PC What is Early Access?

[RestInPieces]

Don't feel like starting an argument here, boring EA talk, but you and the person that called TFP scammers are like two opposite extremes... and... I must... reply...

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?"

People don't ruin EA, devs ruin it. They have control over the development. Like in almost every industry, there is competition. Competition can set the standards for development time for example. And there are many developers who can both update frequently and dish out, great almost bug-free versions. Why exactly should a random Steam user be patient for TFP?

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.

Valve itself has set standards for EA as I've mentioned in an earlier post, of course it has standards.

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.

I think it's the opposite. It would be great for many industries if more people were more discerning spoiled brats and didn't spend their money like idiots. That's why, for example, the turd called "Electronic Arts" is still staying afloat and thriving. In TFP's case they are more than worth it (imo), but this isn't the case for the vast majority out there.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

They would be patient because you can´t dictate how a game is developed nor can you influence on how long it takes them. It´s useless whining that only harms the game itself. (just look how the reviews for this game went from very good to mediocre without the game changing)

And if devs let dictate players, things will not end well for the game.

And yes there are standards from steam. But those standards are met by all but one EA game i own so far (Starforge, sigh). I am talking about standards like "herp derp, game XY has had sooo many updates in half a year, you suck if you have less then them" this is a fkn standard for many steamusers right now. Not only in this game. It´s frustrating.

And i am pretty sure 7D meets those standards. Yet some people here act like it is a scam. It´s one freaking year and not the end of the world. Get effin over it people, some things need time.

And i will say it again: DO NOT RUSH A GAME. Nothing good happens if you do that.

Look at 7 days, do you really want the big mass to dictate how it´s done? Serisously? Like said, we would have a released game already if people say how it´s done. And i doubt you would be happy with the result.

And i am not saying buy every ♥♥♥♥ there is and throw around your money. Also all the spoiled brats i am talking about already bought it, so yeah that train is gone already.

 

[meganoth]

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.

You say you don't buy EA anymore but know that the vast majority of them are exploiting it? How do you know? Hopefully not through steam reviews. :smile-new:

"nothing good out of it in the time span I would be interested" and "they do take their time" tells me that fast development is very important to you. Fair enough. But shouldn't the fact that almost all EA developers seem too slow for your taste tell you something? That maybe your expectations what programmers usually can deliver in a specific time-frame are just not achievable.

People don't ruin EA, devs ruin it. They have control over the development. Like in almost every industry, there is competition. Competition can set the standards for development time for example. And there are many developers who can both update frequently and dish out, great almost bug-free versions. Why exactly should a random Steam user be patient for TFP?

Yeah, I know an EA game that has weekly updates. Does that mean every other developer can do the same? Even if his development loop is different, the game more or less complex, or the game in a different development stage?

I know another game that had its previous version released in Dezember 2017, so it looks like it will reach a one year cycle too. You know what, it's one of the highest-praised developers in EA ever (Nr.1 rated on steam for a long time): Factorio.

 

[RestInPieces]

Yeah, I know an EA game that has weekly updates. Does that mean every other developer can do the same? Even if his development loop is different, the game more or less complex, or the game in a different development stage?

I know another game that had its previous version released in Dezember 2017, so it looks like it will reach a one year cycle too. You know what, it's one of the highest-praised developers in EA ever (Nr.1 rated on steam for a long time): Factorio.

Definitely not. Even when it comes to individual pace though, there is "slow". And, unfortunately, you have to take your audience into account too. I don't know details about Factorio but you reminded me that I wanted to play it at some point, still haven't.

 

[Menzagitat]

Long story short, people ruin EA with their impatience.

If a God would come and secretly would change the behavior of customers, the one who sell would know that.

Let say we talk about furs or weapons or killing whales. Maybe not in game but in real life.

The one who sells such products is a human too and he can estimate the reaction of his customers - not very accurately, but within a range.

If you would take a movie producer from 50-100 years ago and bring him into our times, he would notice how his viewers react and would say - Guys, you have changed. Things which used to be "pride" in my times are now "frowned upon".

Some say that a game should not stay many years in Early Access. But the EA state is just a symbolic label.

A game could stay 100 years in Early Access if enough new content is added the game is playable.

The impatience of the players is something developers should estimate and manage. Of course a guy who writes code is often not so skilled to handle humans. Different skills are needed.

And when the released version sucks they are like "Why didn´t you do it proper?"

This is a good question because the Early Access is supposed to give the advantage of Early Feedback.

Those who develop internally and create hype and release a ready product, do not have that feedback.

I definitely expected more from Surviving_Mars.

Maybe with Early Access could have been better.

The added challenge early access developers get compared to closed development systems is the need to add features at a certain pace and at the same time to keep the game playable.

Experienced developers know what "code refactoring" means and the importance of it. Some developers can combine both.

And some even choose to rework engines from scratch like Eden Star did. They worked at the same time for other AAA developers to get the founding while they were reworking the engine. For one year long, they didn't pushed any code update but published their progress each week in great detail, by stating what each developer achieved.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/?appids=259570

I see how developers are frightened by the Steam community, when they publish their game first time on Steam.

The Universim

We know how sensitive the Steam community is to Early Access titles, and we hope that we will not fall victim to being judged too soon.

But in the end, the games which are good, will be up-voted. I prefer the steam voting system because if the game developers survive it, the game is indeed a good one. With a less punishing audience, we would have even more Early Access developers who create bad content. And here on Steam indie developers can show that they can do better than big publishers.

 

[Menzagitat]

Long story short, people ruin EA with their impatience.

There is another thing I was thinking about last few months.

Some players call others "fan boys".

Somehow both sides, want the game to succeed but the way how they act is different.

Some people are not aware that motivation is important to make a good job.

I guess the "fan boys" try to "protect" their favorite developers from negative feedback, to keep them happy and motivated and efficient.

The others maybe assume there is a PR guy who will censor the information and pass it to developers in a nice way.

But the feedback must be given, else the "Early Access" looses it's advantage over the closed development way.

And developers must confirm they received it, else people repeat the message over and over. This is how communication works

The guys who developed The Witcher... they made a very good job. I wonder if Cyberpunk 2077 will be also as successful. They have no Early Access...

 

[meganoth]

There is another thing I was thinking about last few months.
Some players call others "fan boys".

Somehow both sides, want the game to succeed but the way how they act is different.

Some people are not aware that motivation is important to make a good job.

I guess the "fan boys" try to "protect" their favorite developers from negative feedback, to keep them happy and motivated and efficient.

The others maybe assume there is a PR guy who will censor the information and pass it to developers in a nice way.

But the feedback must be given, else the "Early Access" looses it's advantage over the closed development way.

And developers must confirm they received it, else people repeat the message over and over. This is how communication works

The guys who developed The Witcher... they made a very good job. I wonder if Cyberpunk 2077 will be also as successful. They have no Early Access...

EA has more than one advantage to the EA developer, namely the continued financing as long as the game keeps a large enough fan base. One could also count it as an advantage that a developer gets early notice if a game concept is not really fun or the niche it is targeting is too small and he can scrap it before his bank account goes into negatives.

Also developers are different in what feedback they are interested in. Some have a very specific game in mind and will only care about the financial side and/or about bug feedback. Other developers will want feedback on idividual features to make them better. And there are some who want to shape the whole game to the players it attracts laying even big decisions into the hands of players.

BUT: I can't think of a good reason for "It's taking too long" being wanted feedback by a developer, this is not an advantage over closed development. It might work if the player base had the knowledge to adapt their impatience to the game type, size, complexity, developer size, dev methodology and other parameters and not on their own personal situation.

But since this is not the case it works just like the influence shareholders (with their attention to the quarterly reports) put on companies on the stock market, a one-size-fits-them-all jacket to pressure them all in line to focus on short-term goals. Like in the stock market it may prevent a few black sheep abusing the system but also prevent some games reaching their full potential.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

@Menzagitat

Nope. Games that are already actually good and fun in EA and have a longer break inbetween get downvoted. You can clearly see this at EVERY game in EA that took a longer break than usual between updates. Every. Single. One. Plus people are lazy, once the review is done, it usually doesn´t get changed even if the update circle comes back to normal.

So yeah, people do kinda ruin EA with impatience. Tons of negative reviews just because of waiting and not because the game is bad.

And don´t get me with fanboi. That´s usally a sign someone has no more valid arguments.

It´s rather using pure logic than beeing a fanboi that you do not rush a complicated task like developing a complex game and that different devs have different ways to do so.

 

[SylenThunder]

And don´t get me with fanboi. That´s usally a sign someone has no more valid arguments.
It´s rather using pure logic than beeing a fanboi that you do not rush a complicated task like developing a complex game and that different devs have different ways to do so.

LOL, it's like all the PCMR (PC Master Race) comments from the console crowd. Of course PC's are better. They were built to do more than consoles from day one. Yet they toss it around in the same kind of context as fanboi.

Yeah, they are both tossed around when the person doesn't have a valid argument. Typically they are just trying to start an argument.

 

[Menzagitat]

@Menzagitat Nope. Games that are already actually good and fun in EA and have a longer break inbetween get downvoted.

I guess you are right. I do not have big enough list of games which went through such a long waiting interval but makes sense what you say.

@Menzagitat So yeah, people do kinda ruin EA with impatience. Tons of negative reviews just because of waiting and not because the game is bad.

I wouldn't blame the people. But it is as you say. When the time-out occur, they write negative reviews

That effect can be mitigated. You can educate people.

 

[JaxTeller718]

Man, am i the only one who sees EA as a great way to watch a game develop and grow and ENJOYS that experience?

Everyone it seems who buys into EA thinks they are all of a sudden an expert on game design, scheduling, programming, PR etc. And I'm over here like "Well I'm just here to watch the devs vision grow into something cool".

I mean everyone acts the expert. Maybe spend some of that energy into developing and designing your OWN EA title and show us all how it's done. It beats sitting on a forum and growing angry about things not in your control.