Who wants "Early Access"?

With the rumours of
early access (or Greenlight as its known on Steam) does anyone else out there think its a really bad idea?

For those that dont know its a system on Steam whereby you can buy a game when its still in beta (or even alpha state) and you can play the game, get updates etc. and when the game is finally finished, you receive the final update.

I can see why some people would like it, but for me I think its just a bad idea, why buy a game that isnt finished only to be bored of it when its finally completed?

:)

 

GEARS 3 Preorder with GAME

[quote user="xALBERTxWESKERx"]

lol. Am I the only person who got their copy early from game.

[/quote]

i think so. i didn't get mine early even tho i was expecting to.

 

What is the media saying?

^

Only sad COD fanboys who want the early exclusive DLC.

 

I'm pretty sure most games are already doing this, they just aren't calling them "betas".

 

Greenlight on Steam isn't early access. It's more a things for small developers to get their games onto the platform.

Users vote on if they'd buy the game if it were released on Steam.

 

It's because they don't want to pay real quality assurance employees anymore. Might as well give the jobs to their community's you know since most consumers whine anyway. And in ten years they can say hey we did everything you wanted.

 

yeah it's more about eliminating QA jobs i think and that's not good for the people who apply for those particular jobs.

 

Yeah, I just read on Gamespot about how MS is considering this. I really have no idea why this would be considered a "good" thing for consumers at all. This is just like paying a contractor up front to do work on your house. Once the devs have your money,
they have less incentive to make the best possible game.

And then, at what point do the updates become "complete", and the devs start charging for further updates as dlc?

 

@ Dragon .. it's like the kickstarter from Double Fine a few years ago .. got the money and didnt do what they promised and kept delaying etc.

 

I have no problem with it. It's not like you're forced to pay for incomplete games - you're choosing to do it. It helps developers both financially and in terms of QA testing and improving the code, which should lead to a better game once it's complete.
As long as it's made clear to consumers what it is that they're getting into, I don't see why it would be an issue.

Personally, I would not buy a game that's incomplete - at least, not one that I know to be incomplete. I think we've all bought a few games that are supposedly complete but clearly needed a bit more time in the oven, haha.

 

tuff question.

on one hand, i might be able to play a game that i'm really excited for, on the other, it could be so broken it might turn the excitement into despair.

this could also lead to lower sales, letting people play at the early stage of development could leave people thinking either, "i've played enough that i don't want to buy the game anymore" or spamming the problems with the game that will reach the uninformed
masses before it comes from any other source.

sounds like a camp fire idea that's about to go out of control and burn down a forest.

i vote no.

 

I'm fine with alpha and beta test.It usually helps devs to polish their games and get feedbacks from alpha/beta testers.

But give money for an unfinished game(this already excist),pay to be a beta tester,i don't see what's good in this business model,for both sides (consumers/developpers).....

Not interested.

 

We have early assess just play BF4. Early access is the worst thing, Why would you buy a broken unfinished game. EA already does this why would you want more games like that.

 

Personally I dont really care one way or the other. I will probably stay away from early access games just to avoid the bugs and headaches.

 

Some people are impatient. Some people enjoy beta testing products. I guess also, companies may offer a lower price if you jump in at the "early access" stage compared to buying the completed product.

The main pitfall would be, what if a developer abandons a game before it's finished? Do they just get to keep everyone's cash?