Thanks for putting this out there. Helping developers figure out when Early Access is, and is not a good idea will hopefully lead to more fun and interactive development teams and communities, and less broken games going for sale before they're ready to be seen and sold.
I still think there must be some kind of limitation to early access, unscrupulous devs could just enter early access and leave the game there eternally without updating it, also they could use it as form of bullet shield against criticism, also there is a big lack of information of times, release and updates
hehe, the mark of the ninja part of the debate is really really really really uncomfortable. Pretty much pressuring Jamie Cheng when Jamie has a better point then the rest of the guys on the panel.
Yea it was pretty jaw dropping to hear that even if Mark of the Ninja was completed should have gone to early access just to give it a higher price tag, unbeliveable. I know its not the full argument but it felt like the rest was just saving himself from a PR shitstorm.
What I am seeing is Jamie making a very good point of why mark of ninja doesn't fit to the early access model, and he does it about a couple of times, but the Planetary Annihilation guy keeps disagreeing by saying the same thing, because even if it now makes sense what Jamie says, he's big ego just can't back off on the idea. When he said that even after the game is done you can put it on early access I was like WTF... thay isn't early access, is just a lame argument to hold your broken point of view.
Thank you for talking about early access. I feel that for a good early access game, much like your games, it needs to grow organically. I feel that growing organically is better for the Devs and the community, because those who are more interested in the game will search for it. You will not get as many impulse buyers who would just complain about a "buggy game" and give the game, community, and Devs a bad reputation.
How many games have been in early access for years? I mean, plenty of years? The early access thing is another anti-consumer politic that devs don't care abusing. And why would they? As the dev in the middle said, they get favorable numbers anyway. 10:41 He have to have some guts to compare a launch of a (theater) complete product with a much better visual/sound experiences than anyone could have at home with a launch of an (early access) unfinished product that people plays on their own pc, to justify the execive price of their, again, unfinished product. And if you want to control how many people would play the beta, why not create a limited beta access, invite the kickstarter donators and if still there is place for more players share out the rest of invitations for those who wouldn't mind to WORK AS A BETA TESTER FOR FREE? Well, that don't give money ofc. While listening everything they say, most of it sounds like bullshit to me.
Dude in the center has dubious views; in him, bear witness to the blossoming of the kind of ideas we now curse, and more usually associate with the big publishers and their unfinished, overpriced works. I'm inclined to heed the advice of the others.
Thanks for putting this out there. Helping developers figure out when Early Access is, and is not a good idea will hopefully lead to more fun and interactive development teams and communities, and less broken games going for sale before they're ready to be seen and sold.
I still think there must be some kind of limitation to early access, unscrupulous devs could just enter early access and leave the game there eternally without updating it, also they could use it as form of bullet shield against criticism, also there is a big lack of information of times, release and updates
I love Jamie's attitude, and Don't Starve is a brilliant game. I wonder how often the personality of key developers comes through in the final game?
Yes! Some video about 'Early Access' from Steam Dev Days. Thanks!
Watching ...
hehe, the mark of the ninja part of the debate is really really really really uncomfortable. Pretty much pressuring Jamie Cheng when Jamie has a better point then the rest of the guys on the panel.
Yea it was pretty jaw dropping to hear that even if Mark of the Ninja was completed should have gone to early access just to give it a higher price tag, unbeliveable. I know its not the full argument but it felt like the rest was just saving himself from a PR shitstorm.
What I am seeing is Jamie making a very good point of why mark of ninja doesn't fit to the early access model, and he does it about a couple of times, but the Planetary Annihilation guy keeps disagreeing by saying the same thing, because even if it now makes sense what Jamie says, he's big ego just can't back off on the idea.
When he said that even after the game is done you can put it on early access I was like WTF... thay isn't early access, is just a lame argument to hold your broken point of view.
Thank you for talking about early access. I feel that for a good early access game, much like your games, it needs to grow organically. I feel that growing organically is better for the Devs and the community, because those who are more interested in the game will search for it. You will not get as many impulse buyers who would just complain about a "buggy game" and give the game, community, and Devs a bad reputation.
early access should only mean a finished game that is playable. any other definition would just be an alpha or beta phase of development.
How many games have been in early access for years? I mean, plenty of years? The early access thing is another anti-consumer politic that devs don't care abusing. And why would they? As the dev in the middle said, they get favorable numbers anyway.
10:41 He have to have some guts to compare a launch of a (theater) complete product with a much better visual/sound experiences than anyone could have at home with a launch of an (early access) unfinished product that people plays on their own pc, to justify the execive price of their, again, unfinished product.
And if you want to control how many people would play the beta, why not create a limited beta access, invite the kickstarter donators and if still there is place for more players share out the rest of invitations for those who wouldn't mind to WORK AS A BETA TESTER FOR FREE? Well, that don't give money ofc.
While listening everything they say, most of it sounds like bullshit to me.
Should have included Wolfire Games in this: that company has done "Early Access" since at least 2009.
Here is a fact, early access is right for nobody. Don't sell an incomplete product to the consumers.
Dude in the center has dubious views; in him, bear witness to the blossoming of the kind of ideas we now curse, and more usually associate with the big publishers and their unfinished, overpriced works.
I'm inclined to heed the advice of the others.