Early Access: How to tell when a game is "Ripe"

[BRC]

I dislike Early Access.

I accept it on principle, it's other people's money, and they can spend it how they want. If it means indie devs can get the support they need to make great games, that's a good thing.

However, I personally dislike it. I'm not very good at going back to re-playing games. I tend to set my sights on some game, play it, and then be done with it for a long time. The idea of booting up a game with every incremental update to play it again just does not appeal to me.

With Early Access games, especially those that take the "Endless Beta" approach, I tend to learn about them when they are cool concepts, but largely unfinished. I want to wait for the game to get "Ripe", before I buy and play it.

However, it seems that many of these early access games never get around to actually being released. Or, when they do, it's so long after the height of their early access popularity, and done with such little fanfare, that I never notice, and have long since forgotten about the game in the first place.

So yeah, when can I tell that buying an Early Access game will mean a complete experience, rather than a cool, half-implemented idea.

[Flickerdart]

You pretty much can't. Not even release is a sure thing - Paradox keeps updating Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis with new stuff even though the games already came out. Your best bet is probably just reading the reviews (no professional reviewer is going to tackle an alpha build, and user reviews will probably mention the bugs).

[AdmiralCheez]

I read the reviews, or get recommendations from friends before I even think about an early release purchase. If it looks like people are enjoying it in its current state, then I'll consider it, otherwise it gets ignored until later. I don't spend money on promises or concept art. The developers need to prove to me that they have a working concept, and are serious about seeing it through. If it looks like the game is uninspired, or still barely in alpha, then it's probably not worth the time or money.

Also, if it has anything to do with surviving a zombie apocalypse, or is a first person shooter, or has a crafting system being one of its major selling points, that's definitely a red flag and should be approached with extreme caution. If it has all three, then you're probably better off clicking "not interested."


That being said, the only games I've bought in early access/beta development are Kerbal Space Program, Besiege, and Minecraft. With those, the games were pretty much done, and all the updates were adding more parts and things to play around with, so I could come back once in a while and try out the new stuff. I'm not sure how the constant update thing would work with other genres of games.

[OrcusMcP]

I'd say you want to look for 3 things:
Scope - How ambitious is the project? Is it so big it would take years and years and years to finish?
Progress - How much has already been completed? Have they been doing any demos/marketing at cons?
Clarity - How committed are the devs to showing their progress? Are there weekly dev diaries/vlogs?

[Aotrs Commander]

Personally, I take the attitude "wait until official release day."

(Granted, with a couple of the kickstarters (Star Citizen and War for the Overworld) I've toyed a bit with the current bits (in the latter case, largely because it requried quite a lot of new hardware...!) but not anything in anger. Then again, with Pillars of Eternity (which I'm probably most psyched for) I didn't even make that attempt.)

It's done when it's done. I'm patient. I'll wait.

That said, until the advent of Kickstarter meaning people were actually making games I wanted to play again (at the cost I had to pay in advance for it to be made at all), I wouldn't even have considered buying a game until its release.

[warty goblin]

My usual metric is if it looks like I would get my money's worth out of the game as it currently exists. Which very much means that I won't pay full price for an unfinished game - let alone pay more for one. It's not a foolproof scheme, and occasionally I end up buying total crap. On the other hand I've also ended up buying total crap when employing every other purchasing scheme I can think of, bar total abstinence.

[thorgrim29]

I bought Mount and Blade when it was still in beta, ages ago (2008?), but that was a playable game at that point, it even had an active modding community already. Since then, there are 3 games I purchased in development. Star Citizen, The Mandate, and Dayz. I have no intention of playing Star Citizen outside of the arena mode until release, same for the Mandate. Dayz was mainly because my friends were playing it and I bowed to peer pressure, bad idea. Not only is it incomplete and buggy (which is to be expected), but even when it's finished that kind of game does nothing for me.

So yeah, if the game is currently playable and looks interesting I'll give it a try, and if it looks very interesting I may back it, but I'm not a beta tester and I have no interest in being one.

[factotum]

It's hard to say. I bought Minecraft when it was still in Alpha, with the result that I'd played it to death and wasn't interested in it anymore before it even hit the official release--and they're *still* messing with it, even now! I disagree with the chap above who said KSP is complete for the same reason--it might be reasonably bug-free and playable, but it's not complete if they're still adding features to it, which they are. It's like you're continously playing a playable demo of the game (remember those?) rather than a full-featured title.

Overall, my experiences have led me to this conclusion: I will not purchase any game, no matter how "complete" it may be or how good the reviews are, until the developers actually say it's been released. That applies to pre-ordering games too. The only exception is certain Kickstarter titles--for instance, I recently backed Shadowrun: Hong Kong on Kickstarter because I've played the earlier two games and I trust the development team to deliver what they promise.

[GolemsVoice]

My advice is: don't do early access. Even if the game looks promising, you're essentially paying full price for an unfinished product, with the promise that, someday, it's surely going to be finished. That absolutely doesn't mean that the finished game will be bad, but it means that, until then, the money you could have spent on another game, or on anything else, goes to a game you might not enjoy fully, because it's still a demo. It might sound strict, and maybe it it, but this way, while you might miss a few diamonds in the rough, you'll also miss a lot more disappointment.

That being said, if you WANT to play an early access game, you should inform yourself even better than if you would buy a finished game. Learn about all the bugs, the unfinished or planned stages, the promises the developers made (and compare them to what you see in the game so far) and, if possible, about the planned release date. This way you can gauge how far the game is from being finished, how much of the final game you can already experience, and how likely it is that the game will come out in time, with most of the features that were promised.

[Forbiddenwar]

How to tell when a game is complete? Today, when five year old games are still getting major updates, it seems you can't. Even when sequels are released some companies are still patching the original game. Terraria and Minecraft being the worst offenders. But most other games seem complete when the developers are pushing their next project.

Whether or not they are playable or simply abandoned, is another matter.

I played both Terraria and Minecraft to death five years ago and know that if I were to play again it would be a completely different game. So much so, that perhaps I should count them as free sequels instead.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

My usual metric is if it looks like I would get my money's worth out of the game as it currently exists.

^^This is my approach as well.

A good example is the game Guns of Icarus. Picked it up for $15 or so during it's "multi-player not-quite-beta," which was really just a PvP battle game of what they intend to turn into a MMO-esque airship combat adventure game.

The end concept doesn't appeal to me as much, and a number of design decisions they've made (chiefly in the way matches are balanced) have since turned me away from the game, but I definitely got my $15 out of it in both overall playtime and in the good fun of team-based airship combat.

[tonberrian]

Generally, I don't buy a game until a few years (3 to 10) after release, because I trawl review sites for highly reviewed games. If I see a game that looks cool, I put it on a wishlist or something, then wait for a heavy discount. There are only a small handful of games that I break those rules for, and I only do it when I am very sure I will like that game.

[AdmiralCheez]

I disagree with the chap above who said KSP is complete for the same reason--it might be reasonably bug-free and playable, but it's not complete if they're still adding features to it, which they are. It's like you're continously playing a playable demo of the game (remember those?) rather than a full-featured title.

Fair enough. I meant that the core mechanic of the game - building and flying spaceships - was complete, and that all of the updates are more game modes and more parts to build with. The game only just entered Beta a few months ago, so it's still far from full release. The appeal for me was sandbox mode, which was the only mode for awhile, so it was far enough along in development for my purposes.

A good example is the game Guns of Icarus. Picked it up for $15 or so during it's "multi-player not-quite-beta," which was really just a PvP battle game of what they intend to turn into a MMO-esque airship combat adventure game.

The end concept doesn't appeal to me as much, and a number of design decisions they've made (chiefly in the way matches are balanced) have since turned me away from the game, but I definitely got my $15 out of it in both overall playtime and in the good fun of team-based airship combat.

Same here. I almost forgot about that game. I was really into it when I bought it on sale, but then I got to a point where it was almost mandatory to have a microphone, and I never got around to buying one. Still, I feel I got my five dollars worth, so I'm not disappointed.

[Artanis]

My usual metric is if it looks like I would get my money's worth out of the game as it currently exists.

QFT. Buying an Early Access game should be like buying any other game: you ask yourself whether or not you will be playing something that is worth the amount that they are asking. If something isn't currently worth the price to you, then it isn't currently worth the price to you, regardless of what it may someday become.

The closest I would get to an exception is if it's a case where Early Access is essentially the bundled gift that comes with a pre-order. Off the top of my head, a good example of this is Galactic Civilizations III, where a fan may trust Stardock's quality and reliability enough to pre-order. With GalCiv3, however, the pre-order gift is Beta access (labeled "Early Access" due to it being The Catchphrase right now) instead of the typical crappy in-game skin.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm also firmly in the "don't buy early access" camp.

It's why I'm waiting for the eventual PS4 release of Darkest Dungeon, because that will be the complete product not the early access version.

[warty goblin]

QFT. Buying an Early Access game should be like buying any other game: you ask yourself whether or not you will be playing something that is worth the amount that they are asking. If something isn't currently worth the price to you, then it isn't currently worth the price to you, regardless of what it may someday become.

The closest I would get to an exception is if it's a case where Early Access is essentially the bundled gift that comes with a pre-order. Off the top of my head, a good example of this is Galactic Civilizations III, where a fan may trust Stardock's quality and reliability enough to pre-order. With GalCiv3, however, the pre-order gift is Beta access (labeled "Early Access" due to it being The Catchphrase right now) instead of the typical crappy in-game skin.

I will also on some occasions consider some probability weighted measure of this turning out to be really good later, even if right now it's only probably just decent*. This only comes up when the company in question has a track record of actually producing things I have enjoyed playing. $5 and a bunch of promises on a Kickstarter page will get you a cup of coffee. Or it would if I worked in a coffee shop, but I'm not spending money on something that does not exist, and the future existence of which I have no credible way of assessing. Just the existence mind, not even the question of quality.

So to summarize:

1. Kickstarter/other pay now for early access later schemes: Not gonna happen.
2. early access: if I can right now have considerable fun with it, or there's extremely high probability based on historical precident (not wishful thinking) that it will later be considerably fun.
3. Just offer me a thing right now for X dollars: Still a fan of the traditional method, to be honest.

*I flat out won't give anybody money if they can't offer me something at least decent. And if anybody says word one about 'supporting something' as a reason to buy it I will laugh in their face. Gaming's not a cause, it's a hobby, and working in that hobby or not is a matter of one person's career. Not important unless you are that person or married to that person.

[Aotrs Commander]

I will also on some occasions consider some probability weighted measure of this turning out to be really good later, even if right now it's only probably just decent*. This only comes up when the company in question has a track record of actually producing things I have enjoyed playing. $5 and a bunch of promises on a Kickstarter page will get you a cup of coffee. Or it would if I worked in a coffee shop, but I'm not spending money on something that does not exist, and the future existence of which I have no credible way of assessing. Just the existence mind, not even the question of quality.

So to summarize:

1. Kickstarter/other pay now for early access later schemes: Not gonna happen.
2. early access: if I can right now have considerable fun with it, or there's extremely high probability based on historical precident (not wishful thinking) that it will later be considerably fun.
3. Just offer me a thing right now for X dollars: Still a fan of the traditional method, to be honest.

*I flat out won't give anybody money if they can't offer me something at least decent. And if anybody says word one about 'supporting something' as a reason to buy it I will laugh in their face. Gaming's not a cause, it's a hobby, and working in that hobby or not is a matter of one person's career. Not important unless you are that person or married to that person.

For choice, I wouldn't have gone for Kickstarters, myself. Sadly, if I don't, my options for future gaming are... extremely limited. Considering the games I play are largely antithetical to what is now "mainstream" (sic) gaming (i.e. what the big companies think will make them most money). (The amount of games I bought last year was extremely small. And about half of THEM were old games (or releases of) at that...)

[Rodin]

I've occasionally Kickstarted stuff because I want to see it get made. I haven't been disappointed thus far, either. However, I do tend to stay away from the beta when it appears and any game that is in "Early Access" has already made it past the Kickstarter stage and will get made, so I see no reason to pay until reviews are available.

Darkest Dungeon is a highlight of why I don't do Early Access - got in the beta because I Kickstarted it, and so couldn't resist when the beta came out. But the game is currently missing half its classes and half its dungeons, so really only 50% of the game is there right now. Gameplay is great, but I really don't want to exhaust myself on it before the rest of the game comes out. I've played it enough to sate my curiousity, now I can put it aside until the game comes out for real.

[factotum]

any game that is in "Early Access" has already made it past the Kickstarter stage and will get made

Well, that plain isn't true, unfortunately. Look at Towns, or Spacebase DF-9--both Early Access games where the developer just arbitrarily up and said one day, "OK, this is finished now, knock yourself out" without having implemented half of the promised features. Once they do say the game is finished they're under no obligation to actually put any more work into the product, so you end up having paid for a promise that was never kept. Steam's famous lack of caring about what appears on its storefront applies even more to Early Access, too--there's some real garbage actually being sold there under the EA banner (and for once that doesn't stand for Electronic Arts).

[Rodin]

That's true. I guess what I meant was that a game which is in Early Access is past the "We'd really like to make this, but haven't got funding to even begin" stage. Early Access means it's being developed, while Kickstarter projects aren't yet. There's no guarantee that the developer is any good, but there's equal danger there for both Kickstarter and Early Access.

I suppose the overall rule is "do your research". Or treat your investment as gambling money.

[Aotrs Commander]

That's true. I guess what I meant was that a game which is in Early Access is past the "We'd really like to make this, but haven't got funding to even begin" stage. Early Access means it's being developed, while Kickstarter projects aren't yet. There's no guarantee that the developer is any good, but there's equal danger there for both Kickstarter and Early Access.

I suppose the overall rule is "do your research". Or treat your investment as gambling money.

Yes, absolutely.

The first game I funded on Kickstarter was from Obsidian (Pillars of Eternity). I figured that a large professional company like them would at the very least, barring unforseen calamities that might strike any company (like the building burns down or something), be undertaking a project within their abilities to finish and release. (It's due out at the end of March, so then we shall see if my initial gamble had paid off...!)

[warty goblin]

Well, that plain isn't true, unfortunately. Look at Towns, or Spacebase DF-9--both Early Access games where the developer just arbitrarily up and said one day, "OK, this is finished now, knock yourself out" without having implemented half of the promised features. Once they do say the game is finished they're under no obligation to actually put any more work into the product, so you end up having paid for a promise that was never kept. Steam's famous lack of caring about what appears on its storefront applies even more to Early Access, too--there's some real garbage actually being sold there under the EA banner (and for once that doesn't stand for Electronic Arts).

What I find interesting about these cases is that the views I've seen of them are generally as you said, betrayal and broken promises. Which strikes me as a pretty strange way to approach the question, because sometimes when somebody tries to make a thing it simply does not work. If you invest at the extremely early stage, this is a real chance you take. And when your investment is a sum total of $20 or whatever, the absolute most you can be said to be entitled to in terms of dollars put on the line is the game as it stands now plus about one hour of work from the lowest paid person in the company.

[GolemsVoice]

Except you (and many others, most likely) gave them 20$ for what they presented as doable, and you did not receive what they promised. Big firms get a lot of flack for releasing half-finished products, and the preorder system is criticized for trying to push the sales to a date where the reviews cannot intervene, so to say.

Why shouldn't other people get flack for promising something, getting money for that promise, and delivering something that does not really resemble that product? If you tell people you're going to make X, and then fail to deliver X, you should be the first to be blamed, not your customers. Because they "tried to make something happen" with money that was not their own.

[Forbiddenwar]

When it comes to kick starter backing something that doesn't exist yet, it truly is gambling. Or rather worse, because we can calculate the odds of hitting 21 in blackjack, but not the odds of a project completing. If it was investing, then the legal protections and taxes would be different (better IMHO). If it was preordering you could get some or all of your money back. If it was gambling you could calculate the odds. Kickstarter is none of these things.

But some the game projects I backed on kickstarter, early access and directly through the company have more than promises, a free demo. I bought Minecraft after a free weekend and decided that the current state was worth the $5. Same with kerbal space program. And War for The Overworld. The decision to buy now or wait can be very subjective. I answer it for myself with this:

Am I going to want to play it now?
Is it a good value for the money they are asking for right now? Not when it is finished because, frankly, that's becoming more unlikely every day.
Do I have the money right now?

[wumpus]

When is a game ripe? (general):
When the forum chatter is no longer about a games potential and more about playing the current game.

When it is released (mostly a joke entry): Buying a game at full price at a point in development largely determined by the publisher's marketing arm. A good reason to laugh at those who "pre-buy".

During summer (or otherwise) Steam sale: Scoop up all those games (which have almost certainly recieved all the bug fixes they are going to get). Stock up for more than one years of play (probably the most logical time, and my personal recommendation.

Ten years from now (http://xkcd.com/606/). Because you don't want to buy more powerful hardware then a rasberry pi running emulation.

For you? I'd guess you need to wait until development is at an end, and you are pretty sure all bug patches are done. Warning: make sure what type of DRM the game may be infected with. You need time to complete the game before the publisher turns off the DRM validating servers. Seriously, if you have to wait until develpment is done, just wait for the Steam sale.

[Knaight]

Except you (and many others, most likely) gave them 20$ for what they presented as doable, and you did not receive what they promised. Big firms get a lot of flack for releasing half-finished products, and the preorder system is criticized for trying to push the sales to a date where the reviews cannot intervene, so to say.

Yes, but at that point what you're theoretically buying is a complete game. With Kickstarter, that's never what you're doing, you're providing the funding to produce a thing, and if it gets produced you get whatever was detailed. There's an inherent risk there that should be taken into account.

As an analogy, take research grants. Those are there to provide the money to investigate a particular thing. There often is some sort of end goal of knowledge (or even some sort of usable product, particularly in industry) which is what the money is eventually for, but there's an inherent risk that the idea being researched just doesn't work.

[GolemsVoice]

Well, yes and no. The first thing is that, as far as I know, research grants are far more open ended, while most kickstarter projects are more focused. Also, there's often the difference between stuff not working out, and money being squandered due to inefficiency or just plain promising too much too early. No game ever gets released 100% as it was originally planned, so yes, kickstarter projects do deserve some amount of leniency. However, a scientist who constantly fails to deliver updates, results and clear communication will see their money dry up fast. And Just like with research grants, there's the inherent risk of intentionally advertising much more than can be done in order to get the cash, and then deliver a lackluster product when the people cannot withdraw their money anymore.

[warty goblin]

Except you (and many others, most likely) gave them 20$ for what they presented as doable, and you did not receive what they promised. Big firms get a lot of flack for releasing half-finished products, and the preorder system is criticized for trying to push the sales to a date where the reviews cannot intervene, so to say.

Why shouldn't other people get flack for promising something, getting money for that promise, and delivering something that does not really resemble that product? If you tell people you're going to make X, and then fail to deliver X, you should be the first to be blamed, not your customers. Because they "tried to make something happen" with money that was not their own.

It is their money; pretty much by definition as soon as I give it to them, in exchange for whatever the game currently is plus any future content that may happen. I'm exchanging money for a product, some of which does not yet exist; and the existence of which is contingent on their being enough money to create it. That is not a factor under my control. Nor is it a factor under the control of the developer. There not being enough money to make the things listed is an obvious and built-in risk of a dispersed funding scheme like this. You don't have as much skin in the game, but you also don't have nearly as much control.

Or at least that's how I see it; since I take any pledges of future content as being implicitly conditional on there being enough money available to make them. Now as it stands the money side of things is vastly more opaque than it needs to be, at least for Steam's EA system. There's no requirement to present expected costs, or show how much EA money has been secured, so I have essentially no way to assess how likely it is that the developers will get enough money to implement all those features. I think this is not a good way to run things, and should be rethought, perhaps along the lines of Kickstarter's stretch goals system.

But it's the way it is now; which means that any purchase of an EA game funded primarily through EA inherently has a very high degree of uncertainty. It's a gamble, and while it isn't the fault of the gambler that they lose the bet due to factors outside their control, it's their decision to make the bet. So I'm not going to feel super sorry for folks who choose to bet on an (unnecessarily) opaque system and lose every now and again. Them's the really quite obvious risks.

(Which isn't to say that there aren't legitimately fraudulent abuses of EA. It's another risk one runs when investing money in a stranger's promise, but one that deserves a very different response to things simply not working out.)