Hi,
It’s about the time for me to put my game on Greenlight. Let’s say the game passes. We could say it is in a beta state, playable, but could be polished a lot more. Unfortunately I no longer have time to work on my game exclusively, but not releasing it is not an option.
Now there are two options:
Full release. The game appears along all the others and is expected to be a full experience. This may - for some - as well be, but some may consider it incomplete.
Early Access. Like this the game can’t offend anyone. I could work on it in free time and continuously add features until I can consider it truly complete - which may never happen. That’s not really a problem, the game will be very cheap and worth people’s time I think. But there are kinds of people, which are able to like a game, but not want it due to it being in Early Access. I get that - people want the game to be complete and a full experience before committing to it.
Do you have any experience with Early Access? Was your game accepted well, or were fans angry you didn’t release it as a full game(perhaps later)? Is it better to get higher sales and disappoint a few people, or discourage people from buying it by saying it is not complete(according to developer’s unrealistic standards), but not really disappoint anybody?
Your description of your EA release is part of the problem with the bad stigma of early access titles. If you don’t expect to finish it, publish as is or actually finish it. Don’t throw early access on it as if that’s going to make people feel better about it’s incompleteness.
If you’re not going to finish and polish the game, don’t release it at all. This doesn’t mean it was a waste of time. You surely learned a lot, and hopefully had fun making it, too. Think of authors who might write dozens of pages of prose for each page that actually gets published.
From what I can tell people want polished content, so rather then making a complete game with say 10 levels have 1 level thats polished and then slowly add the rest of the content
Or at least don’t release it on a store that expects the game to be completed. I don’t see any problems though with a store like Itch.io where you can give away your game but ask for donations if people enjoyed it. I would just make it clear up front if the game would receive any further updates so that people don’t feel like they’re contributing towards development.
steam should have like a “prototypes” or like a “check this game out”
early access … in its original spirit is like … “this is a WIP, but we will have it done in like a year, maybe, for sure, we’re working on it everyday”
but also, i think it would be better to be able to check it out dude!! … its better than it just becoming lost to the ether… gone forever to the recycle bin… that just suucks
man theres some games from time to time, they are announced and iam like “NIICE CANT WAIT TO PLAY IT!! I WANNA PLAY IT NAAAOOW!!” … and then like 2 months later its like GAME CANCELLED!
- this is why iam better than people working for steam, valve can pay me now please! this idea can only be used if iam paid! =by reading this forum post you consent to these terms! (reading is willful action)=
maybe, but some people pay for dirt and leaves and sticks and stuff
so whatever, its up to the buyer, ultimately
LOL i usually dont have that viewpoint, but its true
The general consensus, from all the EA articles I’ve read, is to release the game when it is in a well working and polished state, it doesn’t have to be perfect, but don’t release a buggy mess with horrible placeholder graphics.
Rather have 2 or 3 features well implemented, than 10 features half-assed.
And then release a new feature in a major update, and make sure this new feature has had some good internal testing.
Something to note: In terms of visibility early access (EA) will split your release splash into two small splashes. Press are less likely to care about an EA release than a full release, and also less likely to care about an EA gone non-EA than a full release. So your full game release may be enough of news for a journalist to cover, but an EA release will not. Some games are notable enough for press to cover both EA release and leaving EA, but most are not. So it might be worth it to consolidate your release event into a concentrated single blast to maximize your chance of getting covered.
If you’re releasing EA for the purpose of making your game better, I’ve heard many sensible people say to treat EA release almost like a full release in terms of polish. If you’re releasing EA because you’re not sure if you’ll ever finish but still want to capitalize on your work so far- please don’t. Its unethical and its poisoning the well for the rest of us.
My impression is that the primary reason of Early Access to exist is developer’s uncertainty about funding or inability to get testing team. Meaning the only reason to go Early Access is if you can’t fund your project or if you can’t hire the testers (with funding being the primary issue). Otherwise, there’s zero reason for Early Access. Same thing with Kickstarter.
As for “masses giving feedback” the issue here is that masses are unable to give feedback without paying first. So primary reason seems to be money, and not giving feedback.
Basically, I definitely do not see its primary function as “connecting with masses” and “masses giving feedback”, but think it is more about about asking masses to support developer financially in hopes that something good comes out of it.
If you have a systemic fully playable game and you want people to start playing but also want to continue adding features, then early access is a good option. The idea is to sell people a complete game that will continue to evolve. Funding is certainly not the only reason people go to early access. Many of the most successful EA games had other goals in mind. I’d venture to say if a dev goes to EA for funding alone, they’re doing it wrong.
IMO. “Early access” means it is unfinished (and may not be ever finished). If it is finished, but you continue adding features as people play, then it is after release patches. IIRC sims and X3 series operated that way. We also have Crusader Kings with its bazillion dlcs. If you have a specific “vision” you hope to achieve it by going early access, then you’re uncertain about ability to deliver the result you really want without extra help of the people, which is in line what I posted earlier.
Speaking of which… I see early access as a road to eventual “final” release. And in the article you linked, for example, Besiege is still in early access state, one year later. Same goes, for example, for Space Engineers, billion of minecraft clones, and many, many, many games. Those are titles where people do not really ever expect to see the “final” release, even though the games are quite popular. (Saw “Starmade” in my steam recommendation today)
Either way, this seems to be going in direction of a semantic argument.
