Top
80°

Here’s why Early Access Games shouldn’t be reviewed

onPause writes:

The question that we ask now is, ‘Should we review Early Access games when they become available?, and I think the answer is no.

The story is too old to be commented.
admiralvic1426d ago

Most "early" access games are either reviewed in parts (like Broken Age) or are basically preview pieces. I've never seen a site review an alpha and call it a day.

mcroddi1426d ago

The debate has spurred up quite a bit, especially with cases like DayZ and the like.

Saryk1426d ago

If you put a product out for consumption it can and should be critiqued. If you don't want reviews then do not put it out for sale!

SlapHappyJesus1426d ago (Edited 1426d ago )

Because they can be 100% a different experience when all things are said and done.
Anything done on early access should be treated as nothing more than a preview, letting people know just what they are getting, at this point in time, for their money. They should also make note that even the preview could be rendered entirely inaccurate at any time, considering where the developer chooses to take the game.

mcroddi1426d ago

Exactly, see Aliens Colonial Marines ;)

Lumbo1426d ago (Edited 1426d ago )

If a developer decides to put a price on his game and sell it to consumers, the product should be fair game for reviews of the "state of the game as of now"

Horrible debacles like "WarZ" now renamed to "Survivors" are unavoidable if reviews are not allowed for games that charge cash to play.

If developers or fanboys have a problem with that, their problem. But demanding to hush all review process just because a developer randomly declares his game, that he SELLS to customers already, a "early access" seems stupid to me.

If a horrible game "early access" changes and gets "good" after 23414312415315 patches then reviewers will give it another look. If it stays a pos, then nothing is lost by doing the early review, except preventing a few poor souls wasting their hard earned cash on a junk ripoff dev.

aliengmr1426d ago

Except the developers of WarZ made the claim that it was a finished game and listed features not yet available.

Early Access games explain right up front they are not finished, and the forums provide even further details.

I fail to understand the reasoning behind providing a review that is inaccurate, or will be when the game is updated.

Why should devs with no publisher be held to this high of a standard? I forgot, I guess games are made with magic and wishes.

ThreshStar1426d ago

"Once the game ships and is officially on the market as a final piece of code that can be purchased as version 1.0 so to speak, the developer said its peace and shipped the game – now we can review the game all we want."

...interesting concept. Unfortunately, Early Access games have absolutely 0% REQUIREMENTS to be "Finished". If a developer wants to leave it in a perpetual "Alpha", "beta", etc. or just entirely give up on it, they can without any consequences.

I get that you can't review an unfinished game, however SOMETHING should be said about it at some point. Or we can just talk about it like it's an actual game even though most of the "Features" are missing like a playable, un-buggy game.

I personally do NOT like Early Access because it's basically allowing gamers to pay for alpha testing.

...and for those of you saying "The developers have a responsibility to the gamers that paid for early access to"-stop right there.

THEY DON'T OWE YOU ANYTHING ONCE THEY HAVE YOUR MONEY.

You MIGHT be able to influence them, or they could just pull an ARMA 3 and release it with an entirely missing Single player feature and say "In progress - coming soon!".

Either way, I want the public to be made aware these are NOT GAMES...THEY ARE CONCEPTS/WORK IN PROGRESS ENTITIES THAT MIGHT BECOME GAMES AT SOME POINT.

Show all comments (9)