f13.net

It has been introduced today:

http://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq

http://www.gamespot.com/news/steam-introduces-early-access-6405670

So, one could argue that, putting aside the "funding" aspect, this is basically kickstarting with a playable product instead of an overhyped idea. Of course there are no tiers (at least for now), but a fixed price; I don't know, to me it seems another "jumping the shark" moment  (maybe only temporary and very experimental?).

I think the good part is that it applies to free stuff too so you could in theory do betas (and player participation in the early stages) etc through steam relatively easily (not that fond of the pay-to-beta aspect that seems to be all the rage these days)

As long as it's not used to spread malware, I'm all for giving indies an easier time of reaching their market.

Couldn't we technically put like half of new AAA releases in this?

Garriot thinks so.

Hang on.  Okay.  So.

Not only am I paying to beta test your buggy, unfinished game, but then I get to pay AGAIN to buy it once it's released for realsies?
Please tell me I'm reading this wrong.

I think you're reading it wrong.

This is the same model that Minecraft launched under, just in Steam-form. At least, that's my impression.

You purchase the game, there's no "pre" attached to it and you get the current version of the game and all the versions to follow (until the next version is called a dlc or a whole new game á la Cyanide's Blood Bowl)

Isn't this the same model Desura uses? (you buy the game even if it's in alpha, and you can test it until it's released... then you get the full version too) Of course that's an indie distribution platform, so yeah.

Yeah, they're just saying it's not "prepurchasing" because when you "prepurchase" you don't get to play it yet.  And yeah, same model as Minecraft, Prison Architect, Just Starve, probably other indie games I can't think of.  Steam is just acknowledging that it's a common thing.

I think this is a nice alternative to KS for video games; I don't mind throwing the developers some cash if I actually get a (mostly) playable product out of it.

I think for companies that don't have as high of a reputation as introversion will be hurt by doing this.  I think it's going to be tough for most indies to balance between a build that's acceptable for users to pay for prior it to be officially releasable and not having users see a build that's so buggy or not ready that users bitch and complain about it thus making the marketing part (an extremely hard aspect of selling a game) very hard to succeed at.

It's also going to be hard for most indies to follow along their development schedule/plan when they are constantly taking time out to pay attention to and work against user feedback.

Most of those titles you could already buy to get current access. This just seems to be a new category steam added to bundle them together in one view.

lrn2agile

Well yeah, doesn't mean most people know how to do that.  Hell many companies can't wrap their hands around agile.

Yah, that's kind'a the way I read it too.   There is no pre attached.    You get whatever buggy piece o shit they decide to toss your way.   Hey, so, we've decided that we have to forget about all of these graphics drivers for a while, sorry!   We're working on the mechanics of the game!    Sorry, unless you're running a 770GTX Pro (not a misnomer, I don't believe it's out yet) you're not gonna be able to run this game!    Gee, what fucking fun.

Then wait?

So, Gnomoria is just isometric Dwarf Fortress.

It's not just an alternative, it's what should be done and KS should kill the video game category.

Most people couldn't make a decent game even if money was no object.  If you say that early public testing shouldn't exist at all because some people are so incompetent that they can't assess the quality of their own work or sort through feedback, you might as well say that nobody should make games at all because some people will make bad games.

Steam putting this stuff under the "Early Access" umbrella is good IMO because it acts as a nice caveat emptor for people who don't want to waste time or money on unfinished work, while letting early adopters get their hands on the potentially broken toys they crave.  Basically, if the whole concept sounds scary to you, you're not who it's for and you can just pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm not saying this shouldn't exist, I'm saying the most companies would be idiots for participating in it (and the "pay for alpha" craze that seems to be getting more popular) and it will bite them in the end.

I'm not seeing your logic here. If you can't handle feedback, sorry, you're a failure at business/life.

That's sort of what I meant. I've never used KS for games and don't intend to.

Right, but...  As any marketing major will tell you, a voice that's loud enough and negative enough in the very early stages can kill your chances at creating something successful.

Part of handling feedback is understanding what inputs are important, and what inputs are irrelevent. Easy to grasp, a lifetime to master.

If one voice is loud and negative enough? You remove it from the organization. If it's the guy running the show? You leave. These aren't tough choices. People make them tough because they don't like conflict, or they don't like change.

Right, but how do you remove a customer?  Say, "Nahh, fuck you, we're taking our game back, here's your money that you've spent on it?"  Wow, great PR.  I'm just trying to get you to see the logic behind the other guy's post.  And I kind'a agree with him.

If it's a singular small project designed for one customer, you do what they want. After all, who are you trying to impress? That customer. You took the job, and you deliver what they want.

If it's for thousands of customers and you have one jackass? You ignore the jackass.

If it's for a publisher who funded you? You're already handed over control the day you signed that deal. It's not your call from that point.

That's fine.  I can tell you're getting huffy with me, and this isn't the place to debate a point.

Sadly.

Believe me, this is far from my getting huffy. I'm just trying to be clear on my point.

I'm not sure I understand why you're advocating that one customer should spoil the game?

Okay.  Say I'm the one customer.  If I'm loud enough and negative enough and nudge my facts in a negative light, I will get a following on the boards of Steam.  It may only be 3%.  But if those 3% are loud enough, they can kill anything.  I mean, take a look at the XCom boards.  If I had had alpha access to that title, that game would've turned out a whole lot differently.  They might not have even made it because of the things I wanted in it.  Time Units.  Ability to carry more than 6 people (really?  In a world of 6 billion people, all that you can send is 6 people?  That's a billion to one ratio)  The ability to carry more than two grenades without being trained (really?  I can carry two grenades now and I have no training), etc.  But that game's already out.  The original XCom.  That's the reason they might not have made it.  Because Firaxis, or anybody, doesn't like doing anybody else's work over.  And if they made the alpha boards accessible to the public, that 3% just shot up by a large margin.

But, instead, we're left with the game that we got.  Which sold well, but, IMO, was just a shadow of its previous glory.   Vocal minorities play an important role, because they're, well, vocal.

I don't even know what the hell you two are talking about.

So uh, this train of thought started with "I DON'T LIKE ALPHAS ON STEAM"? I'm still having a problem with why this is a problem, since it's clearly marked as such. This means that people who want to try and influence a game into what they want during the development, can get in on it early, and those who don't want to buy alphas can do the novel thing of oh I dunno ignoring them maybe?

I'll finish with this point. If your game failed to deliver because you listened to a vocal minority, you fell into a trap. I think we can both agree they shouldn't be catered to. This is the WoW hardcore raiding philosophy, and it's being beaten to death over time because people with a minute amount of business accumen realized their developers were shooting the game in the foot.

It's a mistake. It will always be a mistake in gaming. You must design for the audience you have, not the one you want, and certainly not based on one subsect of forum dwellers. That doesn't mean you can ignore the entire board blasting your decisions. Ignoring the whole community is just as dangerous as listening to a small part. It's a balance that's tough to master.

Holy jesus I didn't mean for this to get so confusing.

My point was that most companies would be idiots for participating in Early Access programs or piggy packing on this "pay for alpha" craze that seems to be brewing.

Yes, the companies that will bite on this and that aren't equipped to handle the added overhead and complexity that an open early access program are badly run businesses.

There's nothing else to  my comment.

*edit*
P.s. The problem that companies are going to fall into aren't just listening to shitty feedback too early, the problem is most companies won't be able to fight back against negative opinions of the game due to major features not being in it yet (see the Steam game "the town")

Overexposure to an unplayable product could impact sales. That's a legitimate concern. It could ruin the game's potential because they took a risk to sell it in an incomplete form.

However, that is a gamble they have to take if they need to increase funding in the short term. Also, if it's decent, you can build buzz.

It's great for smaller developers because with steam comes an entire framework of everything you need to sell, package, and distribute your game.

Alphafunding/Early Access/Pledging/Founder's Packages are all differently garnished pre-purchase options that more and more developers with a modicum of talent want to abuse. Before it was acceptable to offer promises in exchange for hype, now it's acceptable to cash in on the hype before a title even begins work on delivering said promises. I like how original concepts can get their development funded by their target audience, but way more dosh is being thrown at people who could do it conventionally and the fact that Chris Roberts is selling me a spaceship that only exists in his head for two thousands dollars is just flabbergasting.

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc7rioOiiC1r9e4mmo1_400.jpg)

I think some of that'll pass after all those early adopters get burned a few times. But, then again, some people pre-order stuff sight unseen every single month and will probably continue to do so.

I'd rather throw £15 towards a promising alpha-beta of an indie dev/team than piss away money on a pre-order for, say, anything published by EA.

Anyone tried Kenshi? Looks interesting?

Those fighting animations are killing me.

I bought and an have been enjoying roaming around the deserts.  I haven't done much except attacking bandits already in a fight and looting the dead though :p 

Another Dungeon Keeper wannabe?

"War for the Overworld" - http://store.steampowered.com/app/230190/

That looks identical to DK.

It 'is' Dungeon Keeper, just for the current gen.  They have Molyneux's permission and everything.  The name change is simply to avoid EA hassling.

Oh my  :heart:

That would explain why it looks exactly like it.  Damn, now I'll have to buy it.

$22 is outside my impulse range :(

Interesting. I saw it an thought it was one of those crappy knock-off's sequels or something (wasn't there a recent crappy knock-off of DK?).

Interest level rising.

Impire. It is fairly crappy.