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)
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.
It’s not the first time where a click game got viral. But it’s probably the first time having this much success. What can I say, if people find it enjoyable, go for it. But what I don’t understand is, how people cheat with even such a click game, by using bots. It’s so funny.
edit:
Despite this seemingly benign gameplay
Calling this a game or gameplay is funny in itself. People are “playing” the dumbest things if they get bored.
Good, they’ve been on a tear of classic remakes here lately, and I hope the new engine System Shock was built from can be used to remake System Shock 2.
Well, I’m about to start Alan Wake 2, then I’ll start Death Stranding, and then Baldur’s Gate. Plus I could probably go through Spider-Man and Cyberpunk again. So personally I should be eating well for a while.
I remember the hint books for Sierra’s games (e.g. King’s Quest). Each hint would be a question or sentence with multiple boxes underneath. The boxes were blank and you used a special highlighter pen to reveal the content of the box, with each subsequent box being more and more specific. It was an interesting way to get hints.
eurogamer.net
Ważne