Alpha Release/Early Play: Good or Bad?

[Khaldun]

I'm kind of fascinated by the rapid spread of the alpha release/early play model on Steam/Kickstarter, and the degree to which it seems to be more and more ok to move between KS levels of "support" and an imagined retail price for an alpha game.

In one way, this just seems to be a more honest admission of what was already the norm for most game releases, even AAA: that they came to retail unfinished and were both patched into finishing for free and patched further through DLC.

But what I'm kind of waiting for is when the KS/Alpha/Early Release model starts to fully gel into a norm where you can get away with "early release" being "final build", e.g., we buy on potential and commitment and vision and if it doesn't go any further than a half-finished product we just shrug and say, "oh well." It's kind of a Peter Molyneux norm, buying on concept and faith and the desire to see if something could possibly become what we hope it will.

Another hopeful thought: this could kill the entire concept of AAA--e.g., why pay a premium for EA to kill the soul out of something just to get reliability, if almost anyone can come along and sell you something that has soul, though maybe never reliability or even reality? Finally maybe we're systematizing a low barrier to entry that only a dedicated few (Notch, etc.) were able to surmount through persistence?

Another depressing thought: why would anyone ever really finish a game again? But that's always been this industry: you can be a colossal disaster of a developer, make a failed game, rip off people, deceive people, and get invited back for more even before you've run out of money from the last time.

Is there a genuinely new thing going on here?

[Velorath]

Another hopeful thought: this could kill the entire concept of AAA--e.g.

Sure, right after the Wii, Facebook games, and mobile games kill the hardcore game market.

[Torinak]

Another depressing thought: why would anyone ever really finish a game again? But that's always been this industry: you can be a colossal disaster of a developer, make a failed game, rip off people, deceive people, and get invited back for more even before you've run out of money from the last time.

Is there a genuinely new thing going on here?

This is why I really don't care for the "pay for alpha" model. It can create a strong disincentive for developers to actually finish their games (they can rake in enough money from a "proof of concept" that they can afford to drop the project--it looks like this has happened multiple times already), and it conditions people to work for free (rant best left for Politics). The degree of "finish" has become a lot lower with the "pay for alpha" model; some really big Kickstarter projects are along the lines of "I have some great ideas and concept art so give me money" which is a far cry from "here's a buggy but 'done enough' game that got pressed onto CDs/DVDs and sold in stores".

At least with failed AAA games, you have to be a "big" developer to be able to bounce from one failed project to another; I think that's a lot harder for indie devs. I used to have a small shelf of game boxes and CDs from the days when I used to alpha/beta-test (from long ago); for the games that failed, AFAIK that was the end for most of their devs. They may have eventually landed at big studios as rank-and-file employees, but that's not the same as being a "developer" in game parlance.

I'm OK with developers releasing an "alpha" or using Kickstarter (etc) to go from "here's a fairly bare-bones but entirely playable and fun game" to "with money we crank it up to 11!". I'm not OK with big companies and big-name developers using the same mechanisms when they could be funded in any number of ways that are not available to indie devs.

[Venkman]

I like it. A number of ideal scenarios:

• Why spend all the tens of millions up front in the hope you guessed the market right from three years out?
• Why try to build a full version of what you think the players will want only to watch 90% of them quit after the first 25% of the content? Even if you have a pay-up-front AAA game, that happening dilutes the chances of a sequel and then franchise.
• Why wait until the retailer sells to the market you hope you guessed right when you can potentially get that market right away?
• Why continue to feed the beast of the massive budget machine which itself is predicated on being right 3-5 years in advance of markets that nowadays changr twice in that time?
• Why wait until well after your residuals come in to start paying the post-launch live team?

The failures can be less spectacular because the investment can be less. It does mean people are paying for things that may fail, but given the price points, they're paying less to take a chance on an unfinished thing than the $80USD+ for something someone said was finished but which really wasn't after all.

Overall though my guess is the total revenue generated in the core industry will get less. A lot of it was tied up in moving things around. Taking out all the points between publisher and end user doesn't mean all the prior costs become profit. It means the kind of developers who can ship games can be even more competitive on price. Which usually means less of it 

[Kail]

I think it's a really effective business model for a lot of indie titles, especially ones following the current sandbox fad (riding the Minecraft, DayZ, Dwarf Fortress, etc. train) where a lot of complex systems are interacting with each other, and having a huge player base which you can have active discussions on about the future of the game is really helpful.

But I do have some concerns... Steam's early access model is the only one I have much experience with, but from what I've seen, there appears to be no oversight or control on the part of Valve.  There are no repercussions for devs abandoning projects, there's no enforcement about what gets shunted on to early access and what doesn't (Warhammer 40k Storm of Vengeance is clearly marked as a beta title, but is not in early access), no standards for updating your store page or communicating what parts of the game are finished to potential buyers.  Valve seems to want to take a more hands off approach with curating Steam, but there's a lot of room for abuse in the early access program if Valve doesn't enforce some standards here.

Also, there are lots of titles for which I don't think early access is really the answer... if you're doing some big expansive sandbox like Rust or something, fine, I can buy that the average indie studio can't really test something that big by themselves.  If you're doing a 2d platformer or a racing game or something, fuck off with that, you don't need that kind of feedback three months away from launch.  If you're a AAA company, EXTREMELY fuck off with that.  I can cut a studio of three guys, sharing a house and living off cup ramen three meals a day, a bit of a break in some respects, but a multi-million dollar studio trying to pull the same thing?  No.

In general, though, I think it's fine.  Steam pulling the early access titles off the front page (so you have to go specifically looking for them now) solved a lot of my initial concerns with the system.  I do wish there was more accountability or transparency in the system, but I have no idea how to implement something like that.

[Fabricated]

+Good shit that wouldn't have gotten made gets made.
+Paid Q&A!
+Word of mouth advertising.

-Bad shit that shouldn't have gotten made gets made/sorta made.
-What happens when the first Early Access game popular enough to be noticed but not enough to keep their dev solvent dries up and blows away?
-Eternal beta status is possible if devs are dumb/into featurecreep/evil.
-Encourages design by public committee, and bad early-access impressions can kill a potentially good game.

[Malakili]

The trick is only funding things that are actually worth it, which can be difficult. My personal rule (that I've broken only with Hex) is that I will only fund something that has something I can download and play immediately. 

Here is what I've alpha funded:

1) Minecraft:  Got in around the time the first F13 server went up.  Those were amazing times, despite the barely working multiplayer it was probably my fondest memories of the game.  Obviously a good by for the 10 bucks or whatever it was at the time.

2) Natural Selection 2: I got in super early on this one and it was not really playable for a while.  I mean, you could download and play the game right away, and at that point you could usually find a server with some people in.  (Emphasis on a server)  But it was so poorly optimized and had so few things implemented that it was bad for a while.  Ultimately the game turned out to be pretty good, but it was touch and go for a while.  Easily got my 15 bucks worth.

3) Project Zomboid: Well, this one's a saga.  The early mistakes they made were really bad, but this one has delivered also, and I only paid 8 bucks for it.  It is still in development some... 3 years later.  But in a market full of zombie games, it's easily my favorite and has been for quite a while. 

4) Prison Architect: Probably the weakest of the games I've alpha funded it it's current state.  It does continue to improve, but you'll recall the dwarf fortressy vibe people were expecting and I haven't quite gotten that yet.  It is a solid game.  Eventually I'll get my 30 bucks worth, but so far I haven't.

5) Hex: The exception to the rule, kickstarted.  The base game is great, still buggy alpha.  Not much more to say about it until they get it out of alpha.  Have already put a lot of hours in.


The main problem with the model is that it essentially capitalizes on the hype that gamers build when they hear about an awesome project.  I know even in my cynical mindset I often get hyped for a bit about a game before release (I was near to getting in on SWTOR for example, but cooler minds prevailed by the time release hit). Hex aside, I'm going to continue with my plan to only fund things that let me play right away.  At the very least then I know I'm getting something for my money and worst case scenario I get a few hours out of it before shelfing it for good.

[apocrypha]

I agree with a lot of what's been said already, particularly regarding the difference between a small, indie developer using Early Access as a genuine means to help get their game funded to completion and a large, established, rich developer using it as a way to fleece hyped up gamers of more money.

I'm perfectly happy to fund something like Starbound for instance, but David Braben can go fuck himself. I treat Early Access in the same way that I treat Kickstarter etc. I'm not going to fund people who are clearly able to fund themselves but don't want to take the risk. One size does not fit all.

I also have a problem when Early Access is applied to Free To Play titles, and games that will be free to install and play on release cost money to try early. Hawken is a good example of this - they claim it'll be entirely free to play but it's £23 to play it before release. That strikes me as underhanded and actually getting people to pay to beta test.

[eldaec]

I don't have an issue with any of this assuming the devs are open about what they are doing.

You pay your money you take your choice.

I paid monies for hex, mwo, and audiosurf 2 through these schemes, I don't regret any of them.

Someone mentioned charging for early access to f2p games, I'm entirely comfortable with other people paying their money for that sort of nonsense, but wouldn't do so myself. Everybody wins.

[satael]

My backing has been limited to MWO and Hex so far and while their progress has been slow at times and the amount I've spent has been higher than the average I usually pay for individual games I don't regret either of them. I've skipped the single player games since I'll just buy them at release if they are any good (especially since I feel like a single play thru is enough for most games and any betaing just spoils the plot)

I don't really feel the need to "support games" by paying for them years in advance for just the support's sake.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I ponied up money for the starbound alpha based on the strength of terraria, huge mistake. There's still no way to re-bind keys and for me it makes the game unplayable.

[Sky]

Good if the game is good. Bad if the game is not fun in the alpha.

I've gotten my money's worth in alpha more often than not, so I'm going with 'good'.

[Soulflame]

I ponied up money for the starbound alpha based on the strength of terraria, huge mistake. There's still no way to re-bind keys and for me it makes the game unplayable.

As has been said before, Starbound is a totally different team than Terraria.  I think Starbound has an artist that once worked on Terraria.

My personal opinion on paying to play alphas and betas is that it's a terrible idea.  If someone wants to pay me to QA their game, I'll consider it.  (They can't afford me, but that's beside the point.)  I will not pay to QA someone's game.

Plus, as has been said, there's the concern that you may pay into a project that is never done.  Or one that's clearly a scam aimed at extracting dollars from a limited audience.

I also worry that it will lower the threshold for a game that is "done".  If people are willing to pay for alphas, then why advance the game out of that state?

In any case.  I think paying for alphas is a bubble that will probably burst in the next few years, as people get tired of the whole idea.

[Sky]

I think the genre matters, too. Something like Landmark or Starbound, even unfinished there's an enjoyable experience there. Something like the new Divinity, I'm going to wait until they finish it before I start playing, to get the 'pure' experience (even though I have access from the KS). Pretty much any story/rpg linear type of game I'll avoid until release but more 'game' repeatable/sandbox stuff I'm going to look at.

[MrHat]

I don't have too much to add except the push of these early release alpha games have made me realize that I don't care for your alpha game.

I stopped 'funding' games last year.  I figure I can pony up the extra $10 if the game is good on release.

[Rasix]

I think the only time I've participated in any of these is buying Minecraft back when it was $5.  That was pretty early going, but I got enough out of that to justify it.  Played more single player than multi and it just pretty much worked.

I don't back.  I don't pay for early access.  I don't see myself changing this policy, but it could happen. It would take a lot of momentum here for me to pay for an alpha product, but a beta I can see if it's far enough along.   I think Kickstarter is absurd and that Steam's early access lacks adequate quality control.   I don't really care if others participate in this; it's their money not mine.

As to where it takes the industry?  I don't really care.  Enough good games are always coming out to make me happy.  If there's some sort of lull with an industry correction or deviation into shit I don't care for, there's always my Steam backlog, replayable/standby games, and other interests to keep me busy. 

[Margalis]

I would only pay for an early access game if I thought it was worth the money they were asking for at that time. If I'm paying $30 and getting $30 of game that's fine - if I'm paying $30 on the promise that I'll eventually get $30 of game then no thanks.

I don't like the different ways risk is being shifted more towards the consumer, or the way people's excitement and imagination is exploited. And yes, it does disincentivize developers from finishing games. Get it to a half-done state, get your money, move on.

One of the people working on Spacebase Alpha left DoubleFine. Dean Rocket Hall said he was going to leave the Day Z team. What about the people who paid assuming the developers would continue working on the game? Yes, staff turnover is a normal thing, but if you are paying for a finished product that turnover has already factored in. What happens if you buy an alpha and half the team gets bored and leaves?

I almost never buy used games or even games on sale, I'll gladly pay full price for something. But at the same time I don't do KS or early access. Make a good game then I'll buy it. I don't see the point in buying a promise.

[Quinton]

I don't mind the early access style model for development.  I don't tend to pay for such things (or kickstarter games) unless;
- I'm enthused about the idea and believe the team can probably pull it off if they secure the funding they need to keep going
- I think the early version of the game is already fun (Minecraft, Kerbal Space Program), and more stuff being added is just gravy.

I don't think it's going to fundamentally change the industry, but I do think it's a model that helps some things get built that wouldn't otherwise (mostly the intersection of projects that AAA shops don't have interest in and require a team too large for "1-3 people working on the side" style development).

I think some of the incentives for actually finishing these projects is not burning your credibility if you plan to ever do this again.

Personally, given that I had the resources, I'd prefer to have something mostly finished with some clear definition of what 1.0/done is before seeking crowd funding or early access.  Having a bunch of enthusiastic people throwing money at you is great, but I've also seen situations where fan expectations are kinda nuts.

One thing I have learned is that for most games, I really prefer to wait for the finished product.  Some things (Minecraft and KSP again come to mind) turn out to be fun in their in-progress state, but developing software for a living, and spending enough of my time dealing with my own buggy or incomplete code, for entertainment it's nice to get the sausage in the bun with all the trimmings instead of the tour of the sausage factory.

[UnSub]

I'm not giving a development studio my money ahead of them putting out the full version of their game.

I've been in enough alphas / betas to have seen systems I enjoyed thrown and the huge gap that can exist between game systems as described and game systems when actually delivered.

Plus I'm not willing to pay for the privilege of accepting some development risk surrounding the creation of a title.

Early access / pay for alpha / beta relies hugely on player belief that because a dev says something about a game, it will actually deliver. Ironically I believe this is because so many people grew up playing AAA titles that, although some may be disappointing, generally manage to deliver a full title that contains the features listed on the box (sure, not always, but most of the time). So the reliability of AAA delivery is having a halo effect on indie titles that are trying to replace publisher money with fan money.

[Sky]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/28/a-game-and-a-chat-divinity-original-sins-divine-depth/

Divine Divinity and Divinity 2 were great games, and both suffered from publisher interference. Original Sin is looking amazing, from a known developer, minus publisher interference.

I'm totally down with that. And there are a few of those 'games that wouldn't have been made' or at least 'would've had publisher intereference'. I'm happy that we get a new Torment, a new not-Baldur's Gate, a new Divinity (and that I got them all for Steam Sale prices). I'm even hopeful for the crazy space game and LB's nonsense (though I didn't put a pony in those races).

I think thus far there has been way more good out of this trend than bad.

[Stormwaltz]

I view Kickstarty things as investments, like stock options. Sometimes they pan out, often they don't. I give them money in hopes that they'll end up with a game I like. But I regard that money as burnt until I actually see something in my hands.

But I also view the stock market as "imaginary money" and have completely ignored every stock option I've received in 15 years. I'm weird.

I don't play alphas. I wait until the game's done.