The Reality of Early Access Gaming

Marketing and selling a game before it’s finished intuitively seems like a bad idea, but as  Notch proved with Minecraft in 2009, it can work. Really really well. For the first time gamers had the chance to be part of the traditionally secretive game development process, to see features added and altered based on their feedback and most importantly, to play the game as it was being made.

It didn’t take long before a slew of other developers adopted the method and the internet was awash with unfinished games available for purchase. Even the mighty Valve seemed to agree it was a good idea, introducing the ‘Early Access’ section to the Steam store in 2013, making it much easier for millions of users to browse and invest in early alpha and beta versions of titles which pique their interest.

One problem with this however, is that not every developer can or even intends to fulfill their obligations to their paying customers. Taking advantage of gamers’ enthusiasm to make a quick profit is an attractive prospect for some and many an honest gamer has thrown money at a title, only to have it fall short of expectations or worse.

This can lead to some very unpleasant situations (anyone familiar with The War Z debacle will know what I mean) which understandably may turn many gamers away from the idea entirely. The truth is that paying money for an unfinished product when there is no guarantee that it will even be completed, is a gamble pure and simple.

With that said, it is true that very few games are pretty much sure things; DayZ and Starbound are testament to this and have both, as expected, seen huge numbers of sales since their releases on Steam Early Access, practically ensuring their completion. However, big low-risk titles such as these really are a drop in gaming’s primordial ocean and the vast majority of games in Early Access have much more uncertain futures.

How can a sincere developer who hasn’t necessarily made any noteworthy games assure a skeptical public that they can and will deliver on big promises? The answer is that they can’t, not really. This is why trust between developers and gamers must become a fundamental part of the new paradigm.

What they can do is develop a strong relationship with their community and fans built through openness and honesty, making absolutely certain to show what progress is being made and explaining themselves truthfully when any mistakes or delays happen. People are less inclined to complain or pressure a developer when they have a proven track record of reliability and openness and in many cases, gamers will actually encourage devs to take their time to get it right. If a developer can gain the respect of its community’s core, word will spread and the fanbase will grow.

 

When it comes down to it, all we want as gamers is to play great games. There are some truly superb and exciting ideas out there and despite the risk of being burned, many gamers are still willing to jump on board to show support. No matter what genres you are into, someone somewhere is attempting to make your dream game and they can only do it if they see support for it both financially and creatively.

From a gamer’s perspective, it can be fun and rewarding to be involved in a project early on and the anticipation of a new ‘build’ or update coming out soon for a game you’re invested in is an intoxicating thing.

Waiting a few months however, to make sure progress is being made and that it’s going in the right direction before dropping cash is a much safer prospect. The problem with this however is that the more people choose to wait it out, the less funding the developers receive and the less likely it is that the game will turn out great.

The reality of early access gaming is one where more power lies in the hands of the gamer and we get the chance to play games which otherwise, probably wouldn’t get made. Early access gaming is here to stay and while it’s not without its risks and problems, it is certainly a step in the right direction.