Interesting thoughts about how to define success for video games in today’s market, particularly for those using early access. Lots of respect for Hooded Horse’s CEO, Tim Bender, he says all the right things and seems genuine.
He describes van Lierop’s post as “exactly the kind of distorted endless growth/burden of expectations/line must go up perspective that causes so much trouble in the games industry”. He’s also unconcerned by Manor Lords falling behind its initial vast popularity, poking fun at “the apparently dark reality that some people, after enjoying their purchase of a premium, single-player title, might decide to go on and play another game (The horror! The horror!).”
Headline is a little melodramatic though.
I don’t understand how anyone buys Early Access games. Yes, I understand that the creators need to make a living before the game launches, but big companies should have the reserves and small companies may just take the money and run.
A couple days ago I looked at pcgamer’s summer steam deals list, and since Manor Lords topped the list I went over to Steam to check it out. Early Access. Nevermind.
I forgot about it entirely until looking at this article. Went to Steam and: Oh. Right. Early Access. Nevermind.
I do agree that it is too early to expect more updates. It only became available in April. I don’t expect it to have improvements worth integrating yet. That said, I’m not spending $30 (regular price $40) on something that may or may not end up being any good – that might always be too buggy to play, or too cringe-y to enjoy, or go so far from the initial demo that it isn’t the same game (I will never forgive you, Spore, and I will never buy you).
My attitude around early access games is to buy them only if I would be satisfied with the game in its current state, at the price offered.
If you pay full price and go into it expecting improvements that may never come, you’ll be disappointed.
If you buy an incomplete game for cheap and they later expand it and raise the price, it’s a pleasant surprise.
Yeah, Rimworld was in early access for 5 years and was worth the price the entire time IMO. Project Zomboid has been in early access for over a decade! If you just blanket ignore early access games you’re cutting yourself off from some excellent games.
Same for me, and I have had better luck with enjoying early access games than most full release games. Valheim is the stand out example for me, but there arena couple others with hundreds of hours of fun! It also helps that indie early access games tend to be less expensive.
Then there is the case of Multiversus, which was way more fun to play in prerelease than it is now. On top of that they cranked up the intrusive monetization, so getting to the less fun gameplay is a slog.
Then there is Tekken 8, which launched ok and then added a shitty shop and annoying seasons shortly after release. It also seems like the networking has gottenn worse.
But every early access game where I was clear on expectations has been fun and always feels worth the money.
See? That’s the thing. I don’t want to support future in-app purchases that get tacked on after they got me to PAY THEM for the ‘privilege’ of doing their beta testing for them. That seems like a special kind of evil that must not be encouraged.
Tekken 8 didn’t have an early access that I am aware of, and I have given a Not Recommended review on steam because of the shop being added post release. The Tekken situation is not an early access problem, just a greed problem so I might have caused some confusion as an example of games having sketchy behavior even without early access.
Multiversus is free to play with predatory monitization. The beta was free, but you actually got stuff by playing a somewhat reasonable amount of time. During the beta they increased the amount of time and people complained, so it was kind of surprising that they did the opposite of the early access feedback on release.
I misunderstood regarding those games, sorry.
One of my favourite examples of this is still Rust. Sure, it’s not a perfect game, I don’t always like the updates, but do I feel like I got my money’s worth, from a purely online game I bought in 2013 and can still hop on with thousands of other people? I do.
It’s a gamble - but one mitigated by looking at review.
I, for one, am very satisfied with my EA purchase of Satisfactory (…pun intended, but heh). Coffee Stain has been absolutely amazing throughout the entire EA Aperiod.
Early access doesn’t necessarily mean bad. 2 of my favourite games this year have been Core Keeper and Timberborn. Both early access, got more than 100 hours in both and I’m definitely not halfway through either. They’re great as they are and updates are coming to improve them. I do agree though you have to be very wary of what game you choose to support, I have been burned before by a developer that took the money and ran. Fuck you Code{}atch, I’ll never forgive you.
I was going to bring up Core Keeper! Satisfactory is another game that made great use of Early Access
It can come down to the company.
Like, a big AAA dev/publisher or a relatively unknown newbie? Not gonna trust that it’s going to turn out good or get finished.
A company like Crate? Hell yeah, they make solid shit and haven’t fucked me over once on it. I watched Grim Dawn grow up from 2 acts to getting a third expansion. Farthest Frontier is also shaping up into a fun time, in my opinion.
If they have a history, it can be worth it to take the risk and take some small part in the process.
I do that to help some of the indie devs I like. I don’t play them until the final release or don’t contribute any other way. Did that for Factorio, Mashinky, Soviet Republic, Songs of Syx, Kingdoms Reborn, Farthest Frontier, etc.