7DTD sort of gets a pass from me since they almost went bankrupt like twice and have kept making the game. I think they've realized they hit their peak sales figures and probably wouldn't benefit from releasing at this point.
"most people are willing to tolerate 12 months" I cannot remember any game leaving early access. At least the interesting ones I pay attention to just seem to stay in them forever. I expect 5 to 10 years.
Baulders Gate 3 and Slay The Spire were in early access for around 3 years. ...and then there's Dwarf Fortress which released last year after being in early access since...the 2010's.... edit: ah, I was wrong DF first released in 2006... anyways, I hope the next game you find interesting that's in early access gets a full release.
20XX which then got a sequel. Also apparently : Backpack Hero Broforce CrossCode Darkest Dungeon Dead Cells Deep Rock Galactic Divinity: Original Sin 1 and 2 and a probably a bunch more. The Void Raining Upon Her Heart is getting there, currently nearing version 0.9 but the developer is only a single person. XD
@@JDReC100 Dwarf Fortress has never been in early access, it's more like they just had a long beta test. Or alternatively, it's still in Early Access, since this is still not a 1.0 version.
a game i love, beat blast, i bought when it was in early access i think it stayed about a year in early access before release, and the difference was a bit more polish ig i didnt mind it, there are def games that can pull it off, but not for everyone
I released Obsidian Prince into early access in 2021. Similar genre! Exact same issues. I believe my game would've been more successful had i not gone the Early Access route, as I would've had more time to polish the experience, and bring in the features required. You also risk the chance of angering people when you change features around in order to make the game work better as a whole, kind of making cursed game design problems even worse. I will not do an EA release again. I ended up spending so much time just making releases now and then, and it ended up with me being forced to release the game without some features i wanted, and in a less polished state, as I just couldn't justify the development time anymore. I have a family to feed, so... but at least we finished the early access and went live with it, and the reviews are good despite lacking a lot of qol. For our next game we're instead just making an extremely polished demo early on, and using the wishlists generated to get a publisher to buy us enough time to finish the game. Hopefully that will steamroll the steam algorithm better on release. The feedback has been way better and the captured scope of the demo allows us to control parts of the game in a better way. (hope you dont mind me mentioning the games name here in the comments, feel free to remove my comment!)
No sweat mentioning your game, I’m familiar with The Obsidian Prince :) it’s comforting to know it’s not just us who faced these challenges. I think your new approach is bang on, I would much rather use demos and the private playtest feature steam now offers.
A gamer will pay you half what they pay their hair stylist / barber for a cut and then get confused why the game isn't completed, polished, and fully optimized after not reading the giant blue warning box above the "add to cart" button, in addition to thinking they are your owner for the next year. At least, this is what I gather from going through steam reviews and discussions.
Thank you for sharing your experience! I find it super interesting, especially your take on marketing VS emotional bandwidth, it's not something most people take into consideration when making games and exposing it to the masses. It sounds like you would have had a much nicer experience doing closed/private alpha tests of the game instead of an Early Access. Also putting out a demo of a somewhat polished section of the game would be great to build wishlists. Like you said, it's so easy to look at early access and think : "Quick way to get feedback and some money", without acknowledging all the extra work, expectations and emotional stress that comes with it. Good luck with your project!
This is an amzing video. Everything is spot on what happened to me. I have my own game on steam in early access for over a year now. Financially, it is very successful. However, all of that comes at a cost of emotional frustration, the negative reviews from impatient and ignorant people really do make you doubt your project and sometimes you start steering away from your vision just to try and please them.
Early Access eventually put me in a position where I’m making an “evil decision” no matter which I make. I have an early access game that has been shelved for now in favor of a new game, as the effort of continuing the project is just not worth it for the time being. If I leave the game in early access (which is what I have decided for now), I become the next in a long line of games that stay in EA for too long. However, if I remove early access, I break the promises I made and effectively claim the game is “finished” without it actually being complete. Needless to say, I will never use Early Access again for any other game I ever put out
thanks it was a useful and genuine look at the topic. i'm curious of your thought on patreon early-access, i'd guess people there might be more invested in helping you. what are your experiences with it, differences you noticed between steam, itch and patreon?
Exactly. The IT infrastructure library describes "value co-creation" and the "service value chain", and it translates so well to game development. A user wont buy a game because a dev worked hard, they buy it if it brings them value.
If it's fully playable then yes, because if not, people will judge it very poorly and spam with negative reviews. People don't know what EA is or Alpha/Beta state of a game... They assume it's working properly even though you stated it's in Early Access, they don't care.
I think steam should stop accepting applicants to the early access program for 3-5 years. The amount of developers/companies that have taken advantage of being "early access" has demolished the meaning of the phrase and has cultivated an unhealthy expectation of what "early access" really means. A great example of this is fortnite, which was generating multiple billions of dollars in mirco transactions while still having an "early access" tag on it. Obviously not every instance of misuse is as large as fortnite, but there are countless other games that use the term "early access" as a criticism shield.
As soon as I heard you need constant communication with your community in early access I knew it wouldn't be for me. I barely have enough time to finish the game as it stands.
Early access isn't necessarily a 'scam'. It's more how too many developers completely overpromise their game concepts (or overpromise the influence a supporter has on development), without having build that game yet. In most cases all early access games can only disappoint. It's not about it being work in progress or broken games at all. And there's a real problem with _why_ devs choose to go the early access route. Usually it is not about trying to find funding for a game that otherwise wouldn't have been made. More often it is about cashing in on the idea of a great game, before it was ever made. That's the real problem. @1:40 Actually no. There are like full text blocks warning people the game is not finished and won't ever be finished or might stay as it is now. Warnings are there. Not saying early access is a good business model, but we should have a bit more trust in people their reading skills. Problem is how most early access games really are made by beginner devs with little experience to their name. Overpromising then and not hitting the mark, means people will get frustrated. @4:40 No, no such thing as a 'double' boost. If the first appearance on Steam doesn't generate views and sales, it'll be hard to get any kind of boost at launch. The only thing is that often there are years in between these two events. It's often more like a 'big update' in terms of visibility on Steam. I'm pretty sure most early access games now have pretty terrible launch day sales, with only a handful of exceptions.
> Usually it is not about trying to find funding for a game that otherwise wouldn't have been made. More often it is about cashing in on the idea of a great game, before it was ever made. That's the real problem. This is a great point. Though it can be very difficult to tell the two apart in some cases. > There are like full text blocks warning people the game is not finished and won't ever be finished or might stay as it is now... I hear you, I'm just trying to say that some players will inevitably miss the warnings and to be prepared to communicate with them etc. > I'm pretty sure most early access games now have pretty terrible launch day sales. I'd be curious to see any data you have on this. I suspect you're right, but I'd love to see numbers.
Good video. I've been working on an early access game for about 2 years now, and getting close to release. For me the anxiety lies in not having any idea what the performance will be when it releases. BTW, you sound South African, like me, are you?
Peglin is one of example how every update simply nerfing too much, scaling too much to the point winning it is just less than 10% Too much RNG Game is still a demo... The game could have been better. Its just a shame its only ruining itself
Players are not here to test or develop your game for you. You didn't look for volunteering testers, you tried to sell your unfinished product. You also take same price as Undertale for example for it. Now, time aside as it's up to you how long you want to develop or how much time you spend on your game. Frankly speaking, saying stuff like "I have other hobbies outside gamedev" is like saying "I don't put as much effort as I could, I prioritize other stuff too". Sure, you can do this but again, you direct it to people who are waiting for 3 years or so for your game, who also dedicated their free time to test it, pay for it, write feedback. It's kinda lack of respect or understanding how other people perceive their own time or how much they care about game you are making. It's not like you can't do it, just speaking about it while defending long development time is not a wise move. Lastly, criticism. You can't show off your product/art and expect to only receive praises. People have same right to negative critique as they do to say how great and creative your idea is. If you put yourself out, you can't pick what opinions you will receive. You are volunteering to put yourself in vulnerable position, it's on you to be thick skinned, learn how to ignore noise (hateful opinions without any useful info/feedback with it) and improve/learn from meaningful comments. Again, understand that people CARE enough to leave a feedback. Good or bad. They care. They use their free time to share their opinions, experiences with you. You are receiving their time basically, earning it. It's always a good thing, even if perception might trick you into thinking that negativity is bad. I learned mostly from mistakes and difficulties. Even reading negative comments on Steam gave me insane amount of understanding how players think, what they hate the most, what's most important. Learn to listen and improve with their help.
Here's some advice in return: try to avoid assuming you know what you're talking about when you have almost no context. Your comment reads with a lack of respect for us as developers. If you would like to understand our perspective more deeply, try asking a question.
@@twopmstudios Dude, I am software developer myself. Before that I modded, moderated, hosted and managed group of Counter Strike servers, some Open Tibia Servers and one forum game. I finished like 4 game projects and one graphic editor in university. Very amateur but they did work. I received feedback from professors and friends but also was the most critical to myself which let me grow and improve. Now I am working on another project, this time having 7 years professional experience as software engineer. I mean, who lacks context? There is no way I could misunderstand that as I clearly heard your message. I shared constructive feedback with you, you take it as offense rather to learn something useful from it. If that's your approach, that's last time I contribute. Good luck building community and creating with this attitude. Good luck with your project.
@@anonimowelwiatko9811 When I say you're lacking context, I didn't intend any insult. I'm sorry if it came over that way. It appears that you lack context because you assume we don't know the value of feedback, something I discuss directly in the video. Thankyou for your constructive feedback.
@tudios I see, I have misunderstood it then. Yeah, I registered your complain about negativity or expectations from community as lack of appreciation. Sorry if I was too harsh with my response. I respect everyone giving anything out to public and any creative or manual work. You are welcome. Good luck with your game. I am big fan of turn based strategy games and RPGs and wish you well.
12mo is the most users are willing to accept, 7 Days to Die CELEBRATING 10 years in Early Access
Caves of Qud is similar! I’m not saying it’s impossible to make it work… but it is tricky
@@twopmstudios In fairness Caves of Qud and Dworf Fortress aren't EA like 7 Days to Die and Rust. They're getting deeper and better, 7 Days isn't
@@twopmstudiosyes, it is super tricky. You are totally right in the video about everything.
7DTD sort of gets a pass from me since they almost went bankrupt like twice and have kept making the game. I think they've realized they hit their peak sales figures and probably wouldn't benefit from releasing at this point.
Really depends, because if I remember correctly Baldurs Gate 3 was in early access for almost 3 years
"most people are willing to tolerate 12 months"
I cannot remember any game leaving early access. At least the interesting ones I pay attention to just seem to stay in them forever. I expect 5 to 10 years.
Baulders Gate 3 and Slay The Spire were in early access for around 3 years.
...and then there's Dwarf Fortress which released last year after being in early access since...the 2010's....
edit: ah, I was wrong
DF first released in 2006...
anyways, I hope the next game you find interesting that's in early access gets a full release.
20XX which then got a sequel.
Also apparently :
Backpack Hero
Broforce
CrossCode
Darkest Dungeon
Dead Cells
Deep Rock Galactic
Divinity: Original Sin 1 and 2
and a probably a bunch more.
The Void Raining Upon Her Heart is getting there, currently nearing version 0.9 but the developer is only a single person. XD
@@JDReC100 Dwarf Fortress has never been in early access, it's more like they just had a long beta test.
Or alternatively, it's still in Early Access, since this is still not a 1.0 version.
a game i love, beat blast, i bought when it was in early access
i think it stayed about a year in early access before release, and the difference was a bit more polish ig
i didnt mind it, there are def games that can pull it off, but not for everyone
I released Obsidian Prince into early access in 2021. Similar genre! Exact same issues. I believe my game would've been more successful had i not gone the Early Access route, as I would've had more time to polish the experience, and bring in the features required. You also risk the chance of angering people when you change features around in order to make the game work better as a whole, kind of making cursed game design problems even worse.
I will not do an EA release again. I ended up spending so much time just making releases now and then, and it ended up with me being forced to release the game without some features i wanted, and in a less polished state, as I just couldn't justify the development time anymore. I have a family to feed, so... but at least we finished the early access and went live with it, and the reviews are good despite lacking a lot of qol.
For our next game we're instead just making an extremely polished demo early on, and using the wishlists generated to get a publisher to buy us enough time to finish the game. Hopefully that will steamroll the steam algorithm better on release. The feedback has been way better and the captured scope of the demo allows us to control parts of the game in a better way.
(hope you dont mind me mentioning the games name here in the comments, feel free to remove my comment!)
No sweat mentioning your game, I’m familiar with The Obsidian Prince :) it’s comforting to know it’s not just us who faced these challenges.
I think your new approach is bang on, I would much rather use demos and the private playtest feature steam now offers.
I really appreciate your honesty in this video and your focus on the emotional charge that game development takes.
A gamer will pay you half what they pay their hair stylist / barber for a cut and then get confused why the game isn't completed, polished, and fully optimized after not reading the giant blue warning box above the "add to cart" button, in addition to thinking they are your owner for the next year. At least, this is what I gather from going through steam reviews and discussions.
Liked hearing this. I’m not a programmer, but i’ve always had an interest in making a basic game (if there is such a thing…).
Good luck, man.
Thanks, making games is definitely challenging but it’s incredibly rewarding. Hope you get a chance to dabble with it one day!
Thanks for the tips my friend!
The game, "Rust" is a good example of a good early access game.
I paid 20 bucks and I made a good investment
amazing insights, thanks for your honesty and conceptual clarity
Thank you for sharing your experience! I find it super interesting, especially your take on marketing VS emotional bandwidth, it's not something most people take into consideration when making games and exposing it to the masses.
It sounds like you would have had a much nicer experience doing closed/private alpha tests of the game instead of an Early Access. Also putting out a demo of a somewhat polished section of the game would be great to build wishlists.
Like you said, it's so easy to look at early access and think : "Quick way to get feedback and some money", without acknowledging all the extra work, expectations and emotional stress that comes with it. Good luck with your project!
Tell me about it! I've been working on Computer Tycoon since 2017... :)) Nice vid, good luck for your project!
Thanks, you too!
Relatable. Hope your release goes well!
Great stuff, rooting for you guys!
This is an amzing video. Everything is spot on what happened to me.
I have my own game on steam in early access for over a year now. Financially, it is very successful. However, all of that comes at a cost of emotional frustration, the negative reviews from impatient and ignorant people really do make you doubt your project and sometimes you start steering away from your vision just to try and please them.
Early Access eventually put me in a position where I’m making an “evil decision” no matter which I make. I have an early access game that has been shelved for now in favor of a new game, as the effort of continuing the project is just not worth it for the time being.
If I leave the game in early access (which is what I have decided for now), I become the next in a long line of games that stay in EA for too long.
However, if I remove early access, I break the promises I made and effectively claim the game is “finished” without it actually being complete.
Needless to say, I will never use Early Access again for any other game I ever put out
thanks it was a useful and genuine look at the topic. i'm curious of your thought on patreon early-access, i'd guess people there might be more invested in helping you. what are your experiences with it, differences you noticed between steam, itch and patreon?
I think patreon EA / private playtests are a great option, we’re eager to try other options going forward
The exchange of money for a game is a value proposition.both sides expect to get something of value from the exchange.
Exactly. The IT infrastructure library describes "value co-creation" and the "service value chain", and it translates so well to game development. A user wont buy a game because a dev worked hard, they buy it if it brings them value.
If it's fully playable then yes, because if not, people will judge it very poorly and spam with negative reviews. People don't know what EA is or Alpha/Beta state of a game... They assume it's working properly even though you stated it's in Early Access, they don't care.
I think steam should stop accepting applicants to the early access program for 3-5 years. The amount of developers/companies that have taken advantage of being "early access" has demolished the meaning of the phrase and has cultivated an unhealthy expectation of what "early access" really means.
A great example of this is fortnite, which was generating multiple billions of dollars in mirco transactions while still having an "early access" tag on it. Obviously not every instance of misuse is as large as fortnite, but there are countless other games that use the term "early access" as a criticism shield.
As soon as I heard you need constant communication with your community in early access I knew it wouldn't be for me. I barely have enough time to finish the game as it stands.
this is great, i was asking myself to use early access for my game...
Will you talk about working with a publisher?(2Lthumbs in your case)
Maybe once the game is out of early access :)
Early access isn't necessarily a 'scam'. It's more how too many developers completely overpromise their game concepts (or overpromise the influence a supporter has on development), without having build that game yet. In most cases all early access games can only disappoint. It's not about it being work in progress or broken games at all.
And there's a real problem with _why_ devs choose to go the early access route. Usually it is not about trying to find funding for a game that otherwise wouldn't have been made. More often it is about cashing in on the idea of a great game, before it was ever made. That's the real problem.
@1:40 Actually no. There are like full text blocks warning people the game is not finished and won't ever be finished or might stay as it is now. Warnings are there. Not saying early access is a good business model, but we should have a bit more trust in people their reading skills. Problem is how most early access games really are made by beginner devs with little experience to their name. Overpromising then and not hitting the mark, means people will get frustrated.
@4:40 No, no such thing as a 'double' boost. If the first appearance on Steam doesn't generate views and sales, it'll be hard to get any kind of boost at launch. The only thing is that often there are years in between these two events. It's often more like a 'big update' in terms of visibility on Steam. I'm pretty sure most early access games now have pretty terrible launch day sales, with only a handful of exceptions.
> Usually it is not about trying to find funding for a game that otherwise wouldn't have been made. More often it is about cashing in on the idea of a great game, before it was ever made. That's the real problem.
This is a great point. Though it can be very difficult to tell the two apart in some cases.
> There are like full text blocks warning people the game is not finished and won't ever be finished or might stay as it is now...
I hear you, I'm just trying to say that some players will inevitably miss the warnings and to be prepared to communicate with them etc.
> I'm pretty sure most early access games now have pretty terrible launch day sales.
I'd be curious to see any data you have on this. I suspect you're right, but I'd love to see numbers.
Good video. I've been working on an early access game for about 2 years now, and getting close to release. For me the anxiety lies in not having any idea what the performance will be when it releases.
BTW, you sound South African, like me, are you?
Close, I’m Australian!
@@twopmstudios Sounds oddly similar.
Peglin is one of example how every update simply nerfing too much, scaling too much to the point winning it is just less than 10%
Too much RNG
Game is still a demo...
The game could have been better. Its just a shame its only ruining itself
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Players are not here to test or develop your game for you. You didn't look for volunteering testers, you tried to sell your unfinished product. You also take same price as Undertale for example for it.
Now, time aside as it's up to you how long you want to develop or how much time you spend on your game. Frankly speaking, saying stuff like "I have other hobbies outside gamedev" is like saying "I don't put as much effort as I could, I prioritize other stuff too". Sure, you can do this but again, you direct it to people who are waiting for 3 years or so for your game, who also dedicated their free time to test it, pay for it, write feedback. It's kinda lack of respect or understanding how other people perceive their own time or how much they care about game you are making. It's not like you can't do it, just speaking about it while defending long development time is not a wise move.
Lastly, criticism. You can't show off your product/art and expect to only receive praises. People have same right to negative critique as they do to say how great and creative your idea is. If you put yourself out, you can't pick what opinions you will receive. You are volunteering to put yourself in vulnerable position, it's on you to be thick skinned, learn how to ignore noise (hateful opinions without any useful info/feedback with it) and improve/learn from meaningful comments. Again, understand that people CARE enough to leave a feedback. Good or bad. They care. They use their free time to share their opinions, experiences with you. You are receiving their time basically, earning it. It's always a good thing, even if perception might trick you into thinking that negativity is bad. I learned mostly from mistakes and difficulties. Even reading negative comments on Steam gave me insane amount of understanding how players think, what they hate the most, what's most important. Learn to listen and improve with their help.
Here's some advice in return: try to avoid assuming you know what you're talking about when you have almost no context.
Your comment reads with a lack of respect for us as developers. If you would like to understand our perspective more deeply, try asking a question.
@@twopmstudios Dude, I am software developer myself. Before that I modded, moderated, hosted and managed group of Counter Strike servers, some Open Tibia Servers and one forum game. I finished like 4 game projects and one graphic editor in university. Very amateur but they did work. I received feedback from professors and friends but also was the most critical to myself which let me grow and improve.
Now I am working on another project, this time having 7 years professional experience as software engineer. I mean, who lacks context?
There is no way I could misunderstand that as I clearly heard your message.
I shared constructive feedback with you, you take it as offense rather to learn something useful from it. If that's your approach, that's last time I contribute. Good luck building community and creating with this attitude. Good luck with your project.
@@anonimowelwiatko9811 When I say you're lacking context, I didn't intend any insult. I'm sorry if it came over that way. It appears that you lack context because you assume we don't know the value of feedback, something I discuss directly in the video.
Thankyou for your constructive feedback.
@tudios I see, I have misunderstood it then. Yeah, I registered your complain about negativity or expectations from community as lack of appreciation. Sorry if I was too harsh with my response. I respect everyone giving anything out to public and any creative or manual work.
You are welcome. Good luck with your game. I am big fan of turn based strategy games and RPGs and wish you well.