The fallacy of full price pre-purchase, alpha and beta access

[Globusdiablo]

The last couple of years have seen a boom among gaming companies to grab the cash before release, and a naivete among gamers to actually pay up front for things that don't exist. This has in turn lead to a surge in mismanaged game development.

The cynic in me tells me that gamers are reaping what they sow. Which is sad, because gamers want good games and I believe that game development companies want to create good games. But when money is involved, good intentions have a tendency of going out the window (insert meme here).

Luckily the chickens seem to have come home to roost, and gaming companies are now beginning to feel the consequences of their actions from the only party that matters; the shareholders/investors.

When stocks go down shareholders react. When shareholders react company management sits up and pays attention. Cyberpunk 2077 and Elite: Odyssey are much the same in this regard. CD Project Red are still trying to weather the shipstorm they have created for themselves: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ds-to-roll-after-6-2-billion-cyberpunk-fiasco

I think Frontier Developments and companies like Frontier Developments would do wisely to reconsider their current business model, and focus on the intergrity of development before the bliss of the green.

But at the end of the day, the only thing keeping these companies in check is the end user. Players and reviewers. Players need to stop paying full price for a product based on promises, and reviewers need early access to development, so consumers have a chance at an informed choice.

Here's hoping for a brighter future.

 

[LifesAJourney]

We, players, broke the gaming industry so badly, it'll take years to fix it, if it's still possible. Paying for early access (countless examples), paying for Alpha access (for example: ED), paying for games that don't really have clear intention to be finished (for example: Star Citizen), pre-ordering games over-hyped to the roof (for example: CP 2007 or No Man's Sky), buying games that consist mainly of bugs (for example: Rust or F76 or Tarkov).

From financial point of view the best strategy is to sell dreams, hype, anticipation and ability to be amongst the very first streamers showing stuff thousands/millions are waiting for. Then, for sure, comes some drama around the launch, but after several dozen patches and fixes everyone is more or less happy.

CP 2077 was neither better nor worse than many other games launched before and after it. CD Projekt just had more bad luck than others, the stock plummeted more and for longer time than expected and shareholders (who don't give a damn about games) got more nervous than expected. Did it teach us anything? Yeah, sure, we've been pre-ordering Alpha EDO like there's no tomorrow.

In my opinion: the games must become even worse, more bugged, more over-hyped and more expensive to make the players lose more money. Only then maybe we'll start thinking reasonably.

 

[B1rdy]

and reviewers need early access to development, so consumers have a chance at an informed choice.

Big gaming mags regularly feature previews. The issue with that is (and has always been) the same as with public early access in general. The final game can differ significantly or not, having the same issues as in the preview version. A preview can be used to determine, if a game is potentially interesting. But the final version is what matters.

I think part of the problem are definately cosumers being ready to shell out money for unfinished products in general. I assume this is mostly to impatience, without realizing all the issues their behaviour can entail. But in case of EDO, you could maybe only blame the players not seeing the writing on the wall given the status of the "alpha" and the history of past releases. Apart from that FDev was being dishonest anyway, not advertising EDO as Early Access. Which it is, bugs and perfomance issues aside, it isn't even feature complete. It is in-line with every other ED release so far.

CP 2007 was neither better nor worse than many other games launched before and after it.

CP2077 was probably being more criticized than other games, it was probably related to their PR. They excessivley praised features (even some weeks before release), that are not implement as advertised or at all ultimately.

 

[Riverside]

I think the way to affect this situation is just to not buy them if you feel that way.

I own a few games that I originally bought during their early access phase, not because I was a desperate fan of the franchise or anticipating a more feature filled release, but because they looked to be already in a state that would be interesting enough for me to play and cheap enough to take a punt on.

With ED I waited until after initial release & was happy with the game in it's launched state. I still play that pretty basic game now with only a couple of exceptions where old gameplay loops have been removed (some with justification).

I think companies will sell their wares for the highest price they think they can, and if sales aren't good enough lowering the price is an alternative to adding features to the product, or a complimentary action if improving the product still isn't enough.

So if people are buying at a higher price and the sales metrics are acceptable, why would they not charge that price?

 

[Globusdiablo]

I think the way to affect this situation is just to not buy them if you feel that way.

I own a few games that I originally bought during their early access phase, not because I was a desperate fan of the franchise or anticipating a more feature filled release, but because they looked to be already in a state that would be interesting enough for me to play and cheap enough to take a punt on.

With ED I waited until after initial release & was happy with the game in it's launched state. I still play that pretty basic game now with only a couple of exceptions where old gameplay loops have been removed (some with justification).

I think companies will sell their wares for the highest price they think they can, and if sales aren't good enough lowering the price is an alternative to adding features to the product, or a complimentary action if improving the product still isn't enough.

So if people are buying at a higher price and the sales metrics are acceptable, why would they not charge that price?

As spoken by a true cynic. I backed Elite: Dangerous (premium beta) as a desperate fan of the franchise, and believe I got what I payed for all things considered, seeing as this was the reboot of a title that I had missed since my youth. And Kickstarters are a whole different kettle of fish, as the premise is quite clear as a venture capital request.

But this business model of selling full priced, or higher (looking at you SC) dream scapes really needs to stop. But as you rightly say, the buck stops at the consumer.

As long as we are willing to pay full price for pipe dreams, then that's exactly what we're going to get.

 

[B1rdy]

I own a few games that I originally bought during their early access phase, not because I was a desperate fan of the franchise or anticipating a more feature filled release, but because they looked to be already in a state that would be interesting enough for me to play and cheap enough to take a punt on.

The issue with that could be that you loose interest in the game before it is even finished and maybe miss out new features. Also, as already said, it does not really incentivize devs to deliver a complete product, but rather to deliver something, that is barely working, as early as possible.

 

[John Stoutbeard]

reaping what they sow

Humanity in general I dare to say. We're conscious enough to see the consequence of our choices.
Sometimes it's a calculated risk, even for software developer companies. Or business in general.
No need to be a cynic to realize it really.

I agree with you, this has all been a business decision at higher levels.
It was less of a problem on the execution of making the new DLC, rather than waiting until they could have made it 'good enough to meet customer expectations'.
But this is the product developer in me speaking.

Was it good enough? What did the customer expect?
FDev was not aligned with either their customers, or they did not have the capacity to deliver on the expectations & promises that was given with the DLC.

There was several indicators that this would happen, but it was very likely a decision to move forward and take a risk.

 

[Riverside]

The issue with that could be that you loose interest in the game before it is even finished and maybe miss out new features. Also, as already said, it does not really incentivize devs to deliver a complete product, but rather to deliver something, that is barely working, as early as possible.

Usually I do, if I as the customer feel it has the features I want there's no problem (provided those features remain in the game). At the stage I buy a game I already consider it complete for the purpose I bought it for

 

[CmdrKull]

Valheim is a great example of an Early Access game that works, and works well. It's useful to the developers to see how people play, to see what people care about, what people don't care about. It was much needed money to a dev studio that (I safely assume) will put that money to great use for the game.

Odyssey is a great example of "paid for alpha access gone wrong"... mind you, I played the alpha and I play the released game and I love Elite and Odyssey... but they barely had time to listen to us in alpha, and certainly had no time to take our feedback to heart.

This is IMO the ONLY reason Alpha access, Beta access, Early access should exist: A chance to have your voice heard in the direction of a game you're going to spend a lot of your future time in. I'm totally ok with paying for that access, but paying for it and then not being heard by design because the timeframes are much too tight is... well it's not good.

 

[B1rdy]

Usually I do, if I as the customer feel it has the features I want there's no problem (provided those features remain in the game). At the stage I buy a game I already consider it complete for the purpose I bought it for

I understand your mindset. Nevertheless your intention remains hidden for the publisher and the bottom line remains for them. They got away with selling an unfinished game.

 

[Riverside]

I understand your mindset. Nevertheless your intention remains hidden for the publisher and the bottom line remains for them. They got away with selling an unfinished game.

They didn't 'get away' with anything, I bought it cheap. If we take an extreme example where a very basic game (a driving game with one car & one track say) is sold as early access for a fiver, with the intention to develop it further, and it sells really well for a fiver that makes future development more likely to happen, not less. If it is sold at a high price perhaps a lot fewer people will buy it at that early stage, hindering future development. That's a positive feedback loop.

If a developer known for their previous titles announces a new thing & is able to capitalise on that by selling pre-orders that's good for the company short term, and of course longer term too if they deliver on their 'promise'. If they don't that's going to dent their reputation and ability to charge a premium for the next pre-order. Which is sort of the situation FDev is in. Not great for customers, not brilliant for the company but maybe still good enough to keep the company going until that tarnished reputation can be repaired.

 

[Sublime]

Don’t forget the introduction of virtual currencies to further confuse and scam consumers.

 

[avow555]

I think with the kickstarter idea kicked of we the gamers have had our perceptions changed of how we purchase/fund games.
For me Elite was the first time I have payed up front for a game to be produced.
Personally I won't be doing it again.

At the end of the day it's up to ourselves to stop putting money up front as I think it's the only way to stop this rot in the games industry.

 

[Lone_star]

If you are a discerning buyer this is really the golden era of PC gaming. When I was a kid I had to buy games at the store on floppy disks and I had no good way to find out if a game was good prior to buying it other than magazine reviews (thankfully Babbages let you return games if you ended up with something bad).

Now, I own more games than I'll ever have time to play and I've paid very little for most of them (I just wishlist games I'm interested in on steam and buy them once they are on a good sale - I often pay 5-10 bucks for a game). There are so many great PC games being released now (esp indie games); it's crazy. Steam reviews (if you know how to use them) and youtube give you a great way to find games you might like and evaluate them before buying. My biggest problem now being older is that I can afford any games I ever want, but I'll never have time to play them all.

I will say that pre-ordering is definitely dumb and people shouldn't do it (although it's their money - and people waste money on stupid things everyday - most of which are WAY worse than video game pre orders). I consider early access different - I don't do it often, but I don't think it's silly and pointless like pre-ordering

 

[Riverside]

If you are a discerning buyer this is really the golden era of PC gaming. When I was a kid I had to buy games at the store on floppy disks and I had no good way to find out if a game was good prior to buying it other than magazine reviews (thankfully Babbages let you return games if you ended up with something bad).

Now, I own more games than I'll ever have time to play and I've paid very little for most of them (I just wishlist games I'm interested in on steam and buy them once they are on a good sale - I often pay 5-10 bucks for a game). There are so many great PC games being released now (esp indie games); it's crazy. Steam reviews (if you know how to use them) and youtube give you a great way to find games you might like and evaluate them before buying. My biggest problem now being older is that I can afford any games I ever want, but I'll never have time to play them all.

I will say that pre-ordering is definitely dumb and people shouldn't do it (although it's their money - and people waste money on stupid things everyday - most of which are WAY worse than video game pre orders)

Thing I liked about boxed games was that you could sell them on afterwards (or if you didn't like them). I do miss playable demos, I used to get a lot of those on magazine disks & CDs.

 

[Hank]

Paying for a game before its finished is a gamble; like many other things in life. Back in 2014/15 I spent a couple of hundred on three games in early access. Two of the three gave me a huge payoff providing thousands of hours of enjoyable play time.

The only game that imho never lived up to its potential was Heavy Gear Assault (a remake of the old Heavy Gear from the original Mechwarrior days). The other two were Armored Warfare and ED. ED had huge competition from SC back then but the thing that made me decide on ED was the progen Milky Way galaxy. I'm glad I picked ED over SC considering the state SC is in today plus the costs.

I never complained about HG Assault on the forums not being completed to my satisfaction. It was a chance I took. fwiw

 

[Iron Golem]

Prison Architect, Rimworld and Deep Rock Galactic were my early access buys. Loved them all and they didn't disappoint.