- Posts
- 10,813
- Posts Power
- 10,813.0%
- Liked
- 890
- Joined
- Jan 2, 1996
- Website
- inviteshop.us
We’ve all been there, browsing the Steam Sales looking for a game that might peak our interest. Or sometimes we see a snippet on Facebook or other social media as we’re scrolling through our news feeds. We see a random article or preview about an awesomely unique new game that promises to let you build anything and explore and endless generating world where the AI acts in real time and will call you late into the night to ask how your day was going.
After reading all of the hype and getting excited for all the never before seen features, you run to grab your wallet ready to cram your money into your cd drive, wondering why nothing is happening. Then as you steady yourself you go to the game’s page and look for the “purchase” button, only to be dismayed. It catches your eyes and almost instantly all excitement for the game dies down. In big text you see the words, “Early Access.”
Now I’m not saying this is always the case, but it is a feeling that has become increasingly prevalent for myself over the past few months. With the increasing popularity of Kickstarter, Steam Greenlight and other paid early access models, it seems more and more developers are starting to put up their products on the proverbial shelf without them being finished. The scary thought is that some of them might never be.
Early access in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The model is one that has allowed several studios to get their games off the ground while simultaneously working hand in hand with the community. It allows developers to listen to feedback and work towards helping their vision for a game grow. Instead of relying solely on a small number of internal QA testers, early access opens up those doors to anyone in the community who is interested.
By presenting their game at a lower price point, it allows developers to have it tested by a loyal player base and in return they get much needed feedback from their target demographic. In the end, players can have a hand in crafting a game that is in some ways custom tailored to them. The developers will take the feedback, keep the lines of communications open with their fan base, and eventually release the game that they’ve all been working hard towards. Sometimes.
Other times, players find out first hand the dangers of giving their money away to a promise. Sometimes a game comes along with so many promises that fans are all too willing to throw their money at the screen. But unfortunately in the end they turn out like so many failed college relationships: disappointing and leaving you filled with resentment and slightly less money than you started out with.
Probably one of the most recently known examples of this would be a small game called Towns. As the legend goes, the game first launched back in 2011 as a free demo before transitioning into a pay-to-try model. Players were able to pre-oder the game and would be given access to whatever the current build was. From there, they would get any updates for free up until release while maintaining constant communication with the developers and updates on the status of the game. Towns promised to breathe new life into the city management genre, incorporating heavy RPG elements in a city building simulator. Players would grow a town housed on top of a dungeon, attract heroes and build up their defenses to fight off the denizens below. It promised to take the best parts of Dungeon Keeper, Sim City, Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress and blend them into a veritable bukake of awesomeness. Sadly what we got was a bug ridden mess that saw update frequency quickly slow down.
Then at the beginning of 2014, the game’s original developers Xavi Canal and Ben Palgi decided to leave the project. The two developers stated they felt burnt out and handed the project off to Florian Frankenberger. While some fans were upset at their seeming abandonment, Frankenberger made it his sole mission to see the game through and deliver on all the promises that had been made to the players. HAHA, no, just kidding.
In actuality, Frankenberger took his leave of the project only a few months after taken control, stating that “To be completely honest, I can’t work for that little amount. I have to pay for the rent and food and this doesn’t really suffice for any of it I also settled for the 15% of the minimum of x copies which is already well below my normal salary.” Oh, and they’re not giving back any refunds.
Righteous anger aside, the logic does make a bit of sense. After all, everyone has to eat and if your job isn’t paying you enough then the logical thing would be to seek other means of income. But where does that leave the loyal fans who purchased the game?
No, they’re not living homeless and destitute under some bridge while the developers sit upon their mountain of gold cackling maniacally. But it does leave those players a few dollars poorer and rather annoyed, and rightly so. But then again, this isn’t the story of an evil corporation that willingly and maliciously separated users from their money by force. It was a story about a group of developers who couldn’t see their project through to the end and the fans that got caught up in the middle.
But this story also serves to highlight the crux of the issue with early access, and that is the lack of accountability. When a player chooses to buy in (and let’s be clear, this is and always has been a player’s choice), they are in fact taking a risk on something that may or may not be delivered. This opens the floodgates for anyone with a decent sales pitch, and sometimes it can be hard to distinguish the games with solid potential from those that offer empty promises in exchange for a quick cash grab.
Another example of potential cash grabs recently arose through a game by the name of Areal. This game in particular saw its fair share of controversy in the past few weeks, with claims that it was using stolen assets and fraudulently presenting the pedigree of its developers, claiming they played a larger role in the development of games like STALKER and Metro than they really had. In the end, enough controversy popped up that the game’s KickStarter was suspended.
But those two examples are by no means indicative of all early access games. I myself have purchased my fair share, some of them left me with regrets while some left me pleasantly surprised. If it weren’t for early access, I would’ve never have gotten games like Minecraft, DayZ or Divinity: Original Sin.
As a whole, the concept of early access is one that can be used to great effect. It gives studios an opportunity to raise funds for their creations while simultaneously gauging the desires of their community. For players it gives them the chance to get in on the ‘ground level’ so to speak of game development. They can provide feedback and see the process by which these games get released.
Early access is a tool, and like any tool it can be abused. So how do you stop that from happening? Should stricter rules be imposed on games that offer early access models? Should developers be forced to issue refunds if certain milestones aren’t met? It’s a tricky situation that no one really has the answer to. But while there’s not much we can do to at the moment to control what the developers are doing, we can control how and if we spend our money.
At the end of the day, whether you are paying for an alpha build or a full release, you are still a paying customer. You owe it to yourself to do research and make an informed decision before spending your money. Go to the forums, read impressions and reviews, become involved and informed. It is your money and more importantly, your choice. Make sure you do your research and be aware of the consequences.
After reading all of the hype and getting excited for all the never before seen features, you run to grab your wallet ready to cram your money into your cd drive, wondering why nothing is happening. Then as you steady yourself you go to the game’s page and look for the “purchase” button, only to be dismayed. It catches your eyes and almost instantly all excitement for the game dies down. In big text you see the words, “Early Access.”
Now I’m not saying this is always the case, but it is a feeling that has become increasingly prevalent for myself over the past few months. With the increasing popularity of Kickstarter, Steam Greenlight and other paid early access models, it seems more and more developers are starting to put up their products on the proverbial shelf without them being finished. The scary thought is that some of them might never be.
Early access in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The model is one that has allowed several studios to get their games off the ground while simultaneously working hand in hand with the community. It allows developers to listen to feedback and work towards helping their vision for a game grow. Instead of relying solely on a small number of internal QA testers, early access opens up those doors to anyone in the community who is interested.
By presenting their game at a lower price point, it allows developers to have it tested by a loyal player base and in return they get much needed feedback from their target demographic. In the end, players can have a hand in crafting a game that is in some ways custom tailored to them. The developers will take the feedback, keep the lines of communications open with their fan base, and eventually release the game that they’ve all been working hard towards. Sometimes.
Other times, players find out first hand the dangers of giving their money away to a promise. Sometimes a game comes along with so many promises that fans are all too willing to throw their money at the screen. But unfortunately in the end they turn out like so many failed college relationships: disappointing and leaving you filled with resentment and slightly less money than you started out with.
Probably one of the most recently known examples of this would be a small game called Towns. As the legend goes, the game first launched back in 2011 as a free demo before transitioning into a pay-to-try model. Players were able to pre-oder the game and would be given access to whatever the current build was. From there, they would get any updates for free up until release while maintaining constant communication with the developers and updates on the status of the game. Towns promised to breathe new life into the city management genre, incorporating heavy RPG elements in a city building simulator. Players would grow a town housed on top of a dungeon, attract heroes and build up their defenses to fight off the denizens below. It promised to take the best parts of Dungeon Keeper, Sim City, Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress and blend them into a veritable bukake of awesomeness. Sadly what we got was a bug ridden mess that saw update frequency quickly slow down.
Then at the beginning of 2014, the game’s original developers Xavi Canal and Ben Palgi decided to leave the project. The two developers stated they felt burnt out and handed the project off to Florian Frankenberger. While some fans were upset at their seeming abandonment, Frankenberger made it his sole mission to see the game through and deliver on all the promises that had been made to the players. HAHA, no, just kidding.
In actuality, Frankenberger took his leave of the project only a few months after taken control, stating that “To be completely honest, I can’t work for that little amount. I have to pay for the rent and food and this doesn’t really suffice for any of it I also settled for the 15% of the minimum of x copies which is already well below my normal salary.” Oh, and they’re not giving back any refunds.
Righteous anger aside, the logic does make a bit of sense. After all, everyone has to eat and if your job isn’t paying you enough then the logical thing would be to seek other means of income. But where does that leave the loyal fans who purchased the game?
No, they’re not living homeless and destitute under some bridge while the developers sit upon their mountain of gold cackling maniacally. But it does leave those players a few dollars poorer and rather annoyed, and rightly so. But then again, this isn’t the story of an evil corporation that willingly and maliciously separated users from their money by force. It was a story about a group of developers who couldn’t see their project through to the end and the fans that got caught up in the middle.
But this story also serves to highlight the crux of the issue with early access, and that is the lack of accountability. When a player chooses to buy in (and let’s be clear, this is and always has been a player’s choice), they are in fact taking a risk on something that may or may not be delivered. This opens the floodgates for anyone with a decent sales pitch, and sometimes it can be hard to distinguish the games with solid potential from those that offer empty promises in exchange for a quick cash grab.
Another example of potential cash grabs recently arose through a game by the name of Areal. This game in particular saw its fair share of controversy in the past few weeks, with claims that it was using stolen assets and fraudulently presenting the pedigree of its developers, claiming they played a larger role in the development of games like STALKER and Metro than they really had. In the end, enough controversy popped up that the game’s KickStarter was suspended.
But those two examples are by no means indicative of all early access games. I myself have purchased my fair share, some of them left me with regrets while some left me pleasantly surprised. If it weren’t for early access, I would’ve never have gotten games like Minecraft, DayZ or Divinity: Original Sin.
As a whole, the concept of early access is one that can be used to great effect. It gives studios an opportunity to raise funds for their creations while simultaneously gauging the desires of their community. For players it gives them the chance to get in on the ‘ground level’ so to speak of game development. They can provide feedback and see the process by which these games get released.
Early access is a tool, and like any tool it can be abused. So how do you stop that from happening? Should stricter rules be imposed on games that offer early access models? Should developers be forced to issue refunds if certain milestones aren’t met? It’s a tricky situation that no one really has the answer to. But while there’s not much we can do to at the moment to control what the developers are doing, we can control how and if we spend our money.
At the end of the day, whether you are paying for an alpha build or a full release, you are still a paying customer. You owe it to yourself to do research and make an informed decision before spending your money. Go to the forums, read impressions and reviews, become involved and informed. It is your money and more importantly, your choice. Make sure you do your research and be aware of the consequences.