[Social Sciences] The Early Access phenomenon

[hansen]

The forthcoming release of KSP 1.0 made me think (again) about the changes that happenend in the gaming culture, community and industry. Isn't it interesting how the widespread access to the internet made the development of such a lively gaming culture and even identity possible? Players and consumers were now able to express their opppinions about games and gained an influence on game development.

With the realization of secure economic transaction the industry was able to fragment and litte studios could finance specific ideas through crowdfunding. To raise funds small companies propose to realize a certain game concept to motivate interested players to pay in advance. To broaden the potential investor base companies even extend the concept or offer the players to take part in design decisions.

The state of "the game is in the making" seems to exalt the fantasies of the investing players because in principle "everything is possible". In my opinion this effect is similar to "the hype" but somehow different because the players now imagine to be able to influence the product according to their wishes (they are not simply waiting for a product as consumers).

A look in the forums of crowdfunded games like KSP, star citizen or elite dangerous reveals an explosion of content that is mostly players making countless suggestions, players worrying about development decisions and criticizing or applauding certain aspects when actually implemented into the game. There is a strong tension between the promised "we make the game that you want if you invest a certain amount of money" vs. thousands of thrilled players with different views on how the game has to be when released (an illusion of the individualzation of game development?). Does this dynamic lead inevitably to dissatisfaction?

[Zuqq]

Well written post.

I definitely believe the "early-access" causes some issues where players feel certain features and development is owed to them. This will definitely lead to dissatisfaction. As the player base grows, more ideas and suggestions are put forth. Many of them become conflicting (fantasy vs realism vs balanced as an example). Since the players feel they are owed certain features or developmental paths, players get frusterated when things don't go exactly in the direction they were anticipating.

[longbyte1]

The whole crowdfunding/early access model is now being taken advantage of so that people get the wrong idea when they see an upcoming game.

---

Fake example:

ADEPT INTERVENTION 5

REALLY COOL FLIGHT COMBAT GAME COMING IN 2016

• GUNS¹
  
• CLUSTER MISSILES
  
• MINIGUNS STRAPPED TO JETS²
  
• EXPLOSIONS
  
• MORE EXPLOSIONS
  
• COOL EXPLOSIONS
  
• LOOK AT THAT SMOOTH CAMERA
  
• PLANES FROM REAL LIFE³
  
• MAKE YOUR OWN MISSIONS⁴
  
• 60FPS. GUARANTEED.⁵
  

What we find out post-release:

¹Most of the guns are in paid DLCs.

²Only found in the last levels.

³Not really, they have the name but the specs are completely buffed.

⁴Level editor only found in SDK. And it's not user-friendly.

⁵Only on certified NVIDIA hardware.

When we hear of a new flight combat "simulator," what do we naturally expect? Free flight, versus mode, and split screen. But this developer mentioned nothing of it. In fact, he had the totally opposite idea, he just wanted to make a little arcade game with visuals similar to that of Mirror's Edge.

Other companies know that they're going to have their minimum funding exceeded so they put it at something small like $50,000 and then add "stretch goals" along the way, which were intended to be done anyway. Then the rest of the money gets trashed on executives setting up new offices, giving the devs plenty of vacations, flying around the world doing tech demos for the game, etc. That's something concerning about crowdfunded games, because crowdfunding services don't tell you where the money is going.

---

What if a dev spends $20,000 on a new rig, Visual Studio, Adobe CS, etc., then spends $60,000 on beer expecting to hit the Ballmer peak once in a while? There's nothing stopping him.. he could just wire over the money from the fund over to his personal bank account because he needs to buy something "off-the-shelf" with his debit card.

[magnemoe]

I like early access, bought mount & Blade and KSP on it and its was a huge success both for me and the company.

Not touched kickstarter and is likely to stay far away, more so as too many quick money guys are entering the arena.

And I don't get the stretch goals, that is outside an obvious way to get money.

The real money is then the game is sold, at that time you want an as good game as possible to sell more.

and yes 5) the certified Nvidia hardware is 4xSLI Titan.

[Sirrobert]

I think the system is awesome, but it goes a little to far.

The idea that small indie devs can open up the development of a game to the public, and have the public take an active role in the development is great. KSP is the perfect example, with several mods directly intigrated in the game as proof.

BUT, there are some major downsides to. For starters, nothing is stopping the devs from just giving up on the project (be it with nefarious intent or not), and everyone who put money in it can suck it.

Secondly, and this is one of the things I see most, people hide behind the Early Acces tag to avoid critisism. If you're selling something for money, it should be fully open to full critic. And it should atleast be in a decent playable state.

Finally, it should be made REALLY clear that you should ONLY buy an early acces game if you really want to support the development

[megatiger78]

it works though.

Star citizen

Elite: dangerous.

several hundred others I cannot remember the name of

[KSK]

Finally, it should be made REALLY clear that you should ONLY buy an early acces game if you really want to support the development

This more than anything, although you would hope that it's just common sense.

Buy an early access game for what it is now, rather than what you fondly hope it might become in two years time, if the development funding lasts that long and if the developer's vision for the game happens to coincide with yours. For me, KSP was a prime example. I played the demo for a week and figured that even if I was just buying the same game with more parts, it would be well worth the money. Everything after that has been a bonus, but perhaps I'm just easily pleased. Incidentally, the demo was probably the biggest single reason why I bought into KSP (followed by native OS X support), and I think that a properly done, KSP style, free demo is something that any early access game would do well to release.

[magnemoe]

I think the system is awesome, but it goes a little to far.

The idea that small indie devs can open up the development of a game to the public, and have the public take an active role in the development is great. KSP is the perfect example, with several mods directly intigrated in the game as proof.

BUT, there are some major downsides to. For starters, nothing is stopping the devs from just giving up on the project (be it with nefarious intent or not), and everyone who put money in it can suck it.

Secondly, and this is one of the things I see most, people hide behind the Early Acces tag to avoid critisism. If you're selling something for money, it should be fully open to full critic. And it should atleast be in a decent playable state.

Finally, it should be made REALLY clear that you should ONLY buy an early acces game if you really want to support the development

Note that the devs might be forced to giving up the project because they run out of money, internal split might be even more common.

You have some pretty unethical practices too, demanding $100 to join the beta for a F2P game is pretty weird, it might send some warning signals that the devs are out after fast cash.

[KSK]

Note that the devs might be forced to giving up the project because they run out of money, internal split might be even more common.

You have some pretty unethical practices too, demanding $100 to join the beta for a F2P game is pretty weird, it might send some warning signals that the devs are out after fast cash.

That would certainly be unusual but I don't see it as unethical. Provided that they actually give you a beta copy to play, and advertise the correct price ahead of time, the devs can charge what they like. Conceivably, putting a price on the beta might even act as a filter for actual testers who are genuinely committed to the game.

On the other hand, potential testers are perfectly entitled to point and laugh at charging $100 for a beta. And then decline to pay.

[rtxoff]

it works though.

Star citizen

Elite: dangerous.

several hundred others I cannot remember the name of

Yes as long as there are stupid people out there throwing away their money. And i think that is very true for Star Citizen, i don't believe that the game will ever be worth the money that people already pumped into it.

I hope not but IMO this title deserved to be called scamware. It is an money sink and there is no end to it. I pity all the backers that spend more then 50$ for it.

And i pity all the people that put money into it which then realized they will have to put more money into it to get all the benefits from it. (paid startership for an example)

That what is going on now with this kickstarter and early access titles is mostly not tolerable anymore, IMO either ppl have to much money or they are stupid.

Naturally there are exceptions, KSP is a very fine early access title.

[Frozen_Heart]

I've moved away from early access games. Way too many disappointments.

KSP and Minecraft were the only two I've played that came to anything.

[Sirrobert]

That would certainly be unusual but I don't see it as unethical. Provided that they actually give you a beta copy to play, and advertise the correct price ahead of time, the devs can charge what they like. Conceivably, putting a price on the beta might even act as a filter for actual testers who are genuinely committed to the game.

On the other hand, potential testers are perfectly entitled to point and laugh at charging $100 for a beta. And then decline to pay.

Yea, that's what Elite did. Demanded an extra 40 dollars for the privilage of testing the beta. It's one of the reasons I didn't buy it, I was really stoked for the game (I tried it on someone else's account and found out: Holy crap this game is BORING)

[KSK]

Yea, that's what Elite did. Demanded an extra 40 dollars for the privilage of testing the beta. It's one of the reasons I didn't buy it, I was really stoked for the game (I tried it on someone else's account and found out: Holy crap this game is BORING)

Sorry to hear that it turned out to be a disappointment. I was a Kickstarter backer for Elite, and pledged enough for beta access. Didn't feel the urge to chuck in any more money for premium beta or alpha access though. I'm pretty happy with it but that's kinda off-topic for this thread. In any case you did exactly the right thing as far as I'm concerned - you saw the price, decided it wasn't for you, didn't bother with the beta. Turns out that was good decision for you too - and I'm sure you needed me to point that out.

Me - I saw a game that I really wanted to see happen, being developed by a name that I was already familiar with. That was enough to persuade me to take a risk with the Kickstarter. After that, it was a case of spending what I could afford to lose if the game did go belly-up. Star Citizen on the other hand, I had no great nostalgia for, and wasn't especially persuaded by their Kickstarter offer. So I didn't bother. I also have personal reservations about it as a viable project (although if I'm proved wrong I'll be more than happy to buy a copy of the release version) but I think calling it scamware is unfair and premature.

I also respectfully disagree with gpisic's suggestion that early access / Kickstarter backers are necessarily stupid and have too much money.

[comham]

People don't understand game development, basically.

And sometimes devs don't either. Like how KSP tried to maintain save compatibility between versions.

[rtxoff]

So I didn't bother. I also have personal reservations about it as a viable project (although if I'm proved wrong I'll be more than happy to buy a copy of the release version) but I think calling it scamware is unfair and premature.

Every promise you pay for in advance and after that changes is scam. If you like it or not. Star Citizen had a plan when they started kickstarter but after they collected the first wave of money they decided to change that plan and introduce some new VIP stuff for people which will pay even more money for it. Maybe it is subtle thing to see but it doesn't change anything for the people that paid already money in the first wave.

I am also going as far as to say that kickstarter backers should hold a share of the future business they are backing for. When the game is released they might make additional millions with that game that wouldn't be possible if nobody financed it. So all the backers should get a share from that profit. That would be fair and mature.

[Sirrobert]

I'm not sure kickstarter should turn into a glorified shareholder thing.

Shareholders demanding profits is the whole reason companys can't plan ahead, but need instant profit.

Though some actual voting power in the decisions (not to much. Because again, people are stupid), rather than having to hope the devs actually do what they promised would be good.

Basicly some laws that give backers influence, to ensure the money is well spent

[KSK]

Every promise you pay for in advance and after that changes is scam... <snip>

That's a sweeping statement and I disagree with it. I would argue that motive is the key to deciding whether something is a scam or not. Plans change, business plans especially, business plans for startups even more so. Financial circumstances can and do change - again, especially for startup businesses - and not necessarily because anyone is at fault.

I don't know much (OK, anything) about game development, but I can well imagine that features that looked great on paper turn out to be not so great in practice, or harder to implement than expected. At that point it becomes a tradeoff - do the developers carry on plugging away at this one feature, or put it to one side and put their time and money into improving the rest of the game. Not an easy choice, and the only guarantee is that they'll get pilloried for it on the internet, whichever option they choose.

TL: DR. Sometimes stuff just happens. Sometimes it happens despite everyone's best intentions and yes, sometimes it happens because it's a scam. Blanket statements that 'all changes are scams' aren't fair, realistic or helpful.

[Robotengineer]

Early access games remind me of bands. The musical type. There are a lot of bands, but only a few become famous and/or financially successful.

[rtxoff]

That's a sweeping statement and I disagree with it. I would argue that motive is the key to deciding whether something is a scam or not. Plans change, business plans especially, business plans for startups even more so. Financial circumstances can and do change - again, especially for startup businesses - and not necessarily because anyone is at fault.

I don't know much (OK, anything) about game development, but I can well imagine that features that looked great on paper turn out to be not so great in practice, or harder to implement than expected. At that point it becomes a tradeoff - do the developers carry on plugging away at this one feature, or put it to one side and put their time and money into improving the rest of the game. Not an easy choice, and the only guarantee is that they'll get pilloried for it on the internet, whichever option they choose.

TL: DR. Sometimes stuff just happens. Sometimes it happens despite everyone's best intentions and yes, sometimes it happens because it's a scam. Blanket statements that 'all changes are scams' aren't fair, realistic or helpful.

You would be a great business partner. How about you transfer me 50$? I promise i will triple it and then we share, agree?

[SuperFastJellyfish]

I am also going as far as to say that kickstarter backers should hold a share of the future business they are backing for. When the game is released they might make additional millions with that game that wouldn't be possible if nobody financed it. So all the backers should get a share from that profit. That would be fair and mature.

Kickstarter is a donation website. When I donate a bag of clothes to Goodwill they give me nothing in return, and I don't expect them to. If you want a stake in a video game, you'd have to buy stock or sign a contract with the developer stating that you get 'X' amount of the profits when you give them your investment.

[Louella]

KSP and Mount and Blade, are the only two games that I've bought, that were still in development at the point at which I bought them, that have turned out to be worth a lot more than I paid for them.

I've bought some other things on early access that have turned out to be a bit meh, when they were finally released.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The whole point of early access was, in part, that you would pay less for a product that might or might not become what you wanted. That's why it was cheaper than the final retail price. You supported development out of hope, and in return you would be paying less for the final game. That was the original idea.

But at some point it went into "we want your money and this is our sells pitch but in no way we promise anything really and you should not feel like we owe you nothing in return for your money. You're buying what's available right now, even if it's just a trailer video".

Also, many developers took this attitude of "but we didn't specifically said we were going to include X or Y". To which I say BS! If you're making a, say, F1 race game, there is the implication that you will not add dragons and spell-casting wizards in it.

A prime example of this is IL-2 Battle Of Stalingrad. For those that know squat about IL-2, it's a heavy weight flight sim themed in WWII. So this company decided to make a new IL-2 with the EA thing going on... The game turned out to be completely different from any of the other games in the sequel, but "hey, we didn't promise anything of that and never said we weren't going to include console-like RPG elements into it"... Yes you did, you called your game IL-2! People expects certain things out of the game because it's a sequel to an already existing game.

That and the argument that "you got your money out of the game because you spent X amount of hours playing it and it's cheaper than going to the movies"... Yeah... because I bought the game thinking on it's current state and not any of the flashy things you showed in your concept videos and dev blogs, right.

So we went from "we have this cool idea but no money" to "we want your money but no string attached at all".

EDIT: BTW, I think this modus operandi will come back and bite them in their behinds. Which is a shame because it ruins it for anybody else that might actually benefit from EA business model.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Rosco P. Coltrane

[Stargate525]

This is apparently an unpopular opinion, but I see early access as less of a producer/consumer relationship as it is a company/investor relationship. You are investing money which is, nominally, going straight into the development of the game. Without your investment this game does not exist (kickstarters are a prime example of this). Instead of shares your dividend is a copy of the final product, perhaps some backer bonuses, and [implicitly] your beta feedback on the game as it develops.

But there are no case examples for the rights of backers, nothing put into most of the agreements, and a heavy reliance on both consumer naivete and the letter of the standard EULAs. The result of that is that, for a hit to their reputation that may or may not stick with them, game companies have stumbled upon a way to print money with no strings attached. Unless the market corrects itself against these sorts of practices, I fear that the end of the early access phenomenon will be a class action lawsuit against a larger company that trotted out the 'we never ACTUALLY promised this' line once too often.