The Ethics of Reviewing Early Access
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 дек 2024
- What standard should the gaming media hold Early Access games to, and how should they go about encouraging it? Discuss.
Shout out to MattVisual for helping, ( / mattvisual ) and Atlas Burke and Daniel Starkey who helped me polish this script before recording.
New logo by Satchell Drakes: satchb.ag/, / satchbags
This video uses music from audiomicro.com
Music: (in order of appearance)
"Atomic Bikini" & "Chill Out" from audiomicro.com, "Lady in the White Mask" from Tyler Theus, "Circuit Disorder" and "Spacenight" from audiomicro.com
This is ballsy George, I expected less of you George, a lot less.
Exactly my reaction :p
I think that if a developer asks for cash they open the door for criticism. It baffles me that some of these guys will have you pay for their game, but refuse to hear any criticism because the game isn't finished. That sounds like the thought process of a small child. They want to eat the cake and keep it too.
Provost Willem Same thing as feminism.
+MasterGhostf Any social theory is open to rational critique even if they don't get paid for "feminism." Go nuts on anything you want.
I've always heard that expression as "Have your cake and eat it too," which seemed redundant and weird to me, so thank you for phrasing it in a way that makes sense.
Still waiting for the animation where the new bunny tactically takes out the old bunny using CQC
Bunnyhop? Bunnyhop! BUNNYHOOOOOOP!
As a developer of a game a long time in the making, soon-ish to go into Early Access, it is kinda disheartening to see what messy situation we got to establish ourselves in. The Greenlight and Early Access programs by Valve were handled sub-optimally, to say the least, which gave a bunch of opportunists the chance to rip people off selling ideas instead of games. I got burnt too, buying Towns early in the best hopes that the money is well spent.
My question here really is: what does a developer nowadays, in the midst of this mess, have to do to win people's trust IF the game is actually worth it and the developer dedicated? Three years of development entirely funded by the ~10k non-Steam "early access" sales via our website and reasonably frequent major updates would instill some trust we would think, but how to present that to the now rather pissed gamer public in an honest way?
Present it. Say how you've sold 10,000 early access copies to customers just on your website alone. The fact that 10,000 people were motivated enough to go to a single game's website is indication enough of the quality of your game, as the vast majority just loiter on Steam. If you have been in "early access" for a while, say how long and mention the amount of updates you have made in that time.
RogueNite see while i agree in a sense with what your saying i also have to say i disagree with you. The number of people who goto your site is not a metric of how good your game is, but how good marketing from youtube personalities and yes i said marketing. The fact of the matter is that marketing has expanded into this monsters we can not control i mean that more literal then you might think. The general thing to do for people online is to share what neat games they've seen even if they are early access. The strange thing about this marketing is that the company or people it's supporting have little to no control over it.
Sooo.... no i have no reason to believe that this game he's making is worth it other than the fact he's constantly updating it.
Right, but I've never played his game, I was speaking from the perspective of the average consumer: "All these people went outside of Steam to order a game off an unknown's website, that game must be great!" Of course, it does not mean it's great, but that is the conclusion that a lot of people leap to. Therefore I mentioned it.
nucluer throne and dungeon of the endless are/were great examples of what an early access game should be like, relatively bug free and fully playable and most importantly - fun! they are fun from the getgo and had an impressive number of playable characters on early access release. as time goes by owners of the game are gifted with more levels and more characters! that is my advice to you and best of luck!
Why must early access be bugless? I mean we are talking about selling games before their ready and so they should be bug less while they work on the feature set? don't get me wrong, i think they should fix bugs and polish the game as it goes, but it seems like a silly thing to expect.
4:36, I think there was synchronized facepalming among the viewers.
I know I did.
I give this video an 8.8
This comment's pretty good. I like it. 6/10
Super Bunnyhop
I'm polygon-ing my score to a 8.4 for that
Super Bunnyhop Lemme fix that for ya.
*SECOND REVISION*
While this daring response is interesting and original in concept and design, the execution is painfully chock full of glaring flaws that ruined the overall experience and would for everyone.
3/10 - IGN
+Super Bunnyhop I give the 6/10 you gave him a 9/10
Super Bunnyhop's comment still owns all of you lol. This was fantastic,
Just stumbled across your videos the other day, I have to say I am hooked; great blend of comedic but insightful commentary, haven't disliked any of your videos yet and i've watched a ton thanks!
George,
you said that ultimately, it will be up to journalists of far bigger publications than yours to figure out how this is will work.
I want you to know that the quality of your work and content outshine some of them by a light-year or two, and I trust your words far more than any of the gawker branches put together.
Keep it up. I like to think your contributions raise the bar.
I second that notion! The dialogue your videos create in the comments are some of the best discussions on issues in the video game industry I've seen anywhere. Decent, thoughtful and productive debate in RUclips comments!? Didn't see that coming!
You care about the subjects you cover. You present useful and non-sensationalist views on topics you deem too important to simply let go. Most importantly, you get people talking. That, imho, is the true power of journalism and you handle it admirably.
You always make some of the most intricate videos that I find on youtube.
This is great work you are doing.
My personal prefferences for reviews are as such:
- give me a well written and to the point honest review based on educated opinions of the games mechanics, content and encompassing design and I am happy.
- I dont require scores to summarize what the overall quality of the game is. As a responsible consumer, I feel that I should read the reviews to form my final decision of whether I will purchase the game or not. Its my money and time after all.
- I realize that there are people that need that shallow feeling coming from the 9.0 stamp of quality. But this also opens the door to exploiting the consumer, because all they care is a stupid score to decide for them.
On the subject of Early Access games:
- there is a need for a new set of rules concerning the way these games are reviewed, taking into consideration the scorring method.
- from first up until the final release, the game should have at least a few stages where the game gets criticized for its current state.
1. First release. The game gets a 6/10 -written review or video
2. First updated. Game gets an 8/10 -written review or video
3. 2nd or Final Update. This game is officially finished, final score being a 7.5/10 -written review or video
*Maybe some games go trough more stages, but all need registered for future refference.
7.5 obviously being the final rating.
Keeping the previous scores available to new consumers that have not played the game in its early form, makes it easy for someone curious of how its development history has come along and what were the ups and downs of every subsequent release.
There was a time when Beta Testing was actually a paid job. Now game companies are getting us to pay to beta test their games.
I completely agree that early access games should be reviewed. If there's an amount to be paid before you can play it, then it deserves to be reviewed based on what's currently available.
I've got a pretty good idea: if you want to make an early access game, you release it for free. If somebody loves that game, they can preorder it. I basically did this for Kerbal Space Program (one of my favorite games) by pirating it first. Once I saw that KSP was the shit, I immediately bought it. I literally bought it twice (one as a gift) because I loved it so much. My current recommendation is to do exactly that! Try before you buy, even if the dev doesn't want you to.
Some early access games actually offer slightly outdated versions as demos, I think... I can't come up with an example, which is a shame, but I do remember seeing that...
Sam E this is a really solid idea
"Legit professional game journalism"
lol
Interesting, informative, and well written as always George. Your journalistic integrity never ceases to amaze me. Most people just turn on their camera and rant about something trivial but you always tell me what I need to know, why I need to know it, and you're always very respectful of my valuable time. I hope one day you get the recognition you deserve.
Minecraft was a brilliant and interesting game when it first launched, no it wasn't the original voxel sandbox game but it was a very interesting game and seeing it evolve was an interesting and different experience for me, no I don't play it much anymore but I played it and had great fun with it for 4 years and that is plenty enough gameplay for me to say it was worth the price. Early access serves a purpose and minecraft managed to get it absolutely right.
Ｔｈｅ Ｃｏｍｐｕｔｅｎｔ It seems it's because their marketing strategy is game-as-a-service. They've been very lucky to find that goldmine! They sell you a "beta", but then they get you hooked on the fact that every week (or two weeks) you get a new and exciting feature. Notice, how actually releasing a full version of Minecraft didn't change their release style :)
I've also played MC for several years. It's interesting, how thanks to such release model, the game got old only after several years of active play!
Look, if a developer has any self-respect at all, the product they release should have some element that makes it worth playing. Greenlight isn't a charity, you don't get tossed money because your game MIGHT be good later (and it can be pretty obvious if your game has any merit to it at all, no matter what state it's in) if it isn't worth buying NOW.
Every time I review an early access game on Steam and don't recommend it, my review gets down voted to hell on the basis that "it's an unfair review because it's not a finished game".
I don't think we need reviews for them as much as we need something that simply answers the question of "Is it worth buying yet".
Say it's an amazingly wonderful game that would score a 9/10, but not all the content is there yet, and it crashes a lot. With the crashing, the answer to the question above would be "NO". But if it didn't have those issues, then it would probably be a "YES". It wouldn't make sense to score the game a 3/10 or something as opposed to 9/10, because it simply doesn't run correctly in the early access state, when it would just be easier to claim that no one should buy it yet.
I think the best format would be something like an explanation and basic opinions on various aspects of the game, an estimation of how close the game is to content completion, and any performance issues or notable bugs, ending with a YES or NO, with a simple statement on why a purchase would be justified now, or what needs to be fixed/added for a NO to become a YES.
So basically Steam reviews with a structure?
The problem with that is that a game that might be worth it for _some_ people might not be worth it for others.
Let's take a build-y, explore-y, fight-y, adventure-y game like Starbound.
If there's lots of materials and cool ways you can combine them, then it would be a *YES* for players who like to build stuff. However, all that stuff might be completely irrelevant for a player who just wants to explore.
If there's lots of hidden places with beautiful scenery and interesting loot, it would be a *YES* for players who want to explore. However, that stuff would be irrelevant for players who want to have interesting and challenging fights.
If there's lots of monsters with lots of fight patterns and there's a crapton of extremely different weapons, it would be a *YES* for players who like to fight. However, that stuff would be irrelevant for people who like building.
That's just an example. Most games appeal differently to different people and trying to cram them all together by saying that *YES*, it's worth buying or *NO*, it isn't worth buying, is just an exercise in futility.
But that's why they're written out, so you can read what the person liked or didn't like. With your proposed way, it would be the exact same arguement if the consumer just looked for the "Yes or no".
John Slaby
What do you mean by "with your proposed way"?
I didn't propose anything.
Nixitur Sorry, I responded from my phone and couldn't see you weren't the guy that made the original post, that's my fault. My point about people reading the review still stands.
I like that you got outside for this... Walk and talk looks so much more interesting and dynamic that sitting down and staring into a static camera.
If you are charging money for something you are open to criticism.
Just by existing most things are spread eagle to criticism. I don't understand why people view it as such a horrible thing. All you've gotta do is defend it/yourself, and if you're struggling that much, just maybe there's a reason...
The reaction at around the 4:36 mark was fucking hilarious. I definitely agree that reviews are needed to keep some resemblance of quality amongst early access titles. Keep up the great work man.
Nice new intro! And I'm looking forward to watching the rest of this video, the subject matter is promising
Loving the new opening, the way it cuts into it w/ the Peace Walker TV on sound and the MG2 Foxhound style Bunny. Also, really good video as usual.
I like your reaction towards early access. Instead of extremes in any direction, or denial toward its existence, you accept the situation and use your critical thinking to suggest a way to make something good come out of it. I find that valuable.
I knew George would be able to tackle this from new different perspective. Great video, and I like the new logo.
Great video as always George, I really only have one bit of criticism, your camera didn't have a tripod, which made the footage a bit shaky. keep up the good work, and thanks for the continued release of content.
wow that wind with the word "blured" occured in pretty cool effect
5:06
Seriously, I love you. You are one of the greatest RUclipsrs around right now in the gaming scene. Thank you for the quality content you've been putting out. An here's to a long quality career for you.
I know this wasn't an early access game, but the process and results were similar. Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain was an unfinished game sold as a finished one. And before it came out, all the "Legit professional game journalism" reviews were wishy-washy and light on their constructive criticism of the game.
+Jack Heathen That's a completely different problem however. Releasing unfinished games has been a year-long tradition and major review sites care more about the money they get for giving out criticism-free reviews than customer-friendliness. Also, they fear being blacklisted from reviewing the games of major publishers. A power that publishers of course shouldn't have, but who's to challenge the law system for a new set of laws regarding that?
Knops I've noticed the unfinished game tradition, but it didn't really hit me until MGSV and I never realized mainstream video game journalists were being bought and bribed. And I think it's getting out of control, to the point it has become so obvious it's a joke and I hate how these professional video game reviewers beguile people by bending rhetoric.
I guess you can say the more story-driven online free games and The Phantom Pain are drastically different, but to my mind they have vague similarities though: Needs an internet connection to get the full experience, has microtransactions, repetitive missions, awkward cutscenes, cliff-hanger ending, etc. It's a free-to-play disguised as an action/adventure game. It was set up to be this. I mean, if Kojima never left Konami they would have made the game Episodic and have constant updates like it has.
Again, I'm unaware of these things for some reason that publishers have any power over video game journalists. Who can change things about publishers giving us unfinished games and help stop sellout professional reviewers from surfacing? The gamers and journalists of course. Publishers don't fear that common threat gamers tell others, that they won't be buying from so-and-so publisher anymore because they produce carbon copy products of previous titles over and over.
I can sense the gaming community is getting annoyed, but they're gonna need to get up and do something. Get petitions going, form a movement, actually boycott publishers, and so on -- weeding out the corruption or whatever. Or we could yeild our overwhelming impatience for a first world luxury and stop demanding so much from publishers (graphics, content, sequels, etc.) and let them create. Hopefully something original.
It's nice to see this video, somebody needed to compile proof and reasoning for a positive and honest exchange between the product and the consumer.
Thank you
George, you always offer the most insightful views of the games industry, and I appreciate how brutally honest you can be about the state of things. Keep it up man.
Dayum George, I was happy I subbed to you a year ago, but your video quality and journalistic sensibilities just keep getting better week after week. Keep it up man!
Though in my opinion, while the idea of early access is fairly new, I think the precedent was started a long time ago when developers fell out of the habit of not releasing demos. Further still when pre-orders became more prevalent and further enticed with the promise of pre-order bonus packages. It seems like the major gaming journalism publications have been bought out to some degree, and high ratings are the status quo for extremely standard games. Early access is really just the latest step in a long series of steps to make customers less knowledgeable about the products they buy and a bit looser with their wallets, except this time it's more-so the indie developers that profit.
You're right on the money that it's up to the journalists to really develop a standard in how these games are reviewed and presented to the public at large, and you're also right that it's going to have to be one of the major publications out there that make those standards. I'm just... well, rather pessimistic that it'll ever turn out in the customer's favor.
Excellent journalism, it was a pleasure watching this clip.
Great Video! Once something is for sale someone should review whether this product or service is worth the money they ask for it. It might be difficult for continuously evolving products, but such models will become more and more frequent thanks to the Internet, so better find ways to do so.
I loved this video. The style you delivered the information was perfect!
Problem with reviewing early access games is obviously that SO MUCH can happen DURING the time between a review and the final release. Ultimately, I think Steam has to seriously force certain requirements and standards on the games.
But Steam doesn't care. They don't even care about curating their front page, let alone all of the tat they throw on their service. It's down specifically to the consumer to decide with their dollars, but the problem with that is that the consumer is horribly misinformed, and most don't care about reading into an Early Access game to become informed. But journalism, at the same time, can't necessarily review Early Access titles because their content could be outdated by the time the consumer reads it, or by the time it gets released to the public, therefore they can't. So, Early Access really just needs to either prove itself, by having more instances of good games being made possible through it rather than games being put up early for the sake of money, or it just needs to be completely gotten rid of. Either way, something needs to happen, but nobody wants to do it.
John Slaby I don't disagree, I'm just of the opinion that we don't really have a good solution to this problem in my honest opinion.
Sveinung Tørresdal That's true.
I don't think "final release" really means that much, though. Consumers don't need information about and protection from a crappy product at some arbitrary point we happen to call "final release", they need it when they are able to exchange their money for that product.
Early access is a retail title AND it is a final release. Why? Because they are charging retail prices. Are folks too young to remember alpha and beta programs? People are now paying launch prices to beta test games. If you are charging consumers for your product your game SHOULD be judged as a final product. Just like any other final release that later receives updates and patches. If they do not want their product to be judged as finished, then they should not be charging one red cent for the game--they should be inviting beta testers, finishing the game, and then charging for it.
great points as always, really enjoy all your work :)
Excellent video. I really enjoy your well founded arguments and clear articulation of ideas.
I think you should do more videos like this: criticising the games industry.
As a new industry people don't know how to criticise or dont take it seriously enough. And I havent seen any other youtuber specifically talking about these kind of topics regularly and offering any decent conclusion (normally its the ranty fan boy type videos)
I like like the format change this video has, the outside footage feels alot more spacious and clean compared to the computer desks and living room sofas most videos on youtube use as background. It's a small change but i think it went along way.
omg thankyou so much for this video. I hope everyone who's bought and early access game sees this. I think its really unfair to ask for full price for a product and at the same time assume that everyone must withhold criticism. Consumers get all downsides and no upside.
I think if you are going to review early access games, the amount of info the developers gives out should factor into the review. TB said in one of his videos (not sure which one) that when it comes to early access, one of the most important things for the dev to do is to communicate with their customers. To give them regular status updates, to have a CLEAR goal list, to display how these goals are progressing and in the case of crowdfunded games I think the backers are also entitled to know how the money is being spent in some detail.
See Star Citizen for example, the pump out a LOT of information in various formats. There is the graph showing how much money was made, Chris Roberts regulary answers community questions, there is a regular podcast and regular blog-like updates on the main site.
The other end of the spectrum would be cube world, where the dev hides in his bunker and never speaks to the people who bought his game.
Great video. It is an interesting topic and something we should talk more about even if other people already talked about it. Also, I completly support your opinion on the matter.
On another note, though I realize the people who only look at a score and then buy something exist, I have to say that I would never do the same. I would not buy a game if I don't think I have the time to look at/read a review (or atleast somekind of gameplay) before I buy it, or simply ain't able to (if there aint any gameplay out yet). But maybe that has something to do with my budget too. I also try pick my reviewers with some care. If I know them it's easier to see their preferences and whether my opinion would differ from theirs.
Then again I could see a use for a score in the regards of an early access game since it could be seen as a marker on how "complete" the game is. Almost like a percentage of how playable a product is or how much of their vision a developer has implemented.
Sir, you are a fantastic individual and I'm very glad I subscribed to your thoughts in video form. As a customer of intelligent video commentary, I feel that I get my hypothetical dollar from your videos.
Love the new logo!
I'm of the opinion that the consumer should be held accountable for their actions in terms of purchases. Don't. Preorder. Games. Period.
But since you're talking about what criticism can do for customers and help them, it just saddens me that an arbitrary number can mean so much. I get it. You make a valid point on the value of the number. It's just hard for me to understand since I'm not the type of average consumer you're referring to. I follow gaming news sites and am aware of hype surrounding a game, if there is any to be found. I might know some things about the devs and names surrounding the product. I'm reasonably informed because I lurk through the channels that allow me to be informed. I found more reasons to not play X-rebirth from your multifaceted video than I would have from just a number at the end of a short written review. But I guess not everyone likes that sort of content, and a score helps them.
Your point about outlining exactly what you're paying for is so correct. Right at the beginning of the review the price should be put in bright neon lights. Then at the end, dedicate a chunk of the review detailing if you are, in fact, getting what you pay for. That's legit.
I'm liking the new work. Keep it up.
Love that part, when you say that TotalBiscuit will tear it apart.
You're a good review of the industry and games. Keep up the good work.
Although I mostly agree, I would like to point out one thing: The idea of not judging a game harshly directly after release might not necessarily stem from being used to seeing early access games for about 2 years, but maybe from being used to buying full price broken AAA-titles with day 1 patches and missing (promised / advertised) features even months later for more than a decade.
Just started watching your videos and like them a lot, for taking a deeper and fuller look into concepts I'd never bothered to give more thought.
This one is no exception, and I think it's a great counterpoint to the standard "still in beta" "just a small indie dev" types of excuses that get tossed around all too readily.
Thanks.
Wow, this is the first time RUclips has recommended something to me that I've liked. Subbed.
Sir you never cease to impress and interest me in the topics you cover. I don't even have to be interested in the particular game you may be reviewing, or even the entire genre it's in, but I'm always excited to hear your thoughts on them. I'm always looking forward to more, thank you for your excellently produced videos. You're definitely the smartest reviewer on RUclips and it's a crime that you don't have ten times the views, likes, subscriptions, etc. that you have.
Project Zomboid is the best early access game i've played : nice price, steady updates, load of gameplay when it came out, etc.
Very well put and researched.I bow to your superior intellect.
This video was the first time I heard the phrase "journalism is an independent monitor of power", and it belies both George's superior training to most RUclips pundits and his integrity.
"When we review Early Access games, beta games, or anything that is under that guideline but charges people to play it, then we review it as a full product that's done and in it's final state. We don't care what the developer says, we don't care how often they update the game, and we certainly don't care about how many people like the game. We review the game as we get them, and a game that charges us for a full experience is getting the privilege of a full-experience review."
If it makes you feel better, we (Yourwolfsdengaming) did do full, professional written reviews of Early Access games and the above is a quote from our Early Access policy. We received such raving comments as "You don't deserve to be a reviewer this is a great game your review is stupid, do you even know what early access is about?" and "How dare you criticize the game! The developer is working very hard on the game and it's clear you despise games in early access and you shouldn't review them"
And more wonderful comments that make us loath looking at our comments or inbox. We always thought it was interesting getting comments like that acting as though we hate Early Access games, when we gave average or above average ratings to two different Early Access games that same month. Since then, we only review Early Access games on the website if we're asked or we can be bothered because it's not worth the hassle of dealing with the Steam community forbid we don't agree with the general consensus for a game.
I remember playing project Zomboid a lot in 2016 when they were JUST about to release cars. I recently started playing it again and They haven't actually done an update in over 4 months, despite constant updates that the vehicle release is **ALMOST** there
So first of all great vid Mr. Hop, I really enjoyed it a lot. Now, let me weigh in on some of the points you raised:
1) On reviews having numbers
Reviews having or not having numbers tends to be subject to debate, because why you are right people like having a nice number to associate with a game, there is currently no standard ways of numbering ratings for games. This creates inconsistency because what might be a 10 (with badass rating) to say Angry Joe could be a 6 or a 7 to Total Biscuit (ie Skyrim). This is ok when only guy has review numbers (like say AJ), but once you take multiple reviewers into account you start having issues, which "score" is actually correct? A site like metacritic aggregates these scores but that can have its own issues like for example when Obsidian missed out on royalties on New Vegas because its metacritic wasn't high enough on an otherwise critically acclaimed and commercially successful game. I mean if everyone has a number does Pewdiepie's 20,0000/10 weigh just as much as TB's 1/10 on a game like Slender? I don't really mind whether there's a number or not but understand that there's a lot of reviewers against reviews having scores whether or not it is EA.
2) On Early Access games having reviews:
There's a reason why people don't review EAs, that's because updates can invalidate your work. There is no "set" timeline on EA, reviews can be done daily, weekly, monthly, yearly or never (as in Towns lol). If you do an indepth review on a fighting game's lack of game balance and then they release a patch which fixes the problems before you put up the review what the hell did you just spend the last few days on then? What if they release the patch 3 months after you made your review? This is the internetz, people can see the stuff you made years down the line, and they will be misinformed on the current state of the game because of the stuff you wrote. This is esp. true once you put down a score, because as you said scores are all-encompassing and if you for example give a game 1/10 due to a fighting game just having 2 characters which are pallete swaps and then they release a "crazy" patch with like 50,000 characters then people are gonna bug you until you change your score to reflect the current state. That's ok if it's just one game, but as a game reviewer you probably review at least 1 game every week, can you afford the time to be updated on every single game you have reviewed, check out the differences and then update the score on each game every time there's a patch? No one has that amount of time, and even if they did they'd want to spend it on new games like for example ESO over an updated game that was released 2 years ago like Cortex Command (no offense and shout out to Cortex Command btw).
3) On EAs taking advantage of the low bar and "criticism loophole"
You're right on all counts, you already expressed the problem very accurately. However, I would have to disagree with you on the solution because I think guys like TB ragging on shitty releases as a "PSA" and then otherwise refusing to look at EA games is the right approach. Putting a review on a game gives them publicity good or bad, and unfortunately publicity=exposure=free marketing. Take for example goat simulator, almost every "serious" reviewer ragged on it but tons of people bought it for the giggles and youtube money potential. EAs sell hopes and dreams, and the more exposure they get the more people will see their "dream" and buy into it. This means your idea won't address the problem with EA, because games are still incentivised to release on EA. For every 100 dudes that see that review 1 guy will want to buy that game, and the more dudes the EA review reaches the more sales they get.
On the other hand, refusing to give exposure to EAs will mean nobody will know of their game, and thus nobody will opt in. If every reviewer out there does an EA blackout like what TB is doing then it means devs will want their games to get out of EA as soon as possible, because only then will reviewers look at their game.
4) Hope for the future
Finally, I want to point out that I think the "free market" is starting to take steps to prevent EA abuse. As more and more people get ripped off on EAs, they start having negative connotations and less and less are willing to put money down on "unfinished games". Just look at kickstarter for example, last year every game that was put up seemd to get kickstarted and exceed stretch goals. This year? Good luck getting it funded, and honestly if the upcoming big time projects like Torment become disappointments crowdfunding might crash altogether.
After reading the title of this video, I thought it was going to be about "not judging earlier access games too harshly" or some other bullshit. I'm very glad that it isn't and I agree with you on everything.
AutomationGame
I've only purchased one game on early access. In general, seeing what early access does to it's customers, had put me off of it before I even began. I also don't like the idea of paying for something that isn't finished. You typically are not asked or expected to buy a car that has no windows and only runs half the time.
The one game that I have bought on early access (so far) is Black Ice. The reason I bought it was because I felt it was finished. Sure a game could always have more features. And, the developer wants to add more in. But, after playing the demo (that simply has a low level cap and cuts out ability to do multi-player. Which is sufficient to let you get a feel for how it plays and if you will like it). And, after seeing that the early access was only $5.00. I said to myself "If I buy this at the current price, there is really nothing more I expect or need from it. And, anything extra is gravy."
I could clearly see what I was paying for, and I could appreciate paying the price that was set for just what it was in it's current state. That is what got me to buy. Having felt (and still feeling) like I got my monies worth upfront. Like I wouldn't have to wait to feel the value.
And, if more games set there early access price as something that feels fair for what it is. As apposed to for what it could/promises to eventually be. And, only asked would be customers to pay for what is already there. I would probably be more keen on buying early access games.
That said where greenlight is concerned (I know this part of steam doesn't necessarily have to do with early access but I think the concerns with it are also applicable to early access). I like to see a good video. Not just some cool cinematic cuts. But something that shows me it is a thing with features (as apposed to possibly a blender render fly by). Something that explains what's going on a little.
A demo of some manner is also nice to see (not necessary though if there is plenty else to describe how a game is to me). Also, a solid description that tells exactly what it is. What it is not. Its major pros. Its major cons. And, its planned updates/repairs to where it falls short with an ETA (modifying this to cross things off the list and add more as you go, shows me progress). If a description takes on the attitude of an objective review of the content present and the aims of the project. I am much more likely to up vote.
Also, if you do mess up...apologize (earnestly), that goes a long way with me. Admittance of a mistake, expressing regret and acknowledgement/understanding of the fault, showing how you intend to make repair, and doing so. Sweeping oppsies under the rug. or flat out lying about something. is the quickest way to alienate me permanently.
If a man tells me a bold face lie irl. Tries to cover up a wrong he's done me instead of fixing it...That man has fight on his hands, after which i cut all ties. If a developer does the same. They will never see my money or support there after.
That's a very good point you are making (among others) about value being provided already in the early access version on offer... if people get enough value from what is there already, then the perceived risk of a buy-in is so much smaller. Transparency and honesty definitely play a big part in the long-term building of a community indeed. Thank you for your comments! That's much appreciated.
What i think a early access review should do.This will miss more than hit, so feel free to deny and or add to it.
1. Review must or at least done after an update. The reviewer should at least implement a 'cooldown' period for games (games like DayZ should have a 4 to 6 month 'cooldown', cause it is known to be very long)
2. The review must first list features the developer have promise to implement, like multiplayer. This can come in the form of a checklist.
3. The review must then 'review' what has been newly added to the feature or what has been added
4. Review must show how much percent the game is close to finishing (example: 20%/100% of the multiplayer feels complete).It does not need to be super accurate, as reviewers are not the developer.
5. Since early access are full of bugs, the reviewer MUST show and or tell what kind of bugs that he or she have encountered. This can help developer to find it and inform players if there is a game breaking bug. And if the bug is removed, the reviewer should remove the critic. The bugs can be compiled into a checklist-like format, and game breaking ones should be on the top, bolded, and red colored
7. The review must then have the reviewer opinion, as reviews ARE based on opinions. Points should follow suit.
as said, feel free to deny/add to the list
My approach to Early Access games is as such:
"Does this game, at its current price, and at its current level of content / quality, seem worthwhile at the moment?"
I will never buy a game on promises, but I will buy them on what currently exists, if I feel it to be worthwhile. The game has already satisfied my "value quota" and any additional content / polish added merely adds to my enjoyment.
Unfortunately, my approach still rewards developers who end up abandoning unfinished projects, but it gives me a very solid baseline to play things that look good for what they currently are and get some joy out of them.
I've noticed that AAA companies are catching on to this "early access standards bug" in the human brain by doing "BETA" tests two weeks before release(I'm lookin at you Fallout 76). To the point where I've even seen people say it's too early to judge because it's the beta, even though release is two weeks away.
8:09 That's exactly how I feel about Slime Rancher. I put around 22 hours into that game when it was in SUPER EARLY ACCESS (talking the first version available to the public) and had an extremely scarce amount of content in it. The game is now finished and is still being updated with new content, but I just can't force myself to play it, at least for another long while. I've just had a very tedious and annoying experience with playing the game when there was no real goal at all. Collect all the like 7 or so slimes. Check. Unlock all the areas. Check. Gain an absurd amount of money, more than I'll ever need. Check. Explore unintended and unfinished areas of the map. Check.
I really only stuck around for an update or two. It doesn't matter that there's new slimes now. Doesn't matter that there are new areas now. I feel completely done with a game I otherwise could've enjoyed.
By talking about respecting the fact that the product in question is in early asccess, you pre-empted my criticism of how this issue is often covered. As a dev, that's an important piece to this puzzle of quality control on early access.
fucking fanboys are using "early access" as a criticism proof shield many indie devs realized this and thats why alot of games spend years in early access
Here are Stefano Michael Uriel Crispi's patented steps to becoming a millionaire.
Step 1: Make a shitty survival game.
Step 2: Add zombies or dinosaurs(or both)
Step 3: Sell it on early access(why early access? Well there's a lot of idiots that think early access means "a cannot be shit game")
And that's Stefano Michael Uriel Crispi's 3 patented steps to become a millionaire.
THIS COMMENT IS BEAUTIFUL
Great video dude. After my horrible experience with Rust since late 2013 I haven't bought another Early Access.
Thoughtful and critical as always. I have to agree with some commenters here though and say the problem goes deeper than just early access, it's 'games journalism' in general, namely the fact that most of them aren't journalists in the slightest. More than anything, the gaming community needs actual critical and ethical minds such as yourself rather than tumblr bloggers with personal agendas and paid off individuals who already got the game's score in a memo.
On a personal note, I don't think early access (in general, not just Steam) to a game is a terrible idea. I've never really seen it work out. A lot of people cite Minecraft, but I'd say it arguably wasn't a finished product at launch and continues to be unfinished, lacking a cohesive play structure.
Love the new logo, by the way.
I showed this video to 3 friends and we give it 37/40 (sorry, Tim is a dick and had to dissent).
Very interesting video, this is a topic I've never seen discussed before.
4:35 - George seriously contemplates leaping through the window to a welcome demise.
You never buy early access games, but what about free early access games?
He pretty much said that if it's being sold as a completely product it should be judged as a complete product.
You cant buy free early access games (Or I certainly hope not, Landmark being an exception.)
Strospiteri If you had to pay money to get access for it, it wasn't free.
goober2049 Obviously.
Strospiteri
Honestly, I am surprised that Landmark is even on Steam Early Access. It's a sort of strange way for player-made constructions to appear in another game, and is in itself in beta (which is what you're buying access to).
I got in to the beta because a friend gave me the key... and while it's nice, and is a very good looking thing, I don't think that in its current, poorly optimized state, it is worth buying access to. It's like playing on a Minecraft Server on peaceful, with no fire or lava. All you can do is mine and build, and take in the pretty good scenery.
Problem is, it will sell because it's got the EverQuest franchise connection.
/endrant
Ive only ever bought one game on early access. Carmageddon 2014. haven't even played it, just bought it at the reduced early access price and will now wait until it is complete. I was certain I would buy it at launch regardless of reviews and i trust the devs with this ip. Nothing other than crazy certainty of wanting a game regardless of qauility will make me buy early access. And those games come along once every 3 years for me
This is pretty good. I really love this idea, and its a nice point that it could be effective. If enough take a stand to rate games on their price tag regardless of the state they're in, developers are pressured to make sure it really is worth the tag they set it to be. However sadly there are some problems I feel that make this a tough thing to pull off:
1) Review copies. That's why a lot of reviewers review so many games, they get them free as review copies. I don't think early access supplies them, and that causes a greater lack of incentive. Heck honestly many sites like IGN barely even review normal fully released indie games that likely hand out codes. They only seem to do a few that catches a lot of buzz. So we'll see summer blizzards before we see sites like them go into early access.
2) Principles. Even though its great that people like you exist to say "no" to them, that's probably the same thing a lot of guys are saying while they likely also have more complete games to be reviewing. There's just something naturally discouraging about going for early access in itself, to get that far and be a dependable journalist seems to be a big order.
3) Timing. How often does the game change? How often should you keep a review up to match it? Its probably actually pretty easy to make an effective review and just stick with a review first week and a review on release type of formula. It wouldn't stay accurate, but It would be enough of a stand to make an effective point that a game should be "worth it" when it first sets up a price tag. Regardless though saying it is easier than doing it and there's pressure on the reviewer about this timing thing.
interesting topic but that walking in park was so unnatural
somehow i couldn't focus on what ur saying for little while
What game is that at 8:20? Giant minamalist mechs look cool as heck
starting to see early access games with demo's on steam. This is great and i strongly think we need many of devs to also release demos. Even giving the end user 15-30mins with a game is enough to sell or not sell a person on a game that has potential. This also will push developers to ensure they give the user enough MONEY WORTHY content in 15-30mins that gets them hooked enough to say "Heck yeah i'll back your idea and support this game till its success or bitter end".
Great video George, but I respectfully disagree with some of your comments. I think I may make a video in the near future addressing some of your points. Thanks for continuing to create videos like this; these things need to be said.
The only early access game I've ever purchased was Black Mesa, but that was because i played the mod first when it first came out and i bought the steam version years later, because i wanted to support the developers and help them fully finish the game.
Obviously I haven't watched the whole video yet, but I thought Towns was never in Early Access? I think it was part of what prompted steam to create it though, so your point so far is valid
Good vid! I think RUclipsrs who follow EA games as they develop help the most since they can continually monitor progress which I think is the hardest part to reviewing EA games. Since they are always potentially changing a review from a month or even a week prior could be no longer be accurate but the time that would take is high.
Super Bunnyhop Loving the new logo and intro.
Ah, I remember MattVisual mentioning in the VisualWood Podcast, that he was buddies with Super Bunnyhop. I'd never thought I'd see his name in the credits of this video though ^.^
If the VisualWood Podcast comes back, then it would be cool if Super Bunnyhop would guest in one. We can only dream...
I think you really nailed your style in this one. Instead of awkwardly spinning around in your chair and throwing your face on the video with no real purpose to it, the cuts where it was real-life bunnyhop-man talking at me felt genuine here. THIS is the answer I wanted.
In regards to the "early access" problem, I only hope someone comes up with something substantial soon. The current state of affairs is basically what I wanted, wherein reviewers do not dictate the success of a game with an arbitrary number, only ALL WRONG WRONG WRONG. Is it too much to ask for decent behavior on both sides of the fence? Is it truly so difficult for both reviews and developers to make decisions based on ethics and artistic merit? I'm sick of seeing paid-for reviews and half-assed early access products both.
I feel like the system was headed for something wonderful, and somewhere took a wrong turn for the greedy and shitty.
But then, what do I know? I just enjoy videogames. I don't know thing one about journalism, or thing two about development. Maybe paid-for reviews and Obsidian getting shafted their pay for New Vegas is the way things ought to be.
Awesome video, George.
I was one of those 250K idiots that got duped into the promises of SMP.
I could not agree more.
1:29 >prefab assets
Did you mean default assets or placeholder assets?
Oh, and you're comment that "books movies and music rarely being..." It's actually becoming more and more common in books again, too. It used to be a fairly big thing in magazines, a story released in sections over time...And those stories still exist. And Amazon is currently doing something similar. A book released in a few parts, usually four or six, for $1-$2 each.
I'd like to shortly share my opinion on this. For the sake of full disclosure and honesty, I do contracted work for one of the developers whose game footage was in this review.
In my opinion, the best way to do it would be to have two scores in any early access review; one score for the current playability of the game, and one for the author's opinion on how good it could be when finished.
I think it's absolutely imperative to review games fairly, honestly, and as-is when in Early Access. People aren't spending early access money on it- they're spending real money. It's very important to have an informed decision any time people are spending money. But at the same time, some VERY early access games can be very un-fun and then turn into fantastic works of art. That needs to be respected as well.
2 scores- one for the present (do you spend money on this now?) and one for the future (should you look into this game in the future?).
One issue I think you should have touched on a bit more is the way the insulation early access games hurt the game itself.
After all, part of the idea of early access is to have a wide playerbase testing the game and providing feedback. If the answer instead becomes "It's early access don't criticize it" then the developer doesn't necessarily get the input he should and some developers may even be tricked into thinking their game is less problematic than it actually is because of criticisms being shouted down like that.
I too feel like taking a stroll and casually walking while intelligently talking, after reading RUclips comments sometimes.
I like your new logo. It doesn't make me want to punch it every time I see it.
I really like this video because it pin-point exactly my thoughts about the system. I'm currently developing a game, almost full time with no funding. I guess I'm lucky to be in a position where that's possible. But anyways.
I've gotten a few recommendations to put my game up for Early-Access or to start a kickstarter but I've always said no, not because it's inherintly a bad system because I could use a bit of money to make my living a bit easier but the reason why is because both of those systems have an incredibly bad rep and I don't want to be a part of that.
So many scammers and dishonest developers using that system, and that smell sticks even to the honest developers, one rotten apple spoils the whole basket so to speak. I don't back any kickstarter projects nor do I buy Early-Access games anymore because it's such a huge gamble and if I don't use the system because it's such a "good platform for dishonest scammer" then why should I expect other people to support my project, using the same system?
Honestly I'm a bit scared of where this all is heading. I'm not even sure if I'm going to release my game on Steam if Valve keep this practice up. I don't want to be seen on the same release page as a rip-off or moneygrab. Being on Steam is no longer a confirmation of quality, it's a flood of.. Well, everything they can sell. Which is a shame.
Wall o text warning.
The only thing I have to add to this conversation is that the reviews must be sure to explicitly state (in their title and in the article) that the review is an early access one, so that those people that only read the score know that it is not the final product review (assuming that a final product does eventually come out).
finally someone who thinks the same as i do about the modern gaming industry.. i salute you bunnyhop guy... its funny i was saying the exact same thing to my friend about early access games a while back, he wants me to get space engineers, and it looks like it could be a good game when finished, but ill wait till then before i spend my hard earned cash lol
I think of early access as crowdfunding with being able to play alphas/betas. I think devs see this as a safe way of funding their projects, and unfortunately sometimes themselves alone. I'm thinking of making a game and I'll keep this vid in mind.
Oh man, that new logo is fantastic. We need more Metal Gear 1 and 2 love.
I agree that it's necessary to have some degree of journalism with the Early Access games, I see 2 valid reasons for buying an early access game:
1. The game already worth its price, even when its labeled as unfinished
2. To support the developer
and the wrong reason is because of the promise of the game to be better in the future. So, early access reviews should focus on the first point but saying clearly what version are they reviewing. The second point is also valid, but I don't think it's a good idea to rate a developer because he/she's a person and not a product.
A few years ago, I was doing general art, UI and animation for an early access game (which IS planned to resume development with a better engine, after a remake of our first fame in the same new engine). The game ended up failing due to personal issues between the programmer and I (it's not strange for two people working together on an hours-heavy project AND living together to end up at each other's throats at some point). It was very hard to get anyone to review game back then, which is a few, maybe almost five years ago. Most people we approached for reviews ended up being fakes who just wanted to harvest and sell Steam Keys for free copies of the game.
If you sell a product then its only fair for it to be judged as is.
My main issue with early access game is that very few of them openly show a development roadmap that has an actual END. Take games like Warframe: It's been in early access open beta for over a year... and its been working just fine. This isn't a beta game anymore - and the content updates are just that: Its content updates. The game works more or less as intended. The only alterations that come in now are mainly UI changes, or changes in how the mission maps are shown, or a new random weapon added to the games already expansive arsenal.
I agree.
Early games should be open for review, and maybe even with the same standards as a fully released game (but it must be stressed that's it's an early access game).
It can, then, be up to the consumer to take the risk whether the game will (or will not) eventually be better.
Journalist should report on facts as they see it, and the consumer can inflate the scores in their heads or whatever to adjust for the fact that an early access is a work in progress that is yet to reach full potential.
Thanks for the video.
I agree that if the developer is charging for early access, it's fair game for reviews. I do feel that needs to be a second review, on launch, if an early access review was posted.
What was the space ship game at 8:28?