Post by Morreion on Jan 12, 2015 18:39:06 GMT -5
Under construction: Who benefits from MMO early access? (Massively)
Early access -- and all of the other similar names for the same concept -- appears to be the latest trend that's sweeping not just MMOs but video games in general. Both Steam and crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter are largely responsible for promoting early access, and it has been a popular attraction for players who previously had to sit on their hands and wait for a game to get, y'know, finished. Now we can indulge instantly and run around the structure even as it's still under construction.
I was talking about early access with Bree on the podcast the other day, and both of us were expressing distaste and an increasing uneasiness with the early access trend. Popular as it may be, is it really the way that games should be made? Will it result in better titles in the end? And who is getting what, exactly, out of it? It's this last question I want to address today.
What developers get out of early access
Money. Lots and lots of free money...
What paying players get out of early access
Players get instant gratification. I can understand the appeal of wanting to get in on the ground floor, of witnessing game development as it happens, and of not wanting to wait for years for the complete product. Plus, you get to satisfy your curiosity, talk about it before the rest of the crowd, and even feel as if you have a hand in steering the game to a better destination...
What non-paying players get out of early access
Other than perhaps sharing my sense of unease, we non-payers can benefit from an advance of information and the hope of a more polished and tested final product. We can also learn about the process of game development by observing the progress of a title as it goes through an NDA-free early access period.
I might be in danger of falling behind the times with this. But it's this direction of monetization and development that unnerves me and makes me wish for the good ol' days of just a few years ago. How about you?
Comments:
This is a tough call for me. I see all sorts of potential problems with this way of funding, but then again, if indie developers are going to make niche type games, how will they be funded? AAA games are well-funded and mostly dull, safe, easy and 'inclusive' (i.e. wanting millions of non-gamers as customers).
Early access -- and all of the other similar names for the same concept -- appears to be the latest trend that's sweeping not just MMOs but video games in general. Both Steam and crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter are largely responsible for promoting early access, and it has been a popular attraction for players who previously had to sit on their hands and wait for a game to get, y'know, finished. Now we can indulge instantly and run around the structure even as it's still under construction.
I was talking about early access with Bree on the podcast the other day, and both of us were expressing distaste and an increasing uneasiness with the early access trend. Popular as it may be, is it really the way that games should be made? Will it result in better titles in the end? And who is getting what, exactly, out of it? It's this last question I want to address today.
What developers get out of early access
Money. Lots and lots of free money...
What paying players get out of early access
Players get instant gratification. I can understand the appeal of wanting to get in on the ground floor, of witnessing game development as it happens, and of not wanting to wait for years for the complete product. Plus, you get to satisfy your curiosity, talk about it before the rest of the crowd, and even feel as if you have a hand in steering the game to a better destination...
What non-paying players get out of early access
Other than perhaps sharing my sense of unease, we non-payers can benefit from an advance of information and the hope of a more polished and tested final product. We can also learn about the process of game development by observing the progress of a title as it goes through an NDA-free early access period.
I might be in danger of falling behind the times with this. But it's this direction of monetization and development that unnerves me and makes me wish for the good ol' days of just a few years ago. How about you?
Comments:
Its like everything, Free to play, Early Access, these things started off as honest attempts to revitalize the industry. The problem is , shady people, and shady corporations figured out how to game this system because us the players have not held this properly accountable with our wallets.
The problem with this is they NEED some help. IF it doesn't come from kickstarter or early access then it needs to come from elsewhere, typically publishers/financiers etc.
I am pretty certain without the ability to cut out the middle man we would still be in a world with no space sims (Elite, Star Citizen), survival games (The Long Dark etc.) and a host of other indie titles.
We will definitely have FIFA 2015, Madden and a bunch of Sims crap though. The people that buy that regurgitated sh*t year after year are the real "dumbass's" here.
I am pretty certain without the ability to cut out the middle man we would still be in a world with no space sims (Elite, Star Citizen), survival games (The Long Dark etc.) and a host of other indie titles.
We will definitely have FIFA 2015, Madden and a bunch of Sims crap though. The people that buy that regurgitated sh*t year after year are the real "dumbass's" here.
Game devs get something else out of this that you've missed: They don't ever need to finish the game!
This means they can not only save money in the long run, because the cycle of people who would buy the product has already been completed, but they also avoid the largest obstacle that would stop a lot of potential customers from purchasing: reviews. I guess this technically counts as two points, but it all stems from the fact that if the game never comes out of "beta", both of those advantages are seen. The latter is more pernicious, as a lack of reviews also means a lack of critical examination over the successes and failures of the endevour, which itself can hamstring future releases by not learning from the past. But the former is HUGE in the money side of things, and could save these companies all sorts of cash down the road. And when the players stop coming around they can just abandon it as an unfinished work and move on to the next one...
This means they can not only save money in the long run, because the cycle of people who would buy the product has already been completed, but they also avoid the largest obstacle that would stop a lot of potential customers from purchasing: reviews. I guess this technically counts as two points, but it all stems from the fact that if the game never comes out of "beta", both of those advantages are seen. The latter is more pernicious, as a lack of reviews also means a lack of critical examination over the successes and failures of the endevour, which itself can hamstring future releases by not learning from the past. But the former is HUGE in the money side of things, and could save these companies all sorts of cash down the road. And when the players stop coming around they can just abandon it as an unfinished work and move on to the next one...
These games, if we want them to continue to be made, are costly. Crazy costly. It sorta falls upon the consumers--or at the least those interested--to help make a game come to be.
I agree that Backers should never be granted more advantage than someone who's waiting on final release. That's just good design and common sense. But for every one example hauled above the fire in effigy, there's another that can be hauled up and pointed out as "doing it right". We've been doomsay'ed and slippery sloped at for years now.
Just like any growth industry, there's growing pains. There's gonna be unease and outright vitriolic pushback against the practice and those who support it. But I don't see any greater way to circumvent what EA/crowdfunding was meant to circumvent--the worrywart publisher gun-shy on trying something new because Grand Lord Investor Board might not turn their seven figures into eight.
I agree that Backers should never be granted more advantage than someone who's waiting on final release. That's just good design and common sense. But for every one example hauled above the fire in effigy, there's another that can be hauled up and pointed out as "doing it right". We've been doomsay'ed and slippery sloped at for years now.
Just like any growth industry, there's growing pains. There's gonna be unease and outright vitriolic pushback against the practice and those who support it. But I don't see any greater way to circumvent what EA/crowdfunding was meant to circumvent--the worrywart publisher gun-shy on trying something new because Grand Lord Investor Board might not turn their seven figures into eight.
Who benefits? The developer. What kind of studio would turn down free money for an early, broken product you don't have to provide any guarantees for? A simple disclaimer of "This is early access. The game isn't even guaranteed to work. If you purchase now you acknowledge this, ad have no right to complain about anything" and you're good (from their point of view.)
Then once the company makes millions, they feel less pressure to actually deliver on everything they promised, because you know, they already made their payday. So if the game never even gets released as a final product, who cares? You got the "disclaimer" upfront, and the studio is off to find the next game to repeat the cycle.
Remember, this is why Notch abandoned Minecraft. He got rich, and started taking vacation days, leaving the game to sit. It would have remained unfinished except he finally put someone else on it. So now he's a billionaire, and he couldn't even be assed to finish the game that made him one, even if it was his own game.
A developer wants a million-dollar payday? Make them earn it. With an actual, finished polished product. Not a broken alpha, and a bunch of promises.
Then once the company makes millions, they feel less pressure to actually deliver on everything they promised, because you know, they already made their payday. So if the game never even gets released as a final product, who cares? You got the "disclaimer" upfront, and the studio is off to find the next game to repeat the cycle.
Remember, this is why Notch abandoned Minecraft. He got rich, and started taking vacation days, leaving the game to sit. It would have remained unfinished except he finally put someone else on it. So now he's a billionaire, and he couldn't even be assed to finish the game that made him one, even if it was his own game.
A developer wants a million-dollar payday? Make them earn it. With an actual, finished polished product. Not a broken alpha, and a bunch of promises.
This is a tough call for me. I see all sorts of potential problems with this way of funding, but then again, if indie developers are going to make niche type games, how will they be funded? AAA games are well-funded and mostly dull, safe, easy and 'inclusive' (i.e. wanting millions of non-gamers as customers).
