The article says that comment came from a CEO of another game company, not players. Tim Bender, the CEO of the publisher for The Manor Lord, said “Players are happy, the developer is happy, and we as publisher are thrilled beyond belief.” I don’t understand where the post title that says he cited gamer expectations came from.
Basically, yeah. If your game is in a playable state, launching in early access allows devs to get feedback from the community, who help shape the game all the way to the full release. Generally EA games are discounted, with the expectation that it isn’t finished or polished, full of bugs, etc.
In almost all the EA games I play, there’s some kind of “bug report” feature, either somewhere directly on the screen while you’re playing, or in the pause menu or something.
Adding to the other reply to this: You can get natural growth of fans and wishlists, you can get free media attention so your brand/gamename grows in popularity, you can receive enthusiasm from randoms about work you have been keeping to yourself for a while, which can help motivate. I mean I’m super hyped about my own videogame project, but having other people be hyped about it is very rewarding :-). I used to shun early access until they became 1.0, because I got burnt a couple times. But If the dev(s) are transparent and communication is ok, I don’t really care anymore for the same reason as this dev is pointing out: “It’s done when it’s done” is good enough in 95% of the cases for me.
I’m dabbling in game development myself, and that’s part of why I asked the question originally- I’d be terrified to put something out there for the public if I wasn’t already confident it was ready. Early access seems like a double-edged sword. But you list some good points about the benefits of doing so.
By the way, I am interested to hear about your game project if you would like to share some details.
I think the crucial part is natural fanbase growth… As a solo dev, your marketing budget is gonna be so extremely tiny, and releasing with 0 marketing is setting yourself up for disappointment so, it has got to come from somewhere. Maybe EA is not a necessity, but having a steam page is. Confidently typing this while not having a steam page to show for it, but you know what the Dutch say: the best captain is ashore (de beste stuurlui staan aan wal)
AFAIK u get a half release before to get some attention and media/youtubers coverage and people to test your game and make suggestions.
Then you get another release when exiting EA (notifies whishlist and steam gives boosts visibility to released games for a short while and it gets extended if it goes well)
PC/Console games take massive amounts of man hours to make and as I see it the point of Early Access is to give smaller Indie Developers the funds to hire more people and get the entire game made in an achievable time frame (though some of these things still take almost a decade to get there).
It’s a bit like Kickstart, but for Early Access there needs to be enough of a product to appeal to gamers (and hence quite some time invested into creating it up to that point, plus a decent idea and an actual game play which is deep enough and has at least a good enough basis of gameplay design that it’s actually fun to play), which also means scams are far less likely because just getting the game all the way to a level that qualifies it for Early Access is already quite the investment in time and possibly money plus worse comes to worse and the developer stops development immediately after caching in with Early Access, buyers still got themselves immediatelly a small game at a cheap price, though not the “dream” full game they were promised they would eventually get.
Gamers are not asking devs to work until burnout on social media or forums, that’s management and usually in person or department/company policy and procedure.
Edit: more specifically to the article for solo devs they are talking about critics complaining they should have made something bigger which is not a bad problem to have for securing funding for future games if people like your art enough to request more and doesn’t require working burnout hours.
I don’t know if this recaps the situation accurately, to be honest.
Sounds like the publisher is complaining about some article that’s trying to use the game as a reference on why early access can be a bad thing.
I don’t see how the gamers are an issue though. They will expect what you tell them to expect, this is something for the publisher to manage, and I don’t even think this is a problem for Manor Lords.
All of it just seems like news sites trying to come up with their clicks.
If someone complains about buying a finished game and not getting more of it later, they’re idiots and there’s nothing you can do but ignore them.
Publishers that do ultra-early access/roadmaps/live services with promises of content/bug fixes/trust me we’re making the rest of the game later, are clearly to blame for the mess too. They’re the ones poisoning the well.
But plenty of games release in a final state and that’s okay. They have to be firm about it though.
It’s a tough line to walk. You want to create reasonable hype and you have an idea where you want to go, but as you correctly point out, it’s really easy to over promise and under deliver.
It depends on the game. If I buy a game from a smaller publisher I expect it to be a complete work with full story line. Unfortunately… When I buy from a large publisher I expect to be getting a ¾ complete game that will give me expansion packs.
This isn’t the case with Nintendo games though. I feel like and Nintendo game is just done and any extras are… Extra.
I’m not saying anyone should work without pay. I’m saying that with the way publishers release games I expect AAA releases to be unfinished works at this point.
Excellent write up by the publisher and good that they warned Greg of the shit storm ahead.
I bought it, played it. It was already fun. The patches fixed some of the issues that made playing it not fun… so good choices there. I left him some small feedback on the game and some words of encouragement in the hopes that helps.
I hope he can continue his development to deliver his vision for the game. I feel like I got my moneys worth already and I’ll spin it up when the next series of updates are done.
Till that time I just saw Timberborn (another one of these jewels) had a cool update so I’ll go and try that or one of the mysiad of other cool Early Access games that still receive a lot of love.
I felt this way about Back 4 Blood. The game came out, it was genuinely fun and had a good amount of content, and they added DLC that expanded the game while also not ruining things for anyone who hasn’t installed it.
But there was an unending cry from gamers that it was getting “abandoned”. You can still gather 4 players, or fewer with bots, and have a good time. It’s a different appeal from Left 4 Dead with the card system, and that was fine to me.
Agreed. I think it was an OK game but that doesn’t mean that the devs should work to their death to make it totally what I or other people think it should be.
Especially with this game, where the dev and publisher have actively worked to manage expectations before early access. That it’s not at all complete yet. There were so many people super hyped, comparing it to total war and what not. So they made it clear this game is on another scale.
If it had been the other way around, if they had hyped up the game like crazy and made huge promises about the post EA launch content, then yeah, it would be a failure.
And I suppose in practice it also would’ve been a “failure” if they hadn’t managed expectations, due to the hype and the general expectation from post launch content these days… (sigh)
But what we got is exactly what was promised, so what on earth is that Hinterland guy talking about.
Good thing I double-checked to see if someone else made this point yet.
Yeah. Not only that, but the splash screen when you launch the game makes it incredibly clear that it’s one guy called Greg (very humanizing) and he’s working on it, but he’s not some superhero.
The game is released, for a certain amount of money. If people don’t like what they get for their money, they simply should not buy it.
The problem does not lie with gamers. It lies with ‘AAA’ developers who publish unplayable cashgrabs that need years of bugfixing before reaching a playable state, thus leading to expectations of ongoing development. Not that Early Access has helped in that regard.
I don’t care about extra content, it is a welcome addition for games with long-term support like Stardew Valley. If the dev and publisher have a lot of money I do expect long-term bug fixing.
eurogamer.net
Aktywne