Early Access / Beta Gaming

VirtualForce

VirtualForce

New member
I was wondering what the general consensus is about Early Access to a game. This is of course all imho. It seems to be the new in thing, early access everywhere

I think early access to a game kinda spoils it for it for me. DayZ might be the exception since its a game that is being build around you while you play and you keep your stats and you kinda grow with it. (right? Not sure whether that is true.)

But games like Wasteland 2, especially single player games, I tend to skirt around Early Access games. One way that I think it might be great is that you can treat it as a demo, but you have to pay for it...but usually its cheaper via early access.

Yet, I don't want to pay to troubleshoot the game for a dev, games that I want to invest a lot of time in, like the above mentioned Wasteland 2, I don't want to spoil with bugs. (yeah yeah, joke about the couple of bug ridden releases of late)

But my point is, when I play a game, I don't want to troubleshoot, wonder when I'm stuck in some stage, is it because there is a bug or its only me that's being daft again.

A big one is Torment - Tides Of Numenera, I don't want to spoil the game in any way. No early access thank you.

Getting a new game to me remains an awesome feeling, I miss the big ass boxes, rip the shrink wrap of, open the box, smell the non-toxic ink, insert the floppy/CD/DVD, read through the manual while you install, every now and then checking to see whether its done.... Well, we have STEAM, Origin now and what not now, still a awesome to start the game for the first time...

okaaayy, drifting off topic...

Anyone also not too keen on early access titles?
 
Early access is a way for smaller developers that, should they have a great idea for a game, generate the cash-flow needed for them to complete the game, but I worry about this system. You see, the more people embrace early access games, the more it's gonna happen. What the developer then is sitting with, is absolutely no obligation to finish the game they started. What if you invest in a game, and it tanks 3 months from now? That money has gone down the drain.

Early adopters of any games should be very wary when buying into these business models. For when a developer has gotten your sale, they have no real obligation to finish their product, other than pride in their work. Thankfully, most developers wants to finish their games and wants their titles to be finished products...

Mmm, that term, finished products, how dubious it becomes when working with early access games. When will you have "the finished products"? Look at Minecraft. I've had that game for nearly 3 years now, and over that time it's changed dramatically, and continuous to do so. How do you define the game as "the finished product". That is the problem with early access games. These games will never be truly finished, as the developer will continue to add to the game as the community gives feedback. This process will not stop. Is this a bad thing; perhaps not.

The type of game will also play a vital part in the success of the early access model. It is so open ended that continuous development makes sense? Does the community support the process to such an extent that the developers can benefit from their input?

For me, it all depends on the game itself. Rust, DayZ and Minecraft I can totally agree that early access works, but I am very wary of all these games that are popping up all over the place. What if in 4 months people stop playing Rust, the servers empty, and the developers move on to another project, never fully finalising the game...what then?
 
the issue i have with the current wave of "Early Access" titles is that they are overpriced. Wasteland 2 is a fine example, clocking in at $60 for a game is is still in ALPHA state! i think dev's should rather offer their game at a super low price point, to try and encourage more "testers" to pay for the privilege of helping dev's find and fix bugs
 
Ultimately I think it will make the game better, so for people like me who hold out till release it's pretty good. I'm not really a patient guy but with the huge amount of games to choose from these days I can keep busy while I wait for the game to release.

The exception is late beta where the only things left to implement are things like minor additional content and game balance. Like dota2 was... Or smite is.
 
Hiro said:
the issue i have with the current wave of "Early Access" titles is that they are overpriced. Wasteland 2 is a fine example, clocking in at $60 for a game is is still in ALPHA state! i think dev's should rather offer their game at a super low price point, to try and encourage more "testers" to pay for the privilege of helping dev's find and fix bugs
Click to expand...

I really wish people would be more rational about things like this. Wasteland 2 cannot offer it at a lower price point, because that would be unfair towards the Kickstarter backers. Kickstarter backers had to pay $55 to ensure they get access to the alpha. How fair would it be to then sell the game for $25 on Early Access?

The same goes for Planetary Annihilation. Hundreds of people were whining about the $90 price point,but that's what Kickstarter backers paid to get access to the alpha.
 
Seams simple enough then, if you don't like early access don't pay for it if it costs something (personally I won't pay more than $5, or $10 in extraordinary circumstances for early access of games I really want early) and don't install it before the release date if it's free.
 
Hiro said:
the issue i have with the current wave of "Early Access" titles is that they are overpriced. Wasteland 2 is a fine example, clocking in at $60 for a game is is still in ALPHA state! i think dev's should rather offer their game at a super low price point, to try and encourage more "testers" to pay for the privilege of helping dev's find and fix bugs
Click to expand...

The whole point of it being over priced is to keep away people who aren't super interested in the game. They don't want casual players trying out the game and then saying its shit because its buggy.

Personally I think its a great idea. Its not like they forcing you to try out the game. But if its a game you are really looking forward to you can try it out and provide feedback to hopefully help the game become a success.
 
Related to the OP but not really: I refuse to play MMO betas since it shortens the actual lifespan of the game for me.
 
Back in the days, game testers were paid by the gaming company, not the other way round. :rolleyes:
Then came "community-based development" where fans are offered a way, via their wallets, to get involved.

For small companies, this is a great way to generate revenue to make their game bigger and better.
But as we all know, when something is generating easy revenue, exhaust/milk/activision it!

In terms of pricing, to justify that overcharging is a solution to turn away non long running fans is ridiculous.
In doing so, the developers are potentially turning away testers that know what they are doing.
I thought the point of public testing was to gather as many people as possible to test...
Now if only uber fans that does the testing, how objective will the feedback be?

By releasing early access MMO games that rely on gaming time to unlock items/ranks/perks etc. creates a VIP group.
Anyone who doesn't feel like swamping through the bugs? Tough luck, you will be at a disadvantage when the actual game comes out.

Then again, even the release builds appear to be rather beta these days.
Maybe we are all buying early access games :p
 
Hiro said:
the issue i have with the current wave of "Early Access" titles is that they are overpriced. Wasteland 2 is a fine example, clocking in at $60 for a game is is still in ALPHA state! i think dev's should rather offer their game at a super low price point, to try and encourage more "testers" to pay for the privilege of helping dev's find and fix bugs
Click to expand...

You also then get a bunch of people who buy the game because it was cheap complaining that it is broken. If someone is hardcore interested in a game to buy it when it isn't finished to help the devs make the game, whether it is by funding or offering bug reports and suggestions, then they should go ahead. Everyone else should hold off until it is finished.
 
Clive Woofer said:
I really wish people would be more rational about things like this. Wasteland 2 cannot offer it at a lower price point, because that would be unfair towards the Kickstarter backers. Kickstarter backers had to pay $55 to ensure they get access to the alpha. How fair would it be to then sell the game for $25 on Early Access?

The same goes for Planetary Annihilation. Hundreds of people were whining about the $90 price point,but that's what Kickstarter backers paid to get access to the alpha.
Click to expand...

Yep, most people don't get that and lose all rational when they see the price.
 
czc said:
You also then get a bunch of people who buy the game because it was cheap complaining that it is broken. If someone is hardcore interested in a game to buy it when it isn't finished to help the devs make the game, whether it is by funding or offering bug reports and suggestions, then they should go ahead. Everyone else should hold off until it is finished.
Click to expand...

i would argue that it would make more sense to offer the ALPHA version at a reduced price, in order to generate revenue right now that could be used to produce a better product in the future. So I score as I will get a better game at some point in the future, and the company scores in that they have got my money right now.

as opposed to the absurdly overpriced ALPHA's, where I keep my money in my wallet (along with many others put off by the high price) and the company has less working capital.

and as chan0o mentioned, whats the point of only attracting only one demographic to test your game? If you only want devotees, then you will not get balanced feedback
 
After I bough starbound and played it a bit I decided that was my last early access game. Just don't have the time for unfinished games anymore.
 
I have a bigger problem with twenty-limited release versions of the game which you can never have unless you buy on day one, and then you carry the risk of it being a complete stuff-up.

Hiro said:
i would argue that it would make more sense to offer the ALPHA version at a reduced price, in order to generate revenue right now that could be used to produce a better product in the future. So I score as I will get a better game at some point in the future, and the company scores in that they have got my money right now.

as opposed to the absurdly overpriced ALPHA's, where I keep my money in my wallet (along with many others put off by the high price) and the company has less working capital.

and as chan0o mentioned, whats the point of only attracting only one demographic to test your game? If you only want devotees, then you will not get balanced feedback
Click to expand...

The thing here is that you aren't just buying the alpha version of the game, you are buying the alpha, beta and final release of the game.

The difference with this model is that the price of the game actually decreases the closer it comes to release unlike other game cycles where it increases the closer it comes to release. Planetary annihilation was $90 for alpha, then $60 for beta, and it will probably be $30 or $40 for retail.

I'd wager that Wasteland 2 will also retail for $30.
 
Hiro said:
i would argue that it would make more sense to offer the ALPHA version at a reduced price, in order to generate revenue right now that could be used to produce a better product in the future. So I score as I will get a better game at some point in the future, and the company scores in that they have got my money right now.

as opposed to the absurdly overpriced ALPHA's, where I keep my money in my wallet (along with many others put off by the high price) and the company has less working capital.

and as chan0o mentioned, whats the point of only attracting only one demographic to test your game? If you only want devotees, then you will not get balanced feedback
Click to expand...

The majority of Early Access games are cheaper than the price they're going to retail at on release. But, as has been said, the game you're complaining about (Wasteland 2) cannot currently sell for cheaper because it would not be fair to let Steam users buy the game cheap when Kickstarters had to pay $55 to get access to the beta.

Would you be satisfied if you were a Kickstarter backer who paid $55 to get beta access and InXile then granted other people the opportunity to get into the beta for less than that? That would be a kick in the nuts.

I don't know if you missed my previous post on this or were simply ignoring it.

Here's their official stance on the matter.

Hello,

Why is this game $60?

We are a Kickstarter-funded project and like many Kickstarter projects had "early beta access" as a reward in several of our higher-priced tier, specifically from the digital $55 tier upwards. Our Steam pricing follows the same logic, as it is unacceptable for us to set a price-point that would be unfair for our backers. The final release price will be lower.

For $60 you get Wasteland 2, early beta access, Wasteland 1, and several digital goodies.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Clive Woofer said:
I don't know if you missed my previous post on this or were simply ignoring it.
Click to expand...

i read you post, but i still do not agree with the hyper inflated steam/kickstarter prices. look, if somebody wants to throw 50 or 60 dollars at a halfbaked alpha, then they are free to do so. in the same way that i am free to ignore this game until it is released and i can judge by the reviews whether its worth the amount they are asking.

my point is simply that i feel they would get more sales if they had started off with a better pricing strategy, from the kickstarter phase. i happily coughed up $20 for the SA made STASIS kickstarter, even though i don't plan to play it until its final release. and before you scoff at lower prices, have a read below :

http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/31/5260286/pixeljunk-eden-steam-sale-doubled-q-games-income

bottom line is that its a free market economy which will be governed by the laws of supply and demand. if people are willing to stump up $60 for an ALPHA, power to them. I will stick to the sales or the reasonably priced Alpha's :-) Now...if only i could find a place selling Starbound cheap :-)
 
Just as long as you understand that what you consider unreasonable is subjective, because it might just be reasonable for the next person.

Wasteland 2 was Kickstarted long before Steam's Early Access came into being and back then it was normal for Kickstarter projects to charge more for access to different development phases. $25 netted you the full game, $55 netted you the full game plus access to the beta. I don't see any issue with this, seeing as I paid $50 to get access to the initial Grim Dawn alpha. You pay more, you get more.
 
Perhaps it depends on the developer and the game, i got Rust this weekend which is Alpha atm for 20$. I am thoroughly enjoying it whether it makes it to release or not - it was well worth the 200 bucks.

The game has so much potential and the devs are constantly updating things using trello as a feed for problems / suggestions.

You can see how it should be done here - https://trello.com/b/lG8jtz6v/rust

Like my opening says i think maybe every game has its own way of going.
 
chan0o said:
Then again, even the release builds appear to be rather beta these days.
Maybe we are all buying early access games :p
Click to expand...

When it comes to MMOS, you are always in beta since they change all the time with updates and content. So technically an MMO is never "finished" until it is really finished by closing down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top