Opinion - Steam Should Better Control Early Access

I seem to be missing something, the article doesn't suggest EA should end, but rather that it should just be better managed? In other words simply having a bit better quality control so that complete dross doesn't clog up the system? Wouldn't most of the games mentioned lovingly in this thread still make the cut...
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
4,762
In the past, version 1.0 was expected to be the best version of the developpment cycle.

That's not really true and as far as I can remember (starting with my first computer the Radio Shack TRS-80 circa 1977 - this was before the internet, when many of us had to run and hide from dinosaur attacks) all version 1.0 meant, and what everybody seemed very UNconfused about was that v1.0 was the 'official release' of a game. Perhaps early on I might have believed v1.0 of a game was the 'best' but probably in short order I learned that wasn't true at all.

I don't remember any computer game I put significant time into where version 1.0 = best version. It was just the version where enough people agreed on the development side and publisher side that it was 'good enough' for release. And 'good enough' as we all know today, means just about anything. This pattern still continues today, co-existing with 'early access' concepts.

But this assertion sort of feeds into my point. Early access, like internet-era post release patches, further blurs the lines of when 'done' actually happens. It isn't all bad, but I do find it amusing that fans of this model bitch and moan loudly every step of the Early-Access way (Exhibit A - see just about any early access game thread on Steam).
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,897
Location
Oregon
In those days, what was the access to earlier versions? Because releasing a work in progress was pretty uncommon back then.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
In those days, what was the access to earlier versions? Because releasing a work in progress was pretty uncommon back then.

There wasn't. Though there were ways to get patched versions of games on floppy disks involving driving to nondescript warehouses in scary neighborhoods and hotel ballrooms converted into makeshift inventory centers.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,897
Location
Oregon
So it does not compare. And playing on what release 1.0 means.

For crowdfunded projects, expecting the very last release (the one that will no longer be developped) as the best is missing the dynamics brought by crowdfunding.

Another remark, expecting crowdfunded devs to call it a day no longer works the same way it used to.

Crowdfunded devs do not work to complete a product, they use a product to buy as many work hours they can.

In this context, releases may be used as a marketing event to bump up sales.
When a dev states that the product hit the final release, if that marketing events generate sales, the developpment cycle is extended.

The final version is determined when the devs gave up on the project as the bought work hours have run out. This might be signaled by an annoucement.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
I don't really follow you. There was a time when 1.0 meant 'release' version. Now, it's not so straight forward. I prefer the old way. But those who like the new way more power to them. I still wait for 'official release' whatever version that happens to mean I guess.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,897
Location
Oregon
1.0 is the earliest possible release version. Release candidate. That didn't change.
If someone is using a lower number (alpha, beta or whatever build) as a release version, it's trolling, misleading customers or should I say - scam.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Well, I don't know about kids these days and their new fangled ideas. Early Access. Pfff! When I was a lad you had to wait for something to be done and done right (or mediocre …or poorly… or godawful bad). Nowadays, as I near grumpy old-timer territory, I'm more of a Late Access guy. I usually don't get around to games until a year or two after they've launched.

I heard The Witcher 3 is supposed to be pretty good… hoping to get to that in 2017!! :biggrin:

Not so. There was a time when a lot of companies released demos of their games on principal, with the idea that it could help sales. It certainly worked for Wolfenstein and Doom.

Unfortunately, too many learned their games were crap - which was why we checked those demos out - to see if they were any good or not. Pools of Radiance anyone?

And there's the odd time demos blow up - I wonder how initial sales Arcanum lost because of its poorly reviewed demo.


And yeah - that's what I think of early access - at least we can see what the game is supposed to look like. You might get some responsible review out of it and a recommendation or two.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,212
Location
The Uncanny Valley
Yeah, using Early Access as a form of Kickstarter should be banned. Completion of an Early Access game should never be contingent on how many EA copies sell. Problem is, how does Steam enforce it?

It is already banned by SEA charter.

Comparing gamez to a TV series is ridiculous. The "season" analogy would mean a game would at some point be better in early access than after release, or better at 1.0 than say 1.2. While I'm sure this isn't unheard of, I certainly have never played a game that got *worse* with updates. That whole line of reasoning is extremely flawed and frankly quite stupid.

Come on Chien, you're usually a decent troll, stupidity doesn't suit you.

This shows limited experience. Actually, this is quite the opposite: finding a SEA product that did not peak earlier is a challenge.

Once more, it smells of the like it, have fun with it.

I don't really follow you. There was a time when 1.0 meant 'release' version.

There was a time when release meant release and people did not feel the urge of redefining what it means.

Rimworld is for example in alpha release 15. For each major alpha release, there are usually minor alpha releases (like 15a, 15b,15c)

Each of those is a release and from the start, there might have been over 60 releases.

The very last release is going to be when the dev decided to end the developpment cycle.

Zero need to redefine a release. And Rimworld already peaked in terms of gameplay. The path might be inverted or not. Project Zomboid has been trying to invert the path for more than one year. They did not manage.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
I'd personally pay more attention to early access if:

1) Offering a demo was mandatory in order to have a product on early access.

2) Developers were required to state the "completeness" of the game in some way (1-100% seems reasonable) and steam would graph this over time and make that prominent on the store page.

3) Owners were permitted to offer their opinion of the game's completeness in the same way, and this was also graphed over time. (Obviously getting this right for old opinions would take some thought, of course.)

Of course the existing review system would continue to exist. I think it works relatively well.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
139
The poster child of what is wrong with Early Access and Kickstarter is probably this:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/232810/

Kickstarter promises remain unfulfilled, and development stopped about a year ago.The game has been abandoned. Yet, it's still sold today as Early Access title for $14.99.

I think that abandoned Early Access titles should be pulled by Steam.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
804
Location
Austria
Roadmaps are excellent teasers so devs use them to spur sales. The completion thing is in.
Devs might implement some other features than those planned and call for equivalency.

Reports from other customers is another story as those who desire as much money as possible funneled into the project tend to harass players they feel report in a detrimental way to their likings.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Back
Top Bottom