I’ve seen a lot of talk about early access and the pros and cons of it. I wanted to share some experiences on this.
The very first commercial retail PC game that allowed people to pre-order the game and get access to the beta was called Galactic Civilizations for OS/2 and the year was 1993.
Every single Stardock game has had early access for over 20 years so this is a good opportunity to share some experiences about it.
#1 You can’t fund your game this way
I’ve seen many gamers (and even some game developers) believe that they can fund their game through early access. It doesn’t work that way. Most people (95%) won’t buy a game in beta. The sales/revenue graph of a game is a straight line that turns into a cliff when a game is released. So if you think you can pay for development this way, forget it.
There are notable exceptions (Star Citizen) but the reason they get a lot of attention is because they are so unusual.
#2 Early Access is good for compatibility testing
I’ve seen people online talk about “paying to beta test” which is, well, a crazy thing to say. That said, Early Access is wonderful for compatibility testing. For example, mixing video drivers, sound drivers, network drivers, and the OS is largely impossible to do well for smaller studios and publishers.
The setup has gotten insanier (that’s now officially a word) even in the past few years. Right now, as you read this, right click on your sound system tray options, select play back devices. How many of you get a noticeable delay in getting that dialog up? The answer is about 10% of you. This is caused by AMD high definition audio devices being added which can cause some games to get a lot of stuttering in their sound. It can be worked around but without early access, it would be really hard to solve this (you can fix this on your end by disabling those devices).
It’s even worse on Windows 8 btw where people who don’t have Windows 8.1 UPDATE (not to be confused with Windows 8.1 normal) because there’s a bug in the OS that causes the sound driver to not get enough CPU which affects games using DirectX 11. And these are sound issues. Video, well, that’s a whole different world.
The point being compatibility is a good use of early access.
#3 Early Access is good for fan feedback
One of the best elements of Early Access is that you get people who are committed to the concept of your game. We took some blow back from people because Galactic Civilizations III: Founder’s Edition was $100. It includes everything we will ever make for GalCiv III (all DLC and expansions). The idea behind it was to find a way to not have casual players in the alpha program. The feedback from these players has been amazing.
This is why #1 is so key: Not only will you not get very many sales (relative to the final game) of your EA game but you don’t want too many. If you get too many EA players, the feedback gets way too muddled. You want people who are already sold on the concept and not people who will try to push you to make a different game (like MOO fans who always seem to wish GalCiv would become a MOO style game, I love MOO but GalCiv isn’t MOO).
#4 PR is a limiting factor on Early Access
As some of you know, Stardock sold Impulse to Gamestop some years ago. With that capital, we created an investment fund which has been used to help start-ups and get some amazing games off the ground. Over the next 36 months or so, we’ll be releasing around 7 new games. You know about Galactic Civilizations III. That’s one.
I would love to announce these games over the next year and get Early Access going for them because most them are brand new IP. The limiting factor for us is PR. That is, how many games do we want in Early Access at once? We don’t know that answer but we do know there’s a threshold before you create what marketing calls a “negative narrative” that becomes very hard to get away from once it has been created.
Galactic Civilizations III was an easy one because people already know what it is. Right now, we have 3 other games that we play daily internally that aren’t even announced (one of which we play at lunch every day competitively multiplayer via the Internet between the teams).
The point being, many people don’t like the concept of Early Access and it does put the brakes on how many Early Access games are available at a given moment and keeps the bigger studios from doing it.
#5 Fan interaction is a major motivator
Most people I know who make games do so because they enjoy making things to share with other people. No one becomes a game developer for the money. If it weren’t for fan interaction, I wouldn’t be making games at all. It’s my primary motivation. I’m a creature of the Internet. I’m notorious for lurking and participating on forums outside our own because talking about our games or other games is very enjoyable.
Early Access is particularly fun because you can actually make meaningful changes to the game based on intelligent feedback. Nothing sucks worse for a game developer than to get a great idea from a fan only to not be able to use it because it’s “too late”.
Need to post this on the Steam(ing pile of whiners) even if most of them won't read or appreciate what it says.
I read through this from a non-fanboy perspective, and these are some thoughts that went through my mind. Might want to re-word/clarify a few things before releasing it to Steam and elsewhere.
So, only people who are willing/able to pay $100 for a game are the only ones committed to the game's concept?
Casual gamers are not worthy?
Why is it crazy to say people are paying for the priviledge of beta testing?
No it doesn't mean that. It means that anyone who does pay $100 for early access is likely to be committed. It's a way to screen to get as many of those people as possible involved early on. That doesn't mean it's exclusionary and only those who pay $100 are committed.
You don't want casual players in the alpha presumably because they're casual. It has nothing to do with their worth. A casual player isn't going to spend hours in the ship creator. They're not going to spend hours understanding the minutia of how the systems work and looking for ways to break them. They're not going to spend further hours discussing and debating those systems on the forums. That's the definition of casual.
And if your goal with alpha is to get ample high quality consistent feedback from a tiny portion of the player base, you don't want to include casuals in that group because by their very nature they're not the type of player to give you that amount of time.
The use of price as a limiter is always controversial. There will always be those that love the game but can't pony up $100.
Right. Like I said, I tried to read this from a non-fanboy perspective, not from the perspective of someone who will scramble to the defense of SD and Brad at the slightest knee-jerk induced perceived offense.
Double post
Folks who are willing to pay $100 for a game, or a series of games are pretty damn hardcore.
To me, it's no different than the folks who pay $70-$100 for Japanese fighting games just to play them out, especially obscure ones when they can wait a few months and get it for $40 later. With GCIII, you get the early access and influence on development.
That said, I haven't tried to influence GCIII much and I've tried to avoid playing the alpha too much- because I'm afraid of burnout before the good stuff gets put in, and because I know how I play is pretty casual compared to many folks on here. (I'm not into min-maxing/twinking that much)
That said, the $100 is a good deal for me because I knew I'd day 1 this+ 90% chance of day 1'ing expansions because this game was going to be good in what I want. (plus I had minor job worries at the time, so I could afford it now, but maybe not later)
I would say they are worthy, but a casual gamer is not usually going to give feedback on any game. But the $100 does not preclude the casual gamers, but in general if you identify yourself with a casual gamer, then you are likely not going to talk / discuss the game unless asked. You will not feel strongly about whether the game is the best thing since the invention of the USB, or say that you should kill the game with FIRE. These gamers tend to buy a game and play the game for 10 hours over a 1 - 3 months (that's if they enjoyed the game). (I consider myself a casual gamer on some games (FPS comes to mind, like Left 4 Dead), and serious gamer when it comes to puzzle / strategy games. Never would I consider myself a hardcore gamer... I still bath / sleep before I finish Mass Effect (again stereo-types, no offense intended by my ill considered jokes))
To your second point... beta testing does not equate to playing the game and saying you don't like something or do like something. At no point am I pressing the symmetry button on the ship designer so quickly that I crashed the game and then required to submit a report saying I pressed the symmetry switch soooo many times that the game decided to lag and then crash (FYI Stardock that happened to me... although i didn't send the crash report... See, failed my beta test if I was actually beta testing...). I was just having fun watching the thing come on and off the screen then watched the game explode... made me chuckle. Plus, it was perfect timing to watch the stream.
It comes down to what do you define as beta testing?
So are you being purposefully insulting or is it accidental?
It has nothing to do with being a fanboy. It's basic marketing. They're using price to capture the hardcore fans (who can afford it) who are going to contribute what SD wants from fans in EA. You're not going to pay premium price for a game you are casually interested in.
Do you have an alternate method of capturing those hardcore fans while also keeping the overall alpha player base small?
Total strawman.
There are people who can't afford to pay $100 who are hard core. But anyone paying $100 is probably hard core.
I spent all day playing this game MP:
I don't want people who are going to sweat graphics on a game that won't be out for 2 years playing this. Most addictive game I've played since I was in college (final game won't even remotely resemble this so this isn't even giving anything away).
And this game is so addictive we've had to issue a "work hours" ban on playing it.
I felt exactly as Borg did when I read that about beta testing. I beta tested Galciv2. Stardock called it beta, we bought it while it was beta, we played it while it was beta, we posted our feedback on galciv2.com while it was beta. Whatever you call it now, Stardock freely admitted it was paying to beta test at the time. This is nothing new. What is new, though, is moving it even further back in schedule to where you're trying to crowd-source your game architecture, too. Hey, I'm all for it. You don't know if you don't try.
Yea and I know plenty of people who drop $100 on stuff they forget about the next day without batting an eyelash.
But my point was to make you aware of how people outside the bubble of SD regulars may perceive what you wrote.
I didn't see
6-Dedicated Fans secretly get access to private forums
Is this something you don't want to talk about?
eg: Most of these guys are modders or community leaders that have valuable insights and probably have exchanged private e-mails with the developer.
I honestly don't get the complaints about the $100 thing. I know that when I buy a GalCiv game, I'm going to spend quite a bit more money to get the expansions later. With this, I'm just paying for those expansions up front. It's almost like they don't realize how much extra paid content will be included.
I never complained about the $100, I just didn't do it. But such is life: you put something on the store shelf, some people buy it, some don't.
The thing is price is the ONLY warning people will notice
You can throw gigantic banners on a store page. They won't read them
You can put a gigantic warning in ALL CAPS on teh store page. They won't notice it.
You can put a giant warning when the game loads. They won't look at it.
You can put a blinking neon orange message box before you play a game. They won't read it.
But put a $50 price tag and people will notice. They will read. They will make an INFORMED decision based on that.
The reality is that price is the only RELIABLE indicator of genuine interest in the game. Again this DOES NOT MEAN that because you can't pay, you're not a fan.
On the flip side, a low cost product makes people careless. During last year's Fall sale the Steam forums were inundated with this kind of complaint
I just bought Infestation:Survivor Stories because it was on sale for 3.75. WTF STEAM THIS IS WARZ YOU RIPPED ME OFF I HOPE YOU DIE!!!!!
STeam was FLOODED with this kind of thread because people bought the game 'because it was cheap' without even looking at the damn store page. Some people ALREADY OWNED WARZ and bought it AGAIN under the new name. It was absolutely astounding. When they refer to 'causals' this is the kind of problem that arises if you make the Alpha 'too cheap'
What is this? Is this the Mars game that you and Soren are making? Are the seven games you say are coming out all Stardock, or does that include Mohawk and Conifer games too?
I think you should have included what I put in. I'm not a fan boy, within the bubble, enthusiast, etc. you supply the appropriate adjective here. I do own many of their products, all GalCiv post O/S2, Object Dock, Plus, Fences, you get the idea. Do I complement Brad and some of his team members? Sure, when I see what I view as worthy of praise. I'm also one of those odd people who feel it's important to give praise, credit, acknowledgement, etc. you fill in the word here, when it's due instead of just the negative, which is all too common in our society. I know, that's subjective. I also give negative criticism, feedback, rant at (have to admit I have had some of those frustrating times where I just let loose and vent on some forum), you fill in the word here, when I see it is deserved (yes, this is also very subjective as illustrated in this thread). We choose to view it differently. Having had the years of experience with Brad and this company (only buying their products and seeing his posts on different forums- he doesn't know me from Jack! ) I feel he's pretty straight forward and tries to do right by his customers. I like the products and feel I get my value for my money. Having played most of the GalCiv games I'm not worried about whether I'll like this version or not. I know will, how much so is to be discovered. I'm similar to what Parrotmath posted in that I haven't committed much to this process, don't have much free time to do much with it (most of my stated Steam time is due to me being AFK while playing), and have only briefly shared my opinion about things on this forum. I don't consider myself a tester at all, and I do know what that's like as I was/am a beta tester for Rise of Flight, a WWI flight sim.
I'm not so much. I've had my moments since I've first started to game in the early 80s on my Apple II+ in Taipei (computers were cheap and I was curious about them) flying Red Baron off a 5 1/4" floppy with DOS as an OS... Late nights with the lights out and my eyes melting from staring at that screen for so long... I've had years where I gamed more hours most days than not, to the point where I was a little self conscious about it... but I still don't consider myself hardcore and haven't gamed daily for more days than not in many years or for as long in one sitting like I had at times years back. But I just bought into this early release program because, like another stated above, it's a good deal. I'll get all that's done for this version in terms of DLC and expansions. I know I'm going to like it and buy it regardless and I can afford to... why wouldn't I? I'm sure some will still perceive me as being within that bubble you're talking about but I don't see the casual gamers remark of them not being worthy at all. Most, as others have already said, won't because it's not worth it to them. Some will who have the cash to burn and are curious and like the genre but I feel that's the minority. Does the difference in our perceptions stem from the differences we may see behind the Brad's motive in doing this?
Just realized 2 yrs= couldn't be AtG, Curious to see what this is in a couple years though.
Let's agree then that the set of people who'd pay 100$ also includes:
- People who are very lax
- People who are very provident and mindful (paying 100$ to get a discount on products far into the future)
Sounds like win/win to me
Why must you tease us Feel free to PM me a build if you need connection testing over here in the UK *nervous laughter*. heh
On topic...this is something I asked when the Gal Civ III early access was released on steam and I feel I need to ask again. Why not only sell early access / alpha games on the Stardock website providing users with steam keys to download it?
You would surely get all the benefit that way (genuine feedback from interested users that post here) and none of the negative PR which comes with launching exactly the same thing on steam in front of a mass audience. You could then launch a beta version on steam later on at a more 'normal' price. I have always thought a lot of the negativity could have been avoided if Gal Civ III had only started selling on steam when it hit beta.
I think all of you over-rate the impact or meaningfulness of the worst of the posters on the Steam forums. The only ones who listen to them are those as stupid as they are. They certainly do not rate any serious consideration here on the Stardock forums. Why do you bring the opinions of fools here to bother fairly intelligent and benign folk? What good does it do anyone?
I'd love access to a game with that kind of hype...
Why not just stay with the Founder's thing? It works. Just keep it through Stardock's website.
and give me access to that game. Now.
Here's what I find somewhat frustrating about the pepole who don't like Early Access
1) You are totally and absolutely ok to not want to be part of Early Access. Thats totally reasonable. Wait till release. Wait until its cheaper. Wait until reviews. That's a 100% legitimate thing to do if you want.
2) But don't then jump on to EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION HUB and preach on your soapbox that Early Access is evil and that devs who do it should be thrown into the sun. I mean I don't FORCE YOU to buy the game in Early Access as a fan. Why do you insist on coming and then pissing over people who bought the game?
3) Stop treating and assuming devs are slimeballs. You see it all the time. They rant and use weasel words like 'rip off', 'cash grab', 'dishonest', etc. Like anyone in the industry will tell you, they do it because they love this stuff. Because you coudl be making money, better stable money, elsewhere. This part really makes me angry since I know many devs are dedicated people. yes they're human. yes they make mistakes. Yes there are bugs. But they're honest hard working people. They're not 'lazy devs'. I've never met such a developer. I respect that making a game is raelly really hard. I'll critique it, but I respect the work that went into it, and I respect the people who made it. I wish more people showed at least that modicum of respect to devs.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
