Larian Studios - What’s Wrong with Early Access?

[Bargeral]

A new trend emerging: developpers argumenting on the behalf of gamers/players.

Blatant in this article.



Followed by a line of arguments (not his own but quoted nevertheless in his article) that make sense from a developper's point of view but have little to value for the player's side.

The article cant even be honest enough to state a simple thing like taking a stance for developpers and not gamers.

Maybe because some developpers could argue that they are not that for steam early access.

Simple manufacturing of his own opposition to give depth to his point of view.

A simpler way to say this is that 'he's making a straw-man argument'. I'm not sure I see it. He quotes several posters who are arguing on behalf of the "gamers", but doesn't say it from his own point of view. You could argue this is cherry picking in order to build a straw-man. Also he says "every gamer should be pro the system" but he's not speaking as a gamer, he's advocating they behave a certain way.

Shrug. I read his blog as more of an exploration of his thought process than as an argument. He's really transparent compared do some of the developers you've held him in the same company as. (See what I did there )

 

[pibbur who]

Stating things like every gamer should be pro the system does not help

It's to me still evident from the context what his perspective is.. One sentence, no matter how it's interpreted doesn't change that.

As for early access, unlike KS I've stayed away for that. I don't have any strong opinions about it, but somehow it blurs the border between early and complete versions. Just a feeling, not a well thought out opinion. I did buy the early access of M&M X. Not sure why, haven't spent more than an hour playing it.

Don't mind the asked price, btw.

Pibbur, released in an unfinished state in 1954..

 

[greywolf00]

Personally, I think a lot of people make a big deal over early access for no real reason. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Problem solved.

I like being able to give feedback that can potentially improve non-core features so the finished product is hopefully better sells well. One of the benefits of open sourced coding is other people have the opportunity to point out problems you've overlooked or just improve a piece of it. Early Access has the potential to do the same, to a lesser extent, for games and I see that as a good thing.

 

[DArtagnan]

While I'm not a big fan of playing games early, I think it's a fine way to gain support and offer increased prices to people who want to pay more to aid the developers.

Sure, it's opportunism - but there's really no harm in it.

I have no idea why anyone would have a problem with it - I simply don't get the logic.

But that's ok - people aren't terribly logical in my experience

 

[pibbur who]

While I'm not a big fan of playing games early, I think it's a fine way to gain support and offer increased prices to people who want to pay more to aid the developers.

Sure, it's opportunism - but there's really no harm in it.

I have no idea why anyone would have a problem with it - I simply don't get the logic.

But that's ok - people aren't terribly logical in my experience

Hah!!! I'm by definition pure logic.

I think.

Pibbur who doesn't necessarily agree with what he just wrote.

PS. And who doesn't have big problems with early access, but who is not very tempted.

 

[zahratustra]

Pibbur, released in an unfinished state in 1954..

Don't tell me it was October?

 

[pibbur who]

Don't tell me it was October?

I won't tell you that. But I may tell you it was December.

pibbur who is curious why zahratustra so sprach.

 

[zahratustra]

Because I thought that I have finally found out who my long lost evil twin is

zahratustra who never had a twin brother.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

It's to me still evident from the context what his perspective is.. One sentence, no matter how it's interpreted doesn't change that.

Pibbur, released in an unfinished state in 1954..

Hard to see how much room for interpretation a sentence like "I think every gamer should pro the system" leaves.

The sentence has no place in an article about the benefits of SEA for developpers. It is not the place for gamers to stand for the interests of developpers.

Personally, I think a lot of people make a big deal over early access for no real reason. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Problem solved.

It is not as simple as that.

SEA selects projects on their concept. Participation or non participation does not change this feature.

I like being able to give feedback that can potentially improve non-core features so the finished product is hopefully better sells well. One of the benefits of open sourced coding is other people have the opportunity to point out problems you've overlooked or just improve a piece of it. Early Access has the potential to do the same, to a lesser extent, for games and I see that as a good thing.

It is actually another drawback of all those crowdfunding things: players are associated way too early. They are to mess in things they should not mess in.
One consequence for example is that the project, under certain circumstances, might be driven to sway from its original course.
Players who started to sponsor the project find themselves sponsoring a project that is different from its original purpose.
For various backers, there is an incentive to try to sway a project their way: transfering wealth from other backers in order to make the game they want to play (at the exclusion of the game other players want to play) the best it can be. Other players find themselves paying so that the ones get fun.

A RPG project is started, rpg meaning everything and anything. It attracts money on the ground of RPG-ness.
Lobbies are formed, trying to get the game developpment move their way.
The losers pay so that the winners have more fun.

Feedback on the backer basis does not exist. Feedback happen through lobbies. The individual voice of a backer does not exist.

The depiction of it is something like " I like being able to join lobbies that can potentially turn the game in something I like more"

 

[rikus]

I would never go to early access.
why bother being a beta tester on an unfinished game-AND asked to pay for it-alot!?

Kickstarter is very OK, I don't see the relation. the difference is I don't mind waiting and securing my copy cheaper than retail. i don't want to play unfinished game. there is so little time.

finish the game, I will pay you in advance-no problemo.

But who cares, if early access pleases anxious gamers, bless em for stabilizing the developers jobs. who am I to tell them differently?

 

[sakichop]

I did not read the whole thread. I'm generally negative about early access. But still open and a bit undecided. My main fears: a) developer has made his money already at early access state and might lose interest in development. b) players also play the shit out of the game and lose interest as well.

So what I fear is that development stops sooner than without early access.

Let's say Bohemia Interactive with Dayz standalone. They already must have made millions at early access. Why should they still work hard on it?

So they can sell there next game or DLC or whatever, unless they never plan to make anything else. Reputation is big in the gaming industry.

I have no problem with early access. It treated me real well with blackguards and I actually would prefer it over kickstarter as it means the game is farther along and I have content to see and play immediately.

 

[Drithius]

So they can sell there next game or DLC or whatever, unless they never plan to make anything else. Reputation is big in the gaming industry.

I have no problem with early access. It treated me real well with blackguards and I actually would prefer it over kickstarter as it means the game is farther along and I have content to see and play immediately.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain foolish. Kickstarter empowers developers to create games on their own terms. The only thing that Early Access brings to the table (after a game's format and design have been 99% set in stone) is… well… it doesn't bring much to the table whatsoever, except for satisfying the wishes of people with more money than patience.

Paying extra to be a beta tester. I truly don't understand what people see in this new fad.

 

[Couchpotato]

And for heavens sake, I know some people have strong opinions of steam but stop hijacking threads just for the sake of starting arguments.

Good luck with that I had to close a few threads because this always happens.

On topic of Early Access I'd like to say I'm neutral, but sometimes I slip into angry mode myself. I like the idea but as Swen said it can be exploited.

 

[greywolf00]

It is actually another drawback of all those crowdfunding things: players are associated way too early. They are to mess in things they should not mess in.
One consequence for example is that the project, under certain circumstances, might be driven to sway from its original course.
Players who started to sponsor the project find themselves sponsoring a project that is different from its original purpose.
For various backers, there is an incentive to try to sway a project their way: transfering wealth from other backers in order to make the game they want to play (at the exclusion of the game other players want to play) the best it can be. Other players find themselves paying so that the ones get fun.

Every game you buy you risk winding up with a game that's not the game you wanted. It's no different for AAA games. Marketing departments get paid to convince you that the product is worth buying, even if in hindsight, you wish you had done something else with your money.

Now yes, you can argue as backers you're an investor and it's different but it really isn't. When you back a game, you already accept the chance that it won't be what you expected. Allowing gamers to get a say will be to your benefit sometimes, and other times it won't. People who can't accept that shouldn't back projects imo.

 

[TomRon]

Paying extra to be a beta tester. I truly don't understand what people see in this new fad.

But that's exactly what SEA is. Some people want to get into a beta because they enjoy it. So let them. People like you and I don't see the fun in that, so we wait.

I simply don't get the complaints, if you don't want to play a beta, don't buy early access. If the price us to high, same thing. Quit complaining. (Not directed at anyone here in particular, just at a debate that doesn't make sense.)

Now I would like to adress Chiens complaints, but as usual they're way over my head.

 

[sakichop]

I'm sorry, but that's just plain foolish. Kickstarter empowers developers to create games on their own terms. The only thing that Early Access brings to the table (after a game's format and design have been 99% set in stone) is… well… it doesn't bring much to the table whatsoever,

Many of the kickstarters are also early access, so the creative empowered developers now bring nothing to the table?

For me it just gives me the chance to play a little earlier. it's also typically cheaper, (except for wl2 which is too much even if it were finished IMO) 10% off on the 2 games I purchased. If i'm going to buy it at release why not buy early access for 10% off. I don't have to play it right away which I haven't with MMX.

I did play Blackguards and it was very near release quality so it was a good experience.

I don't buy them with delusions of grander that my input will make any significant changes in the game at that stage, I'm fine with that. Also i already assume all companies are going to try and make as much money as possible off of me (as they should) and I'm fine with that as well since I can choose to spend my money or not.

except for satisfying the wishes of people with more money than patience.

Well, you nailed me there. (Not sarcasm, that actually is me.)

Paying extra to be a beta tester. I truly don't understand what people see in this new fad.

I don't see it this way as I am still getting the game ( at a discount in most cases) that I'd have to purchase anyway. I just have the option now of beta testing it or waiting for full release.

For those that are afraid of Early access being exploited, I would think that would be a bigger problem for kickstarters as they have put less time, effort and money in to it at the kickstarter stage. They could just get funded make a lame attempt and disappear with the money.

At least with early access there's already a game there, it would be harder to walk away from IMO.

 

[Thrasher]

Nothing new to add here, just another voice in the chorus. All good points (except, of course, the Steam hate), and once again Sven posts an excellent, insightful, and crisp blog, well summarizing a somewhat complicated issue in community funded development.

I agree with him that the system can be abused, yet has benefits that shouldn't be thrown out because of a few bad players (you know who you are ). I agree with others here that the term "early access" is a poor choice of words (not to mention its acronym has a poor connotation). "Early" doesn't mean the same thing as "unfinished", which is what you are getting with early access (an unfinished product). Stick with "beta test" despite its also poor connotation. But at least it's an honest name.

As I've said before, my own preference is NOT to buy early access or beta tests. Why would I want to pay more for an unfinished product, and then possibly sully what would have been a much better experience if I had waited for release (and patches)? I have a ton of finished and patched games on my backlog. I don't even need to be patient to play them (nor do I buy into pre-release gaming hype).

Other people may not be so fortunate (or unfortunate, depending how you look at it). But if you feel like paying for an unfinished product because you have nothing better to spend your time and money on, then go for it. It's your choice. Just go into it with your eyes wide open. You are playing an unfinished product that would cost less and be better if you had waited. Don't cry when you are disappointed and end up hating (or throwing away) that which you crave.

EDIT: Well, if an early access/beta-test game is offered at a discount, then I guess that somewhat mitigates the worse experience it provides, but it still doesn't appeal to me. I'll pay more for a more "finished" product that I know I will love, or wait for it to cost less than a happy meal if I am unsure.

 

[Zloth]

The whole "release day" thing is really starting to melt away, that's for sure. A few folks get the game at alpha, some at beta, some at "early release", some at launch, some after the reviews have come out, some after the first big patch (SP1 if it's Microsoft), some at the first small Steam sale, some at the first big Steam sale, some after all the DLC is out, some after all the DLC is out and part of a big Steam sale, and plenty of other folks will be getting it "after their friends say its cool" - which could be any time in the process.

Development goes on all the way up to the last DLC. Possibly even beyond that if the developers are charitable or if the game is easy to mod. Reviews typically hang around launch day but I'm seeing more reviews that show up months after release and even some "alpha" reviews for the early access stuff now.

That means the "first impression" argument isn't all that weighty. Who knows when somebody's first impression will happen? The same is true for the "valuable early feedback." Why is that so valuable? Couldn't you incorporate a change into a post release patch about as easily as a pre-release patch (assuming save game compatibility)?

 

[killias2]

Seriously, I have yet to see one complaint about this that can stand up to, "Don't like it? Don't buy Early Access games."

 

[Thrasher]

Good points, Zloth. I just think a dev team tends to disperse and move onto other things once the current project goes "gold" (or even before).