A lot of devs already do this. That's what Steam Early Access is for. Now, whether or not the devs actually listen to feedback is a different story...
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
58 points (73.0% liked)
Games
32521 readers
1197 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Early Access is just "release". Only the devs openly admit ahead of time the game is buggy and unfinished, and promise - as always - to fix it up and add the missing parts.
Often they do. Sometimes they don't.
TBH it's ultimately nothing but a shitty buggy release, but the honesty of making that known ahead of time buys a whole lot of goodwill. It should be the default, that any publisher releasing a game that is not finished - so most AAA nowadays - marks it as Early Access, openly declaring the unfinished part.
It's also very different from a beta version, which is usually feature and content complete (otherwise it's generally called an alpha). Early Access versions are often very early in the development process, they're feature-complete-ish, but never or rarely content complete, usually just starting out on that. This works exceedingly well for games that need "just more stuff", but can miss the mark on games that need underlying systems reworked as this ires the existing playerbase and splits it.
I disagree, big publishers do not deserve early access, they have money to pay for QA, it's a gross misuse of the feature.
Early access isn't necessarily different from a beta version, it's just the name of the program used by devs to generate some revenue and get feedback during development. The game can be in alpha or beta or whatever.
Personally, I avoid games in early access on principle (with a couple exceptions) as I would rather play them once they are completed.
Same, I got little enough gaming time, might as well play it once it's in its best state and play something else before that.
I’m talking to you Hello Games (No man’s sky), just don’t mess it up with upcoming ‘Light no fire’.
What messed up NMS was overpromise to a basically criminal degree. If this were a B2B-transaction, they'd have been sued to hell and back. There's absolutely 0 chance LNF won't suffer exactly the same fate.
I'm cautiously optimistic for Light No Fire. The main thing I learned from the NMS initial launch experience (am a day 1 player) is not to allow myself to get too hyped for games (this knowledge was cemented by the launch of CP2077 haha). And, you'd hope that Sean / HG learned also not to overpromise in terms of feature set... would hope they learned a hell of a lot from the long cycle of updating NMS.
Well, there's no redemption arc bigger than NMS in gaming history, being optimistic about NMS is ok and has been for a few years.
My opinion: Follow the Apex Legends one. Don't tell the public literally anything. Build up zero hype, and then release it out of nowhere and let the game speak for itself. No hype = no overinflated expectations or impatient gamers. Obviously not every studio should do this, but I wish more would. I enjoy being pleasantly surprised, rather than wait for a game for years, only for it to be overpromised and DOA.
I see what you're saying, but it's unviable for much of the industry, and Apex seems to be a rare case where it found success despite the competition of overwatch, counter strike etc and despite being unknown (unlike valorant, which had significant brand recognition behind it).
But it's unviable. Large studios need to market their games early to recover development costs through pre purchases and get people excited enough to buy day 1 (and to convince investors that there is enough excitement behind the title).
Small studios already do this - they don't have brand recognition and therefore no money or need to market their games extensively (except on free platforms like Lemmy, Reddit etc), and hope their game somehow gets picked up by twitch and does well (e.g. Among Us). For many, many indie titles, their games die in obscurity, or get just enough attention to cover costs.
In general, what you're asking for is the following: Don't tell the public anything. Build a game that's good enough but has an unknown IP (so that people who are hunting for registered URLs or LinkedIn hires don't spot anything that could hint at a game), and then release it suddenly, but be absolutely confident that it is genuinely fun, it's watertight (free from major bugs) and chef's kiss optimised so incredibly well, that it gets nothing but glowing reviews on day 1 and word of mouth alone, through Twitch and YouTube is enough to propel it into the mainstream and make it an instant hit.
Or be Starfield lmao. If Bethesda is unable to do to Starfield what No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk did, then there's absolutely no confidence that Elder Scrolls 6 will be a good game.
I think you can learn a lot from apex even if it's not the obvious choice. For Counterstrike 2 the trailer was dropped, aggressively marketed and a beta was put in people's hands basically at the same time solidifying the game is good. Then it disappeared until launch. It very clearly worked because there were no complaints about the game. No question how good it is because the streamers played it. Then it's just a waiting game. BG3 not quite the same but putting the game into people's hands meant that people knew it was solid, before launch. Access creates buzz, especially if a game is enjoyable. It's the through line between all the success stories. Let people play good game, then other people want to play the good game.
That approach works for some studios and some game projects but it's no silver bullet. A lot of times gamers don't know what they want until it's handed on them on a silver platter which can make taking the correct kind of feedback really difficult. Sometimes outside influence may also stray the developers from their original vision.
That being said, developing game in complete secrecy for years and expecting it to become a success has pretty much the same chance as winning in a lottery. Getting MVP out there asap to see if the game will receive any sort of traction and feedback is generally the best approach unless it already has an audience (sequel or well known developer). It can be prototype, demo or early access as long as it's something.
[edit] Removed some repetition
Do you mean "blueprint"?
English is not my first language. Sorry 😭
Just edit the headline
<3
I hope Titan Quest 2 will be good too.
It's under a different studio than the original. The original devs are releasing a new DLC for Grim Dawn, though.
Its crazy that they still update that game and I love it
Holly shiy Berk from yhe hit manga Berserk
take 20 years for the next game?
But BG2' dev and BG3's dev are different. The moment Larian (BG3's dev) got rights to develop BG3, they started immediately.