PC What is Early Access?

[Menzagitat]

According to Valve guideline:

https://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/

What is Early Access?

Get immediate access to games that are being developed with the community's involvement. These are games that evolve as you play them, as you give feedback, and as the developers update and add content.

We like to think of games and game development as

services that grow and evolve with the involvement of customers and the community.

There have been a number of prominent titles that have embraced this model of development recently and found a lot of value in the process. We like to support and encourage developers who want to ship early, involve customers, and build lasting relationships that help everyone make better games.

This is the way games should be made.

These developers sell their game on the Steam platform and get their reviews there.

I think it would be a better attitude if developers would come and write some posts on the Steam forum themselves.

 

[Roland]

The developers decided 5 years ago to interact with their customers and make the game the way games should be made here on this website which they own and operate.

The stuff you highlighted in yellow happened just today as customers reported an issue with spikes and zombies and a developer spent the day fixing the issue because he agreed it was important to work properly for A17.

Nothing in the Early Access description says it all must take place on the Steam forums. But good news is here you are now and your first post has been approved and you can start getting involved.

Very few threads and posts get deleted and closed here because people predominately behave a lot better than they do in the Steam forums. When a thread gets closed or a post deleted it is because the author was breaking a forum rule as part of their post.

You can, of course, stay over at the Steam forums and wait around or you can come here where the action is. All the news that gets posted there is copied from here just in case you didn’t know.

Anyway, welcome to the official TFP development website forums and I hope you stick around and get that interaction you’ve been missing.

 

[Brian9824]

According to Valve guideline:https://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/

These developers sell their game on the Steam platform and get their reviews there.

I think it would be a better attitude if developers would come and write some posts on the Steam forum themselves.

I'd disagree 100%. I'd rather the developers actually develop instead of spending time going back and forth and reading the forums. Besides you've already said you don't even follow the steam forums so that would be a waste of time

And because I am not active on this forum, I was not aware that a communication happens at all.So I am surprised to hear that developers talk with the community.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/251570/discussions/0/1734336452558853588/?ctp=2#c1734336452559527644

 

[TheStoryteller01]

I'll be very blunt in my response:

Early Access is a disgrace.

7 Days To Die however is gracing Early Access with it's presence.

Even if the developers would abandon the game right now, they'd leave the community with a cool Create-Your-Own-Zombie-Apocalypse editor. Allready worth the money imo.

 

[JaxTeller718]

The developers decided 5 years ago to interact with their customers and make the game the way games should be made here on this website which they own and operate.


Very few threads and posts get deleted and closed here because people predominately behave a lot better than they do in the Steam forums.

Dont you DARE accuse me of behaving without proof.

 

[Roland]

I’ve been very happy with what I’ve experienced with Early Access. One of the games I followed never finished but got quite far and was easily worth what I paid for it and the developers ran out of funding. There was no dishonesty or even really incompetence. Their game just didn’t grab hold enough to be sustainable. I would recommend Planet Explorers in its current state to my friends even though not all goals were achieved.

There’s not one game I’ve followed that was what I would call a bait and switch. In fact a lot of EA games that ultimately fail get accused of malfeasance by angry and disappointed fans when there is no evidence that was the case.

Where are all these mythical stories of actual evil abusers of EA but where are they and did they truly start an EA project with the intent to deceive and run with the cash? I hear The Dead Linger quite a bit but I think those devs had every intention of completing their game. They just legitimately failed. It happens.

 

[Brian9824]

I’ve been very happy with what I’ve experienced with Early Access. One of the games I followed never finished but got quite far and was easily worth what I paid for it and the developers ran out of funding. There was no dishonesty or even really incompetence. Their game just didn’t grab hold enough to be sustainable. I would recommend Planet Explorers in its current state to my friends even though not all goals were achieved.
There’s not one game I’ve followed that was what I would call a bait and switch. In fact a lot of EA games that ultimately fail get accused of malfeasance by angry and disappointed fans when there is no evidence that was the case.

Where are all these mythical stories of actual evil abusers of EA but where are they and did they truly start an EA project with the intent to deceive and run with the cash? I hear The Dead Linger quite a bit but I think those devs had every intention of completing their game. They just legitimately failed. It happens.

I've had 1-2 games end up being a failure with EA, but its been offset by the ~10 i've gotten at significant discounts that are great.

 

[wildaxeman1]

7d2d is my first EA game. in fact, it is first videogame i play more than few hours. and if game stay as it is (a16.4) for some reason, i still have awesome game. in my mind, EA does not grant you fully developed game. buying early access is risk, but it it is worth it to see, how things work out.

 

[Menzagitat]

I was thinking a little bit more on this topic.

There are different ways to make a game, as you all know.

1. Closed development:

Developers have the money, they make the game and when it is ready they publish it.

2. Closed development with founding from publishers.

Because the publisher often finances development, it usually tries to manage development risk, to monitor the progress of the developer, critique ongoing development and assist as necessary.

3. Open development with founding from Kickstarters.

The developer has to provide in advance information how the end product will look like. They do not have much freedom, they have to provide what they promised until a certain date.

4. Open development as an Early Access

The developer gets the founding from players, gradually during development.

Here the developer has the most freedom because he can adjust the roadmap based on the "early feedback".

Players act as the publisher does: monitor the progress of the developer, critique ongoing development ...

Sadly this method leads an even higher pressure, because players have different goals and vision about the final product.

The feeling that they can or have the right to influence the roadmap leads in some cases to unprofessional feedback.

Is Early Access the best way?

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

I'll be very blunt in my response:
Early Access is a disgrace.

7 Days To Die however is gracing Early Access with it's presence.

Even if the developers would abandon the game right now, they'd leave the community with a cool Create-Your-Own-Zombie-Apocalypse editor. Allready worth the money imo.

People thinking they can demand anything other than the version from the date where they purchased are a disgrace to the gaming community.

You don´t buy a finished game. You pay for the current version, nothing more. So you have zero rights to demand anything.

Especially the impatient ones that want the game released yesterday are annyoing. Even when it´s a game that is in EA for just 2 years in Version 0.x they cry.

Don´t get me wrong, feedback about new content, balance and such is ofc part of EA. But basically it´s a bonus we get, if devs communicate about that with the playerbase.

 

[Katitof]

Vast majority of developers exploit early access, never even planning to leave it, to sell unfinished, unpolished, sometimes abandoned in process "games".

Early access at beginning was amazing idea to promote indie games and help them get some reach and additional founds.

Early access nowadays is a cancerous tumor exploited by shady devs most of the time.

I see EA title on steam, I instantly ignore it, because I know there will be nothing good out of it in the time span I would be interested in the product.

7d is the only early access(well, kickstarter really) I do not regret getting, but damn, they do take their time.

 

[Oborel]

Vast majority of developers exploit early access, never even planning to leave it, to sell unfinished, unpolished, sometimes abandoned in process "games".
7d is the only early access(well, kickstarter really) I do not regret getting, but damn, they do take their time.

And the game is completely playable and includes no major bugs. A very good EA in short.

 

[RestInPieces]

People thinking they can demand anything other than the version from the date where they purchased are a disgrace to the gaming community.
You don´t buy a finished game. You pay for the current version, nothing more. So you have zero rights to demand anything.

Especially the impatient ones that want the game released yesterday are annyoing. Even when it´s a game that is in EA for just 2 years in Version 0.x they cry.

Don´t get me wrong, feedback about new content, balance and such is ofc part of EA. But basically it´s a bonus we get, if devs communicate about that with the playerbase.

I disagree. While you are correct that customers can't legally demand anything more and they are indeed buying the current version of the game, Valve expects honest advertising in general even when it comes to the game's expectations and the developers are expected to continue working on their game.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-11-21-valve-tightens-steam-early-access-rules-for-developers

There have been some cases where games have been pulled from Steam because of inactivity and complete lack of communication.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/valve-pulls-dinosaur-game-from-steam-early-access-/1100-6422063/

The reputation of the EA system is very important. Bad reputation and cases like these, will not only hurt Valve's profits but also hurt indie developers most of all because people will lose faith in EA and they will not get funded as easily. In addition, Valve's "free-for-all" stance on EA will change and honest indie developers won't be able to publish their game easily.

https://www.pcgamer.com/valve-must-take-greater-ownership-of-steams-early-access-program/

Increasingly, it's an experience I think many PC gamers would say is unpleasant and uncertain.

People have every right to complain and should complain in cases like the ones linked above. Besides, they are not legally compelled not to, either. Complaining in many of these cases actually leads to better products.

That said, while 7DTD hurts its own sales and reputation with these delays (believing it hasn't is wishful thinking), it certainly doesn't fall into this category, imo has delivered a game worth many hours of gameplay even in an EA state, devs communicate with the community sufficiently - although not in a very organised manner (which I think is the source of complaints about communication).

 

[Gipothegip]

I own five Early Access games, or games that were Early Access when I got them. Two of them are complete and turned out well, and four of them are games I've enjoyed quite a bit even if they aren't finished. One I haven't really played. I personally don't think it is the worst thing ever.

I do take caution with Early Access, however, as it does have it's vulnerabilities and there is a ton of ♥♥♥♥ out there.

 

[SylenThunder]

Vast majority of developers exploit early access, never even planning to leave it, to sell unfinished, unpolished, sometimes abandoned in process "games".
Early access at beginning was amazing idea to promote indie games and help them get some reach and additional founds.

Early access nowadays is a cancerous tumor exploited by shady devs most of the time.

I see EA title on steam, I instantly ignore it, because I know there will be nothing good out of it in the time span I would be interested in the product.

7d is the only early access(well, kickstarter really) I do not regret getting, but damn, they do take their time.

This is exactly why you should always do thorough research and fact checking before investing in a title.

The EA titles I've participated in so far.

Landmark - About halfway through you could see this was not going to end up making it. Sad too because it had SO much potential. I do wish I could legally get my hands on the server and client code to keep playing with it.

Ark - I got out of this one pretty early. The developers decided to focus entirely on PvP over PvE gameplay, and quit fixing core bugs just so they could work on PvP features. It was at that point in time that I gave up on it. I mean, it's a cool game for sure. It just doesn't have the long-term play-ability it could have.

Life is Feudal - This was an amazing game, but the developers were frustrating as hell. The only communication received from them was maybe a comment on a reported bug, and a very minimalist approach to announcing patch notes. As a result I quit hosting the servers for it, and switched on more 7DTD servers. It's definitely one that I'll go back to playing again though now that it's completed. (If I can ever find more free time.)

EverSpace - This one was a truly fun journey. It's great for when I want to play something that doesn't require a lot of thinking, but is still greatly entertaining. It does get a little on the repetitive side sometimes though.

Empyrion - Very close to 7 Days, but with aliens in space. Loved this title and the communication from the devs. Since a7 though, it's been a rough roller coaster ride with the frequent updates that require restarts or completely relearning the way things work. I've stopped playing it until it gets closer to finished for two reasons. 1. The game is extremely unstable atm. 2. I'm sick and tired of have to re-design all of my blueprints every few months.

The Forest - It's had it's ups and downs, but this one is a real winner in the long run. It's rare that games are able to scare and surprise me as much as this one has.

7 Days to Die - Not even Skyrim has gotten as many play hours as this one has. I have hosted up to 8 servers at a time for private groups, and now have one that is public.Out of the entire list, the only ones that have close to being as good as 7 Days are Empyrion, The Forrest, and Life is Feudal.

There are a hell of a lot more Alpha/Beta tests that I have done, but most of them followed the more traditional development. These were all in the EA realm. There may even be a couple of others I have that I'm just not thinking of right now too.

 

[meganoth]

I was thinking a little bit more on this topic.There are different ways to make a game, as you all know.

1. Closed development:

Developers have the money, they make the game and when it is ready they publish it.

2. Closed development with founding from publishers.

Because the publisher often finances development, it usually tries to manage development risk, to monitor the progress of the developer, critique ongoing development and assist as necessary.

3. Open development with founding from Kickstarters.

The developer has to provide in advance information how the end product will look like. They do not have much freedom, they have to provide what they promised until a certain date.

One has to note though that the freedom the developer has is entirely chosen by him. Whatever he announces as in the game must be in the game. Whatever he doesn't specify or leave ambiguous enough is fair catch.

Good example for both is Inxiles "Torment: Tides of Numenera". They promised too many features in the kickstarter stretch goals that eventually hurt them and since they didn't specify turn-based or RTwP they did decide about that much later.

Also the date has always been a case of "at that date or later" with "later" the option chosen by practically everyone. The reality is that you can't expect inexperienced startups to really know how much time they need. That is even more true if it is a software project.

4. Open development as an Early Access

The developer gets the founding from players, gradually during development.

Here the developer has the most freedom because he can adjust the roadmap based on the "early feedback".

Players act as the publisher does: monitor the progress of the developer, critique ongoing development ...

Sadly this method leads an even higher pressure, because players have different goals and vision about the final product.

The feeling that they can or have the right to influence the roadmap leads in some cases to unprofessional feedback.

Is Early Access the best way?

Very true. Saying the players "act" as the publisher does is correct, but it is like saying a lynch mob who isn't even agreeing on who to lynch acts like a court judge.

Your question though is too ambiguous. EA is the best way for specific types of games and specific types of developers, not for all games and developers.

EA is probably the best way to develop, if

1) you have the money to first develop a playable prototype before entering EA

2) but NOT the money to fund it to completion

3) the game is not story based and has a lot of replay value. An adventure game for example is not suitable for EA

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

That said, while 7DTD hurts its own sales and reputation with these delays (believing it hasn't is wishful thinking), it certainly doesn't fall into this category, imo has delivered a game worth many hours of gameplay even in an EA state, devs communicate with the community sufficiently - although not in a very organised manner (which I think is the source of complaints about communication).

It´s a sad joke that developing properly by taking your time and trying to do things right actually gives you bad reputation. It´s development ffs. Ofc things sometimes don´t always work out as intended and take more time than thought.

And not every dev works the same way. It´s beyond stupid when people compare EA games and say "A is better than B because they update in shorter periods"

Spamming content weekly doesn´t equal a good game at release.

 

[Menzagitat]

Very true. Saying the players "act" as the publisher does is correct, but it is like saying a lynch mob who isn't even agreeing on who to lynch acts like a court judge.

People in general are not trained to give feedback. Often developers themselves, who have to review each-others code, do not know how to give a feedback in a nice way. That is why a PR job is important, to translate the feedback from the community.

Your question though is too ambiguous.

I see Early Access as a democracy. Even people who are not trained to give feedback are invited to do that.

It is tempting to think that maybe those who join a "lynch mob" should be excluded. Or those who play less that 2 hours. But that is not a democracy anymore. I have no idea at this time if there is a better way than EA.

Story based games, just like books, are indeed meant to be experienced in one go.

The emotional impact is greater when we get the full polished story without spoilers.

 

[RestInPieces]

It´s a sad joke that developing properly by taking your time and trying to do things right actually gives you bad reputation. It´s development ffs. Ofc things sometimes don´t always work out as intended and take more time than thought.
And not every dev works the same way. It´s beyond stupid when people compare EA games and say "A is better than B because they update in shorter periods"

Spamming content weekly doesn´t equal a good game at release.

Sad joke or not, that's how it works with everything. It's not that TFP are the only ones who develop things properly and everyone else rushes, there is a "standard" which people have gotten used to and applies to many more things other than games. Not only that, but people in general, if nothing refreshes their enthusiasm, will move on, something else will draw their attention, will forget, will stop recommending to others etc. And EA is a system that works on faith and Valve itself recommends to users that they check the game's update rate before buying it.

Yes, update rate has absolutely nothing to do with whether a game is good or not, rate can be slow and patches may be large and of good quality. However update rate sends a message of willingness from the devs, to customers that randomly browse Steam, aren't reading all the patch notes or haven't played the game yet to understand them or aren't hanging out here to know any better in general, that they actively want to work on the game as much as possible.

I was in favor of a shorter patch cycle (2-3 months max) for other reasons as well. Shorter patch notes, or changing one or a few systems at a time, will give devs the chance to get better and specific feedback on that system. Breaking something when changing it is also more or less detained and the larger number of things changing, the greater the chances things will stop working all over the place. Anyway, I'm no expert.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

Long story short, people ruin EA with their impatience. And when the released version sucks they are like "Why didn´t you do it proper?"

The standards people have in EA are false. There are no standards in EA. You can´t even be sure to get a final version when buying EA. Everyone works different.

People these days are basically spoiled brats. Buying something for not even a third of the price of AAA titles and expecting that they can now say how and when things are done.

To the guy saying EA is democracy: Nope. No way. And that´s good. If it was a democracy this game would be released already. Without story or proper AI.