Early Access Fees - Why pay to play a broken game?

D

Death

Travelling Gamer
Credits
1,000
I remember when beta testing was done in-house and us gamers just got the final product. Nowadays it seems developers are cashing in and making us pay to develop the games. Do you think this has really got out of hand now?

Fast forward to 2014 and $99 Early access fee for Line of Defense

From a tweet from the developer using twitlonger to explain:

The $99 EA price tag - which has a LOT of perks - ensures that only serious people who can provide meaningful feedback through their commitment, need apply. And for that they get a lot more than they would if they waited for the final game release.
Click to expand...
It makes me a bit angry to be honest, I wonder what is the legal basis for selling a broken product?
 
Well, you get the finished product for free, and a few small in-game perks from what I've read.. but yea, still, I think it's a pretty crappy thing to do. Not to mention like others have said.. all the games this guy comes out with are not even worth wiping my ass with.
 
You do know you can just not buy the early access game if you don't want to and continue your life? Right?

You can wait for the final product.
 
Early access is odd. I'm not against the concept inherently, but the way some developers utilize the feature seems a bit scummy. Paying 99$ for an alpha so you can test a game just rubs me the wrong way.
I mean, if people want to spend the money on it, I guess it's fine. I don't really have an issue with developers having more options with how they release thier games, as long as they use the features reasonably.
 
I honestly think its crazy! Ever since Microsoft started pushing micro transactions developers have been pushing the limit more and more every year. It''s starting to turn me off of gaming. You pay for early access and then they try and sell you fluff items in game and then they sell you dlc or a subscription to dlc. And by the time you add up all the fee's your paying over $100 for what you use to get in a $60 game.

P.S. People are sick of it and its why gaming sales are in a slump right now!

Greg
 
I can't say I'm too fond of the idea myself and yes I do realize there isn't a gun to my head to pay for it.
Then again, the reality is many developers, even some of the big name guys, basically release buggy or beta-esque programs. They really have us do a good portion of the work for them, plus they have a general idea of the revenue coming in while they work on patches.

I forgot where I read it the other day, but there was talk about how the old cartridge games like the NES / SNES basically all worked flawlessly, but games nowadays always have bugs. Back then, they only had 1 shot to get it right whereas nowadays they can just patch it later.
 
If it's a good company, I can see the point in it, but for the larger companies, it i s often just a cash grab. Games like Star Citizen which is releasing parts of the game for previews and used this money for funding, are fine by me. Games by EA and the like doing it, do make me quite angry. People still pay for the broken game because of the reputation of the title, or because they'll get a few extra skins when the game comes out. I definitely think open Betas or as you say, in-house testing, are the way to go for the larger companies, but I don't hold a grudge against smaller companies producing larger games who need the funding from early release sales.
 
richc3 said:
I can't say I'm too fond of the idea myself and yes I do realize there isn't a gun to my head to pay for it.
Then again, the reality is many developers, even some of the big name guys, basically release buggy or beta-esque programs. They really have us do a good portion of the work for them, plus they have a general idea of the revenue coming in while they work on patches.
 
I forgot where I read it the other day, but there was talk about how the old cartridge games like the NES / SNES basically all worked flawlessly, but games nowadays always have bugs. Back then, they only had 1 shot to get it right whereas nowadays they can just patch it later.
Click to expand...
It's a little more complicated that you make it sound. There is alot more than can go wrong in a modern game than NES/SNES era games. So much more code, different engines, AI, etc..
 
Early access/alpha/beta games I think is a great concept. It opens up developers to make their games better than ever. When the system isn't abused it's a great way for developers to constantly work on a game while receiving feedback that can influence or change the way in which they shape a game. 

Generally early access games are cheaper than what they are when they reach the final product so it's good if you want to grab a potentially great game at an amazing price. 

You do get issues though of there being no actual guarantee that a game will be completed. So in some cases you could be spending $50+ for a game in development that suddenly stops. I don't think there are any real rules currently in place to stop this from happening so it is a potential risk. But in most cases worth it! 

A great alpha game out at the moment is The Forest. It's as buggy as hell and at a very early stage of development although the developers seem to be very dedicated to it and it is on Steam for a very good price at the moment, around $15 I think. 
 
If a person is willing to pay for a "sneak peek" that isn't exactly an awful action on the behalf of the company to let them. I mean if it's a scam, then it's a scam people are literally asking to have played on them so... yeah. I don't see the problem, and I say that as someone who doesn't understand why people want Alpha access.
 
When it all boils down to it, how does this differ from donating to a kickstarter campaign? it's paying the developers for a game that isn't finished or made, etc.. but its completely optional. It will either give them extra budget to make the game better, give them extra bug reports for a smoother bug free game and a better launch, or they will just scam the crap out of you. It's really all the same, just wrapped differently.. and its completely optional, but if people are willing to pay, then that's our fault as consumers.
 
Let's think abut it. Look at it this way -When your favorite game is going to launch after some time, don;t you just wish that you could get it a bit earlier? That's what happens in Early Access. If someone is paying to play a broken game that is still in early stages of development, it means that they are totally into it and they wish to support the development of the game.
 
In a way I think its really out of hand, but at the same time its your choice on whether you want to buy the broken game, or wait til its developed, the makers aren't wrong, they just found a new way to make money off us.
 
I think people will have to stop thinking in absolutes when it comes to releases. A game that is continously being developed, like Minecraft, CS:GO, DotA 2, DayZ or Kerbal Space Program doesn't necessarily have to have a date when it is "finished". CS:GO and Minecraft have officially been released but are both still being developed and receive constant patches. Dota 2 is in "beta" even though in many ways it is further developed than CS:GO.
The old model of fire-and-forget releasing is no longer applicable for all games today.
 
sidd230 said:
I think people will have to stop thinking in absolutes when it comes to releases. The old model of fire-and-forget releasing is no longer applicable for all games today.
Click to expand...

I think this is what should be understood. And I haven't read all the replies but i think there is a large portion of users who want to get into the game early even though they have to pay and bugs exist. The exclusiveness is part of the fun.
 
I think it's a waste of money, but if you are truly dedicated to the game before it even comes out then you might as well support it. Due to it being completely optional though, it doesn't bother me one bit. 99$ is definitely over the top, but I understand that it is also over the top to have a massive amount of players giving their opinions and sending in bug reports. 99$ lowers the amount of people doing it and can help further increase the quality of the game.
 
Well if it's a developer you can bet on to come out with something incredible and you are the kind of person that would pay for something to have 'early access' I guess it's not that bad. I mean if people are willing to buy it,fundamentally I don't see what's wrong with developers cashing in on it. But if these are misinformed people that think they get something really special by paying an early access or if they do it just because they have money to throw around, it's just sad.   
 
If people want to buy the game early, they can get it. It is their choice. But, I do believe that the price shouldn't be bizarre, like $99 for an early access version or something. Early access is like pre-ordering a game, but you also get the developing alpha/beta versions of the game as they are developed. I have seen many games in early access which cost like $20-$40, which is not that much. High price for an early access game is completely wrong.

I personally prefer the closed/open beta systems usually used mostly by AAA companies. They give you a beta access completely free of cost long before the game release. Like, we have Battlefield: Hardline and The Crew closed betas running at the moment (The Crew is coming up, though, but they are accepting sign-ups). This is better in terms of price, but developers feel that early access solves more bugs than free betas, because if people purchase an early access game, they tend to be more interested in it than people who receive a beta invitation for free for signing up.
 
The reason people would pay for a broken game is simple.

"A fool and his money are easily parted."

This pretty much applies to those who will continually throw their money at incomplete games as well. I am not referring to dlc that actually extends an otherwise complete game or refreshes it with new content that adds hours of gameplay.

I am talking about the games that should have been completed but weren't that the developer decided to add dlc to as a means of getting more money out of people, as if the fact that these people went out and bought it the day it was released, and paid the exorbitant price for it werent enough already.

To make matters worse, in a lot of these cases, the game was already complete, the developer just wanted extra money from you so that you could pay again for the game you already paid for when you went out and bought it on the first day it was released.

So it isn't surprising that you have these greedy devs are playing on a person's insatiable need for instant gratification and impatience in the name of "early access" and taking advantage of these people because of it.

In the end, there is no true exclusivity because at the end of the day, when the contract is up, and the developer sees how much they made on one platform and they want to multiply that, then if they are smart, then they will port their game to other platforms.

I've seen this happen with a lot of the apps and games I had on my iPhone. The devlopers eventually opened their eyes to the fact that they were losing money by being exclusive to iOS, and eventually ported their apps to Android, some of them even becoming Android-first after that.

The exclusivity thing is usually there to benefit the console maker, not the developer.
 
I find it annoying how the early access is now being over used by a lot of developers. I understand the fact that at the end of the day, its the customers choice but majority of the time, the users don't help with the development. Also, look at DayZ, that game looks like it will be in early access for ages. At the end of the day, they should only use the early access to help development, not to make early money. Also, i don't like the risk of losing money by paying for an early access and just hoping the company actually finishes the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top