Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is early access really that bad?
TheScavenger
Member EpicPosts: 3,321
Early access. Saying that gives groans and sighs of quick cash ins.
However, are they actually really that bad?
Lets take MMOs. Many MMOs have a cash shop with loot boxes and all kinds of things to pay your way into the game...sometimes cosmetic...sometimes not. One can argue that is actually WORSE than a simple early access game that probably has no future. Many early access developers may look for a quick cash-in (Repopulation is a good example of that, till that changed owners and still haven't heard anything about it since)...
However, many actually released MMOs really try to force you into their cash shop to buy all kinds of junk. Sometimes its cosmetic stuff, but often times its items that make the game easier in some way or stuff to boost you (either levels/skills or better items). And often when its cosmetic, it can cost more than most AAA released games would cost.
How is that better than the multiple early access games? On one hand, you got greedy developers who really focus on the cash shop. Even worse are the RNG loot boxes which are only there because SOME people get pretty addicted to gambling. On the other, however, are early access games with many just never releasing. Besides Repopulation, there have been many early access games outright abandoned by the developers. They DO deserve the hate.
But RNG loot boxes, and overly expensive cash shops get little in the way of complaints. Early access however gets far more hate than most cash shops in MMOs. Is this because cash shops have been around so long people are used to them?
If so, then in the next years early access could be regarded as the norm and no longer a "taboo" thing in gaming. Does it get more hate than cash shop just because its a new model in gaming? There aren't just failed early access games, but many early access games are seen as a great success (like Subnautica and Ark Survival).
Just like not all cash shops are actually bad, just the ones with paid RNG and overly expensive cosmetic items. But there ARE MMOs with good cash shops like EVE and WoW. How are both models any worse or better than each other? Except one (early access) gets a strange amount of hate compared to cash shops.
However, are they actually really that bad?
Lets take MMOs. Many MMOs have a cash shop with loot boxes and all kinds of things to pay your way into the game...sometimes cosmetic...sometimes not. One can argue that is actually WORSE than a simple early access game that probably has no future. Many early access developers may look for a quick cash-in (Repopulation is a good example of that, till that changed owners and still haven't heard anything about it since)...
However, many actually released MMOs really try to force you into their cash shop to buy all kinds of junk. Sometimes its cosmetic stuff, but often times its items that make the game easier in some way or stuff to boost you (either levels/skills or better items). And often when its cosmetic, it can cost more than most AAA released games would cost.
How is that better than the multiple early access games? On one hand, you got greedy developers who really focus on the cash shop. Even worse are the RNG loot boxes which are only there because SOME people get pretty addicted to gambling. On the other, however, are early access games with many just never releasing. Besides Repopulation, there have been many early access games outright abandoned by the developers. They DO deserve the hate.
But RNG loot boxes, and overly expensive cash shops get little in the way of complaints. Early access however gets far more hate than most cash shops in MMOs. Is this because cash shops have been around so long people are used to them?
If so, then in the next years early access could be regarded as the norm and no longer a "taboo" thing in gaming. Does it get more hate than cash shop just because its a new model in gaming? There aren't just failed early access games, but many early access games are seen as a great success (like Subnautica and Ark Survival).
Just like not all cash shops are actually bad, just the ones with paid RNG and overly expensive cosmetic items. But there ARE MMOs with good cash shops like EVE and WoW. How are both models any worse or better than each other? Except one (early access) gets a strange amount of hate compared to cash shops.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Comments
Games that have gambling boxes are bad and games that stay in early access forever are bad. No need to make a comparison between the two.
And that is the core of the problem. There is no way a prospective customer can judge the quality of what they're buying. There's no way of knowing when a buggy product will improve, or if it ever will. And you can't really complain about anything, because it's "early access", after all...
Anyone who bought Foxhole a few weeks ago at "early access" launch can tell you that the game is rock solid, and has fewer issues than many release versions. It has a good selection of features, and they all work. The servers are packed (with long queues during primetime).
But playing Foxhole will give you a very skewed impression of what "early access" means in other titles.
I seen 2 types of early access, the most common get certain players to start a few days before everyone else. That usually have no real impact on anything besides who gets a certain name.
The other type charges for a beta and call it early access like PFO did. It is not a great idea since we will judge a game as a finnished product once they charge us for playing it.
In both case if the game is already in good shape it have little impact on things but if you have a paid beta in a game that shouldn't be close to being released it will kill all hype for the game.
As far as cash shops and random lock boxes, we are pretty much at the place of 'get over it', as not enough players are willing to support subscription only games to make them viable with WoW being the only exception of note (and has a cash shop anyway.)
Being unable to rely solely on subscription revenue game providers have to generate their income somehow, and that will always involve something less than ideal.
The reason for this is that they see it as more of an infection, games starting out without a cash shop and then including one.
Whereas you know what you're getting into with early access.
Originally, it implied access to the release version before the general public was allowed in. But, just like "MMO", it has become a vague catch-all that is largely meaningless in itself without checking the fine print first.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
It's the perception of the product that they were changing.
Cryomatrix
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
_________
I mean seriously Arc devs have been frustrated by their inability to actually finish to the point that they can leave EA, They really want the ability to monetize expansions (and got some really nice public outcry for it). When they realized there wasn't anymore money in ARC they went and decided to play company/game shell games, and go and make Dark and Light.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."