Too Soon?

Earlier this week I picked up a copy of Starbound, which should not be an unusual transaction in any way, except that the game isn’t actually done. Not by a long shot. Starbound — built directly from the DNA of games like Minecraft and Terraria — is, like many of its modern brethren, a game that is made available to buyers through Early Access, allowing players to have and play the game now, even though it is not technically finished.

It seems like a win-win situation. Instead of just pre-ordering and providing developers (or retailers, more specifically) money for the promise of a someday game, you get an immediate benefit. You even get the opportunity to watch how a game is built, refined and developed, and it’s all above board, because you go into the transaction knowing you’re getting something incomplete. The developer, on the other hand, gets the money they need to stay in business and keep developing, but they also get broad feedback that can improve the finished result.

And, of course, there’s no reason to buy an Early Access game if you’re not into that kind of thing. Just wait until the thing is released, and you’ll have months worth of direct gamer feedback to sift through to make the decision whether it’s the game for you or not.

Everyone should be happy, and yet there does seem to be this tinge of controversy to the practice. There are a lot of different ways to view the motivations behind releasing your game for Early Access, from the way it's priced, to quibbles over the semantics of an "alpha" versus a "beta," to concerns that this will be seen by publishers as a way to entice consumers to pay for beta opportunities that used to be both exclusive and free.

And, as is often the case in the gaming community, a lot of those perspectives view the industry trend with cynicism and distrust.

But before we get into all that, I want to take a moment to think about Early Access from an artistic point of view. Because the reality of my own experience is that, while I find myself incapable of resisting this kind of behind-the-scenes chance to play a game, in many cases the end result has actually been that, with limited features, crashes, bugs and under-developed ideas, playing the game early makes me enjoy the overall game less, even after it reaches a release state.

There is something undeniable about the first time you experience a game, something that can never be replicated in gameplay sessions down the line. It’s different than just knowing logically what’s going to happen. The act of first playing the game is unique, and I can’t help but feel like something about that experience is diminished by playing an unfinished version. There are certainly reasons, probably good reasons, why a game hasn’t been released, and to invest in that incomplete experience is, in my mind, to sacrifice meaningful experiences with the game in question.

Wasteland 2 is a recent example for me of a game I specifically decided not to play Early Access, because I genuinely believe the things that might make that game great will be diminished in its current state. It’s part of what makes release-day bugs and crashes so crushingly disappointing, this barrier that stands in the way between you and the experience you’ve paid for.

I can’t help but feel like paying for Early Access is just paying to have barriers in your game.

But, again, I have the choice to buy or not to buy, so why should it matter to me if the option is available to others? The answer to that is a selfish one, and not the sort of reason I would try to impart on the actions of a business or industry, but at the same time it is absolutely a thing I feel. Early Access availability robs me of something I genuinely love about gaming, and forces me into a choice where either outcome is one I don’t want to have to choose.

Not participating in Early Access steals my chance to be part of the conversation and to share in the community experience of discovery. It forces me into the position of having to decide whether I want to play an incomplete game that I won’t enjoy as much as the finished product, or if I want to miss out on the shared experience of those people playing a new game when it's first available — and that’s an important thing to me. It’s a substantive part of why I’ve chosen to invest hundreds and thousands of hours into writing and talking professionally about games. It’s why, despite my better judgment, I buy games at full price on release day. This is my community, my shared space, and not subscribing into Early Access segments me out.

I realize there are upsides to this model, too. It helps independent developers have the time to spend on their projects to make something special. It allows some game makers greater flexibility to stay independent and not have to rely on publishers that might push them down undesirable paths. It provides people a way to feel like they are part of the creation process. It gives gamers more choice. It allows game makers to reap the benefits of a pre-order system while delivering immediate value for the money.

I’m not even saying that it should stop. After all, I am able to make a choice and make one decision with a game like Starbound, where the downsides seem to me more manageable and less impactful, and a different choice with a game like Wasteland 2.

What I am saying is that there is an impact from this practice, even to those who choose to wait. And while I think there is some argument to be made that it can be a little sketchy to make a glorified beta tester pay full price (or in some cases even a premium amount) to provide the game-maker direct value, the real reason I bristle a bit is because of something far more personal. Getting the game at release, after it’s been ostensibly out for more than a year for people willing to put up with the warts, is a bit like discovering a favorite show on Netflix a year after it’s been cancelled.

When you get to that big season 4 reveal, and all you want to do is talk with your friends about it, you find that they’ve already talked it through to death. And besides, they can’t really talk to you about it anyway because of stuff that happens in season 6. Suddenly, it’s a much more solitary experience.

Comments

Because the reality of my own experience is that, while I find myself incapable of resisting this kind of behind-the-scenes chance to play a game, in many cases the end result has actually been that, with limited features, crashes, bugs and under-developed ideas, playing the game early makes me enjoy the overall game less, even after it reaches a release state.

Honestly, I would rarely expect you to like an early access game. In my mind you tend to like games that have a high amount of polish to them and early access is the complete opposite of that.

But a large portion of this article discusses something I struggle with to, the desire to be in with a game while it's hot. I don't get a huge rush on playing a game while the discussion is hot (unless it's a mp game, of course), but it gets incredibly lonely when you're having your mind blown by something like Fez and you know the code has already been broken, 12 months ago.

I need to think more on it, but I don't find the Netflix metaphor to quite work for me.

Elysium wrote:

There is something undeniable about the first time you experience a game, something that can never be replicated in gameplay sessions down the line.

Totally agree, which is why I've only paid for early access twice, first for Don't Starve and later for Prison Architect, both of which are sandbox games. For a game that has any narrative in it, I'd rather wait until it's finished before playing.

Also, besides the two binary choices you mention - buy the early access and play an incomplete game now, or buy the final version and play the finished game - I feel that there is a third option: buy the early access to support the developer in finishing the game, BUT wait until the game is finished before actually playing.

Not participating in Early Access steals my chance to be part of the conversation and to share in the community experience of discovery. It forces me into the position of having to decide whether I want to play an incomplete game that I won’t enjoy as much as the finished product, or if I want to miss out on the shared experience of those people playing a new game when it's first available — and that’s an important thing to me.

This is a big part of my problem with early access games and something I havent quite been able to reconcile yet.

I have been eyeing starbound for quite some time. I really quite enjoyed terraria.

Then again I dont tend to go back to many games once I've played them. I fear that in this case, as it was for me with minecraft, I will only play the game during the early access portion and never really get around to really spending some time with the finished game.

As someone who's quite the game magpie, always attracted to the new shiny, I'm not sure how I feel about early access. It feels like there's new and not-so-shiny to grab my attention as well.

I've not been tempted too many times - Don't Starve; Kerbel; Xenonauts - but when there's little new stuff to attract me, I find the early access more inviting. Which is a problem as I have plenty of pile that's really new-to-me and very shiny ('cos all the tarnish has usually been knocked off by post release patches.)

Last night was a good example. I'm beginning to burn out on Assassin's Creed IV, so decided to take a break for the evening. After looking at several early access candidates, I was able to force myself to install something I've not yet played from my library. Star Rangers HD, as it turns out.

Can we talk about how Greenlight is letting in entirely too many games in my opinion. There's so many new releases and early access releases coming from this area I don't know what to do. There's, simpy put, too damn many games.

garion333 wrote:

Can we talk about how Greenlight is letting in entirely too many games in my opinion. There's so many new releases and early access releases coming from this area I don't know what to do. There's, simpy put, too damn many games.

Valve really can't win on that one. Before greenlight people complained, devs complained, that steam was too tightly curated. Then with greenlight people complained that games whith ob vious support werent getting greenlit, and now there are too many.

I agree that there are too many "unfinished" products on steam. I'm not sure how I would resolve the issue.

Part of the solution would probably lie in increasing/improving user side control of searching, filtering, browsing. Steam is pretty terrible in that regard.

As a couple of other people have said, sandbox games work for me for this where other games don't. There's something fascinating about having a continually updating experience when the updates don't invalidate your previous experience or force you to redo things you've already seen. So a story heavy scripted game, even one that's open-ended like Wasteland? I'm waiting, even though I have early access (I think: I haven't even bothered to go back and check Kickstarter for it yet). On the other hand, for Minecraft or Kerbal Space Program I've never regretted my early purchases.

There's some games where periodic updates seem to make the games better for me. Nethack. Dwarf Fortress. Crusader Kings. Stuff where I can have a satisfying experience with the game now, have my fun with it, and then come back later and find new discoveries waiting for me. I'm somewhat less inclined in that direction now that I have more income and less time, but I still like a deep game I can sink my teeth into.

I expect different people can have a different reaction, and there's something about being on the forefront of the new hotness that can be exciting but that I seldom dive into.

I wouldn't worry about the Netflix scenario unless it's a really small game whose early access audience is the majority of the entire audience.

I've only done early access/betas for online shooters (Dust 514, Planetside 2, Section 8: Prejudice -RIP), it pays to get in early.

Yeah, I'm kind of mixed on the whole early access thing too. Every benefit I see also seems to have an associated drawback. Devs get money during development, so they don't have to hurry, but that means they may never finish. You get to see a game during its creation, and possibly influence its direction, but that may burn you out on the full game when it's released, with less overall enjoyment. If you buy early during development, it should be cheaper (like Minecraft was) but that's not always the case: I just got burned on Starbound for $25, when it was selling on Steam for $15 a week later. That sucks.

I wish I could pick out a black-or-white truth here, but I just don't see one. It seems almost purely grey. I will say that I'm about 70:30 against buying into early access, unless it's on Kickstarter and may never exist at all, if I don't.

Allow me to offer a different perspective. This has been an issue outside of early access, particularly on the PC platform. Day one games often have technical issues, and at a premium. Everyone rushing to share that first experience, supporting the belief that the conversation doesn't matter if it isn't early. It's "new new new" all the time. I've never in my life had difficulty discussing a game years past. So maybe it's a good thing this is challenging your perspective.

On a related note, I've always liked the idea of a website that discusses games released exactly one year ago, as if they are new. If the problem is in our heads, re-engineer our perception.

PseudoKnight wrote:

I've always liked the idea of a website that discusses games released exactly one year ago, as if they are new. If the problem is in our heads, re-engineer our perception.

Great from a consumer perspective, but only in the short run. What happens to devs if people only bought their games 11+ months after release?

Keithustus wrote:
PseudoKnight wrote:

I've always liked the idea of a website that discusses games released exactly one year ago, as if they are new. If the problem is in our heads, re-engineer our perception.

Great from a consumer perspective, but only in the short run. What happens to devs if people only bought their games 11+ months after release?

Discussion isn't just about buying recommendations, so they're not mutually exclusive. And, if my Steam library is any indication, I can quite happily play things for the first time a year after I bought them.

To be honest, I am still surprised with my reaction to early access. My initial reaction when this started happening was negative, or at best, fine for "other people" but not for me. As is often the case, my initial reactions were wrong, I actually like early access but only in certain circumstances.

I'm with the folks who will get an early access sandbox game. I like seeing how the developers' vision of the world comes to fruition over time. A lot of the time, especially if you only play the game every so often, coming back after a period of time is like getting a new game that you are vaguely familiar with. Or being pleasantly surprised by finding something you have forgotten you had. A similar sensation to finding a $20 bill in a pair of washed jeans.

And it doesn't always work out that way but, so far, this has occurred often enough that I am willing to continue buying early into certain games. I have no hard-and-fast rule about which games I would get early access. Just a gut feeling that is sometimes wrong.

Games with a story, though, are completely different in my mind. Wastelands 2 is a great example. I don't want to see it before it is released. I don't want to spoil that sense of discovery, knowing that every area has been hand-crafted for my consumption. Even if the game is set up to be played in multiple ways, the initial presentation of that sort of game is something I want to experience with a full coat of polish. Well as much as a 1.0 release will get anyway, which should be high considering a lot of brave souls will have "volunteered" to go first to make sure *my* experience is a good one (hopefully). So thanks to all you guys and girls for biting the bullet early!

I'm with tboon on this, and my split about early access is directly tied to the type of game. Sandboxes with emergent storytelling - I'll be all over the early access. Single player game with a story to tell - I'll be running for the hills until it hits a post 1.0 world.

I loved jumping into games like KSP and Minecraft, because they felt polished enough when I jumped in. Every new update adds a few more tweaks, and some new gameplay, but there was still something fun to do TODAY.

On the other side of the coin, I've waved myself off Prison Architect because a load of folks were saying "there isn't really a game here just yet". I like the idea of the game, but when it hit Steam/Early Access, there just wasn't enough there to draw me in.

When Mount & Blade was available as what we now call Early Access I thought it was a wonderfully innovative idea. I bought in fairly early because it sounded brilliant so I wanted to support it, and get it cheap, but I don't think I actually played it until release, outside of firing up the demo.

Minecraft was similar, available early at a preferential price. I did however play a lot of that before launch. In fact I probably put in less than 10 hours after launch.

When Kickstarter came along it suddenly seemed that everyone with a design document was asking for money. No offense intended to anyone who has run a Kickstarter, but it was something I was never very comfortable with. At least Early Access requires an executable file that runs whereas so many Kickstarters seemed like cloud castles. I thought Kickstarter would be the death of Early Access type games.

I'm happy to see this isn't the case, although now there are just too damn many of them. I'm glad people are building something functional before asking for money, but it's so hard to find the gems in what seems to be a pile of arena shooters and zombie survival games (blegh, and blegh)

I'm not sure you are losing out much of the conversation by not taking part in Early Access games though. I feel that only the most dedicated people will be taking part, and if the game is decent most of the conversation will take place after launch.

I do understand the FOMO though.

For me though, Early Access is mostly about this:

MeatMan wrote:

buy the early access to support the developer in finishing the game, BUT wait until the game is finished before actually playing.

Weirdest bit o' spam in a while...

I've been thinking about this in advance of my Kickstarter for my game (a JRPG). Because personally, I don't like beta games/Early Access in the general case--I'd rather play a finished game--but I recognize that some people do. And it's a reward considered valuable by some parts of the Kickstarter backer community, so not having it may be impactful.

In my case it's particularly tricky because a lot of the game's value is tied up in production and narrative. I'm thinking that the best course is to have an actual beta/Early Access game: assets finalized, you can play it early, but I'm not promising that it won't crash on you. Use a couple of months of for-pay-beta-testing and then release it having had a better set of testing, if ad-hoc.