My first experience with games whilst growing up was playing on the commodore 64. As is well documented its loading times were about as fast as a tortoise trying to negotiate its way through a minefield. I remember i used to leave the game loading and go have lunch, only to discover that when i came back it hadn't loaded properly due to errors requiring me to begin the process again. It's no wonder kids used to play outside more often in those days.
Fast forward to 2015 and game loading times have shrunk to the point where you are barely given time to read the small tip that pops up on screen. The faster technology becomes the faster we want it to go, whether it be downloading, installing or simply loading a game. Gone are the days of repeatedly pressing the start button whilst a game loaded, in the hopes that your impatient frenzy would speed things up.
With so many games to play, not being bogged down by endless load screens and installation times is crucial because In the words of a certain YouTube phenomenon, " ain't nobody got time for that." When it comes to buying games though, faster is not always better.
Early access to games has existed for a long time, perhaps not exactly in the way we refer to it today, but in the form of playable game demos and beta versions of multiplayer modes. This practice, in my opinion, serves a valuable purpose allowing consumers to test portions of games before committing to buying them. In this form there is usually a very small time frame between a game's demo and its full launch, which is reflected by the quality offered in the demo, where only minor tweaks and polishing are added to the final release. More often than not early access today takes on a different meaning altogether and at times can be detrimental to both consumers and game developers.
My first experience of this new form of early access was when my brother introduced me to Minecraft. After he explained the concept i was curious as to how much it cost and he explained that it was $15 for an alpha version but If i waited for the full release it would cost me double. Unknowingly i went on to purchase my first early access game, and Minecraft, as is well known, went to sell millions, eventually releasing as a full game. However, It could have been a very different story.
After Minecraft's success, more and more indie developers started to adopt the same business model. Cubeworld's early access is an example of a different story. When I first saw the game I was immediately sold on the idea of a multiplayer open world RPG, set in a pixelated world with class systems, leveling and lots of exploring. I closely followed development and when early access to the alpha released on July 2013 i didn't hesitate. After all for $20 what could go wrong? The answer to that very naïve question would be "everything".
Soon after the alpha version the developers dropped a few more updates and then suddenly disappeared altogether. No more official statements, blog posts or game patches were released. Two years later they claim that the game is still under development but the damage has already been done with many fans moving on. In this instance my money went from being a good investment into a game I could play whilst it develops, to the equivalent of paying $20 for a demo whose full version I will possibly never see.
These are just two personal examples on the pros and cons of adopting games early in development. In both cases the developer made money even though one of them never delivered what was promised. However, its not always the consumer that is at risk of loosing out. Many developers release early builds in order to fund game production, and even if the initial response to a game might be positive, playing a half boiled version of it, having saved files continuously wiped and getting game mechanics changed over and over may become tiresome. As a result fans might loose interest and stop playing without ever experiencing the final product which may in turn affect any future project the developer might pursue.
I have backed quite a few early access projects and even though some are still in development, i am not currently playing or closely following any of them. My impatience to play these games early got the better of me, now i have learned not to be too quick to jump on board with an idea just because it sounds good. The truth is that in many cases you end up paying for just that, a good idea with a nice pitch. In some cases developers even charge almost full price for a game that is just in development, with no assurances that it will ever be complete.
The game development scene has changed a lot since the dawn of early access games. Nowadays It might be the case that you are as excited for an indie release as much as for a AAA game. This at the end of the day is the single most important contribution crowd funded games have made to the gaming community. Lots of good games have seen the light of day that otherwise might have been cursed to a life in the shadows were it not for early backers that believed in the project they were funding.
As consumers this gives us great power to decide what trends we want games to follow. If you decide to adopt early make sure to be patient and remember that you are not only paying to play before anyone else. You are supporting a project and its developers, and are acting as a play tester and bug reporter. The chances are that you won't be playing a complete game as soon as you pay for it.
If like me you much rather play a finished product, consider funding the game if you truly believe in the project and patiently wait for it to be complete so that you can experience the game in its final state rather than run the risk of getting bored whilst play testing.
What are your views on early access?
The Smurfs - Flower Defense brings tower defense gameplay to Meta Quest headsets, featuring MR functionality.
From Infinite Wealth to Pirate Yakuza in Hawaii, we explore RGG Studios’ iconic franchise. Here are the best Yakuza games, ranked.
Playdead co-founder Dino Patti is allegedly being sued by his former studio and business partner.
Patti was threatened with a lawsuit earlier this year after he posted a now-deleted LinkedIn post that shared an "unauthorized" picture of co-founder Arnt Jensen and discussed some of Limbo's development. Patti said Jensen demanded a little over $73,000 in "suitable compensation and reimbursement," adding that he had "repeatedly" had such letters over the last nine years.
Even by today standards i find loading times too long in most of the games.
yeah maybe some games could benefit from some faster load times, most are actually slower if you compare them to catridge based games.
I am getting my first taste of early access on X1, and I can see how it could go either way. As you have stated, seems like there is a lot of potential for "early access" games to be a cash grab that will stop being supported as soon as the developer hits the threshhold for purchases that they want.
My only early access game at the moment is Elite Dangerous, but with full release around the corner and lots of updates coming on top of an already great game I can see no downside at the moment. I think on X1 the risk will be mitigated because Microsoft will be monitoring what is allowed to come to access. Looking forward to ARK Survival coming to X1 access, game looks amazing.
I am waiting for the genre hopping FPS console version of "Bedlam" . "Bedlam" has been on Steam early access for a year . Was supposed to come out on PS4 and XBox1 in early August 2015. Still has not come out on consoles and i can not find any new info on this game. Can someone help me out ?