a lot of developers will struggle to cover development costs.

For myself, I will only invest in early access games I know have dedicated developers or are trying to do something unique that I think I will enjoy. Others may have lower standards, does that mean they have a right to complain when not every game they invest in turns out to be good?

Click to expand...

IMO it just means they need to up their development standards a bit, lol. It's one thing if they're willing to toss money into a game that's underdeveloped and wait it out, and it's another if they're willing to toss money into a game that's underdeveloped and then start complaining about a lack of features, that they knew weren't there, or had no proof of being in the game. In which case it's their fault they put money into it.

I take it that was the point you were trying to make? Yes, they put money into a game, but with the Early Access label on Steam, they can't really complain. It's a giant blue box on the store page, you can't miss it. They have to know they're tossing money into an early access game and what that entails, namely, an unfinished game. Perhaps at an acceptable stage for some people and not for others, but still.

I don't really like Early Access because it can be exploited by the developers easily. If the developer gets enough money, s/he can stop developing the game which would be disappointing to the gamers. On the other hand, it can help create a better game as the community is involved in giving feedback and features which the users want can be implemented into the game. It depends entirely on the developer to use Early Access or misuse it. It's currently being misused a lot, in my opinion.

I don't like the idea and I don't agree with it either. You buy the alpha game on the assumption that it's going to be finished in a timely matter. And the final version usually is different than the alpha version because they change something major in the game. And the thing that burns me up the most is most developers take their sweet time to get the game out of alpha. So in the end my advice is to wait for the finished product and not waste your money on a alpha game.

It's good to find bugs and stuff with the help of players, but I don't think game companies should be charging people for an incomplete product. It's like they can't wait for the money to start flowing after the release, so they just release the game halfway through, call it early access, then have the people play their game report stuff while they are making money, and of course, gamers aren't expecting much since it's "just early access" and there's a long way to go.

I have mixed opinions on the matter, as I think that in the end early access games have the potential to either be fantastic or disastrous, depending on the developer. There are plenty of disaster stories out there, where people poured tons of cash into an early access game where the developer ultimately ended up never delivering a finished product. On the other hand, you have plenty of success stories. Take Kerbal Space Program for example; I bought that game early access and could not be happier with the finished product. There are also games like 7 Days to Die which are in early access, and are already quite fun but the developers keeping updating it.

As long as the game keeps getting updates, it's fine. If the updates stop and the developers jump ship, shame on them.

I think that Early Access allows for better game debugging with help of players.However , they need to change the payment method to reflect the unfinished product. Some of the early access games have failed to live up to the hype and died within months of release.

I would say that I don't agree, but I actually don't care. Some early access games can improve themselves over the course of the years, if the developers actually listen to their playerbase, while other games become a scam after being in early access for so many years (and there are a few well known games that will probably never be actually released).
But in short... I don't really think is a good thing by itself, it's like having beta tester that aren't payed, but pay to play a game.

I personally think that buying games on early access is more like a gamble.
There is no guarantee that you would get the features that you wanted and paid for.
Most of those early access games usually don't deliver. Consider one of the most used example as a great early access game, DayZ. it has been years and that games still hasn't been released.
For a gamer with a small budget for new games like myself, I will NEVER waste my money on early access games!!!
People with a lot more money to spend may think otherwise though.... LOOL

I don't really mind, as I also like to be a part of the first people to beta test their game. I agree however that it's a bit of a sick thing to do, getting beta testers to pay for your game instead of you paying for the beta testers, but at this point, I only choose the games that I know to have a lot of potentials and I only tend to play those. My reason is that the game has to continue and it would be a waste if it was shut down due to insufficient funds, the developers need food for their family too!

Early access is a hard one for me, i love it and i hate it. I think developers and players need better communication for it to work more consistantly. But triple a games for me have been rather disappointing.

For me the early access can be beneficial for the gaming community if they do not become abusers and they fulfill what they promise, because many developers are taking advantage of that, thus leading to defrauding the consumers themselves and even stabbing them that can not be allowed for any way.