Ark when launched was super buggy but look at success i have myself i played 3200 hours well worth invest in EA(Rust similar).
Now we have new King of EA in town called PLAYERUNKNOWNBATLLEGROUNDS its Early Access but man is it HUGE success.
It soon probaly will have daily 200k players on steam its for past month in TOP3 of best played games. Myself so far have 350 hours in PUBG well worth my money for this EA GAME.
Sure many EA are a fail but you can still test game for 2 hours or refund. Also all EA give up front WARNING its a EA and have bugs.
EA nothing vague about it some common sense you won't lose money ever.
DayZ maybe biggest flop EA but still many who complain have hundreds of hours in that game.
EA is great!!!
meanwhile the only article someone like PC Gamer writes is 'whats wrong with early access' and never 'what is good about early access'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
@SEANMCAD I was curious about your 3 out of the top 6 steam games for 2016 were indie games comment. I can't seem to find anything to back that statement up.
I did some searching for top grossing steam games of 2016, best I can find is from Steam itself:
I can only see Rocket League and No Mans Sky in the top 12 that are indie games. Rocket League obviously did really well, No Mans Sky was almost universally slammed. No Mans Sky was also guilty of the problems you say exist outside the indie scene (over hyping etc).
I will admit, there were more indie titles in the top 100 than I was expecting. I personally don't really enjoy indie titles. Part of that is because the main genres I enjoy (RPG and MMO) require massive budgets to develop good games and so the indie scene can't do it. The other reason is that for every good indie title, there are 1000 terrible ones. I don't have the patience to wade through all that shit to find good stuff, so I tend to wait for the good ones to naturally emerge. So, I tried Prison Architect (my one and only EA purchase) and that was good, but admittedly I've not played it since release as it wasn't good enough to make me return. I bought Rocket League, but that was a one-trick pony and extremely dull. I also bought Kerbal Space Program and whilst I can appreciate the technical brilliance of that game, the actual minute-to-minute gameplay was boring as fuck.
Look I am going to try and take a break from these forums. I get up this morning take a look and the first two I read people claim I said something i didnt even say. They are very clearly not reading what I am saying
My apologies, you're right, you said early access.
The 2016 data is then very different to 2015 with all games in the top 12 being fully released. I did go searching for 2015 data but can't find anything official. The estimated top 20 lists I've found only have Ark in the top 6 as early access, all others were fully released.
As for No Mans Sky not being indie?
The studio was tiny
They developed and published the game themselves - this is really the only actual criteria for an indie (i.e. INDEPENDENT) studio
The games budget was small
The game experimented with new technology / ideas at the expense of graphics - a hallmark trait of the indie genre
The game sucked
The game fulfils the technical and social requirements for being an indie game. The only difference is sony picked it as a game to promote on it's platform at a time where sony were trying to differentiate themselves from microsoft by championing the indie cause. Can't really blame NMS for that.
I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
@SEANMCAD I was curious about your 3 out of the top 6 steam games for 2016 were indie games comment. I can't seem to find anything to back that statement up.
I did some searching for top grossing steam games of 2016, best I can find is from Steam itself:
I can only see Rocket League and No Mans Sky in the top 12 that are indie games. Rocket League obviously did really well, No Mans Sky was almost universally slammed. No Mans Sky was also guilty of the problems you say exist outside the indie scene (over hyping etc).
I will admit, there were more indie titles in the top 100 than I was expecting. I personally don't really enjoy indie titles. Part of that is because the main genres I enjoy (RPG and MMO) require massive budgets to develop good games and so the indie scene can't do it. The other reason is that for every good indie title, there are 1000 terrible ones. I don't have the patience to wade through all that shit to find good stuff, so I tend to wait for the good ones to naturally emerge. So, I tried Prison Architect (my one and only EA purchase) and that was good, but admittedly I've not played it since release as it wasn't good enough to make me return. I bought Rocket League, but that was a one-trick pony and extremely dull. I also bought Kerbal Space Program and whilst I can appreciate the technical brilliance of that game, the actual minute-to-minute gameplay was boring as fuck.
Look I am going to try and take a break from these forums. I get up this morning take a look and the first two I read people claim I said something i didnt even say. They are very clearly not reading what I am saying
My apologies, you're right, you said early access.
The 2016 data is then very different to 2015 with all games in the top 12 being fully released. I did go searching for 2015 data but can't find anything official. The estimated top 20 lists I've found only have Ark in the top 6 as early access, all others were fully released.
As for No Mans Sky not being indie?
The studio was tiny
They developed and published the game themselves - this is really the only actual criteria for an indie (i.e. INDEPENDENT) studio
The games budget was small
The game experimented with new technology / ideas at the expense of graphics - a hallmark trait of the indie genre
The game sucked
The game fulfils the technical and social requirements for being an indie game. The only difference is sony picked it as a game to promote on it's platform at a time where sony were trying to differentiate themselves from microsoft by championing the indie cause. Can't really blame NMS for that.
I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
1. are you trying to suggest that you have information that would lead one to conclud that somehow 2016 would be radically different in sales then 2015 to the point that it seems early access is not popular? what is it that I am trying to illustrate? I am trying to illustrate that a lot of people like early access games? why do I even have to bother to do that? because a lot of people who are in the dark think I am the only person who likes these games. I am not, a lot of people do, its a popular, successful platform. PLEASE dont get hung up on the 2015 vs 2016 point, it doesnt really help.
2. A studio that gets funded by Sony for PR is in my mind not-indie. it is in fact a strick definition of not indie. More over, for reasons i have given its not plasualby possible that they didnt get money before it was publically known. please go back and read those reasons if you need i cant repost the quote
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
I'd disagree with you on the bad business practices bit. If anything I think it promotes good business practices. If you take a look back to 2009 and compare that to now, the delta in how projects are being managed is quite different and we're seeing more and more projects being successful. That's mostly because people are looking for work to be finished up-front. Some might say that somewhat defeats the purpose of Kickstarter, but I think that it benefits the backer, which is a good thing.
On the second point, I also don't play early access, but I will back crowdfunding games. I have done my time in the trenches of betas (like real ones) and I have no interest in testing games anymore. However, if there is a project that I would like to see made, and if they present me with a value proposition that makes sense, I'll give them some money. I won't play the game until it's released, but I'll give them money.
I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
I'd disagree with you on the bad business practices bit. If anything I think it promotes good business practices. If you take a look back to 2009 and compare that to now, the delta in how projects are being managed is quite different and we're seeing more and more projects being successful. That's mostly because people are looking for work to be finished up-front. Some might say that somewhat defeats the purpose of Kickstarter, but I think that it benefits the backer, which is a good thing.
On the second point, I also don't play early access, but I will back crowdfunding games. I have done my time in the trenches of betas (like real ones) and I have no interest in testing games anymore. However, if there is a project that I would like to see made, and if they present me with a value proposition that makes sense, I'll give them some money. I won't play the game until it's released, but I'll give them money.
I would encourage you to try early access games.
For those who do not play early access games their logic make 100% sense and is 100% sound HOWEVER...surprisingly to me and even shocking to me the reality of it doesnt match up with the logic. Games are good (they should be bad) games are solid (they should be buggy) developers should take money and run (they often offer more than originally planned).
So for you specially the take away I give you is this: Games that have been in early access for more than a year are very often VERY solid and playing them doesnt comes remotely close to feeling like 'testing'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
I'd disagree with you on the bad business practices bit. If anything I think it promotes good business practices. If you take a look back to 2009 and compare that to now, the delta in how projects are being managed is quite different and we're seeing more and more projects being successful. That's mostly because people are looking for work to be finished up-front. Some might say that somewhat defeats the purpose of Kickstarter, but I think that it benefits the backer, which is a good thing.
On the second point, I also don't play early access, but I will back crowdfunding games. I have done my time in the trenches of betas (like real ones) and I have no interest in testing games anymore. However, if there is a project that I would like to see made, and if they present me with a value proposition that makes sense, I'll give them some money. I won't play the game until it's released, but I'll give them money.
I would encourage you to try early access games.
For those who do not play early access games their logic make 100% sense and is 100% sound HOWEVER...surprisingly to me and even shocking to me the reality of it doesnt match up with the logic. Games are good (they should be bad) games are solid (they should be buggy) developers should take money and run (they often offer more than originally planned).
So for you specially the take away I give you is this: Games that have been in early access for more than a year are very often VERY solid and playing them doesnt comes remotely close to feeling like 'testing'
Yup, and I totally get that. Grim Dawn is an example of a game I actually played in Early Access.
My biggest thing is time. I don't want to invest time into something I'll just have to restart later on. That's a biggie for me. Also, it's a big reason I don't play these wildly open games like Space Engineers or Minecraft. I just want to have some sort of goal or objective. I want a 30 or 40 hour experience that I can come away with feeling like I accomplished something or saved some world, lol.
I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
I'd disagree with you on the bad business practices bit. If anything I think it promotes good business practices. If you take a look back to 2009 and compare that to now, the delta in how projects are being managed is quite different and we're seeing more and more projects being successful. That's mostly because people are looking for work to be finished up-front. Some might say that somewhat defeats the purpose of Kickstarter, but I think that it benefits the backer, which is a good thing.
On the second point, I also don't play early access, but I will back crowdfunding games. I have done my time in the trenches of betas (like real ones) and I have no interest in testing games anymore. However, if there is a project that I would like to see made, and if they present me with a value proposition that makes sense, I'll give them some money. I won't play the game until it's released, but I'll give them money.
I would encourage you to try early access games.
For those who do not play early access games their logic make 100% sense and is 100% sound HOWEVER...surprisingly to me and even shocking to me the reality of it doesnt match up with the logic. Games are good (they should be bad) games are solid (they should be buggy) developers should take money and run (they often offer more than originally planned).
So for you specially the take away I give you is this: Games that have been in early access for more than a year are very often VERY solid and playing them doesnt comes remotely close to feeling like 'testing'
Yup, and I totally get that. Grim Dawn is an example of a game I actually played in Early Access.
My biggest thing is time. I don't want to invest time into something I'll just have to restart later on. That's a biggie for me. Also, it's a big reason I don't play these wildly open games like Space Engineers or Minecraft. I just want to have some sort of goal or objective. I want a 30 or 40 hour experience that I can come away with feeling like I accomplished something or saved some world, lol.
fair enough. I dont have these problems
oh and my rally car on My Summer Car is almost done so I can race it (objective....stated)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Games that have been in early access for more than a year are very often VERY solid and playing them doesnt comes remotely close to feeling like 'testing'
Shroud of the Avatar, originally supposed to release in November, 2014. Still in early access, missing tons of core features, and buggy as hell.
Gloria Victis, supposed to release in June 2016. Still in early access, major lag issues, and a crash-fest.
The Repopulation, originally supposed to release in December 2016. Still in early access and practically unplayable.
Ark, originally supposed to release in June 2015. Still in early access, major pathing problems and buggy as hell. Can't get the base game right but that doesn't stop them from offering DLCs in early access.
H1Z1, originally supposed to release in February 2016. Still in early access, missing major game features, new content consists of purchasable skins instead of gameplay, and has bugs galore.
DayZ, originally supposed to release in December 2013, almost no improvements in the past two years and known exploits left unfixed.
Exceptions: 7DTD, Rust, The Long Dark, Grim Dawn.
You really need to stop talking in absolutes ("games that have been in early access for more than a year are very often..." -- NO they are NOT).
The guidance you should be giving is: Early access games are not finished and there are no guarantees they ever will be or will take the direction the developers originally told you. Some are good and some are bad, just like released games. Proceed at your own risk.
Instead you regurgitate some "unicorns and rainbows" garbage about early access games in development for over a year as justification for being good games. What fantasy world do you live in?
Games that have been in early access for more than a year are very often VERY solid and playing them doesnt comes remotely close to feeling like 'testing'
Shroud of the Avatar, originally supposed to release in November, 2014. Still in early access, missing tons of core features, and buggy as hell.
Gloria Victis, supposed to release in June 2016. Still in early access, major lag issues, and a crash-fest.
The Repopulation, originally supposed to release in December 2016. Still in early access and practically unplayable.
Ark, originally supposed to release in June 2015. Still in early access, major pathing problems and buggy as hell. Can't get the base game right but that doesn't stop them from offering DLCs in early access.
H1Z1, originally supposed to release in February 2016. Still in early access, missing major game features, new content consists of purchasable skins instead of gameplay, and has bugs galore.
DayZ, originally supposed to release in December 2013, almost no improvements in the past two years and known exploits left unfixed.
Exceptions: 7DTD, Rust, The Long Dark, Grim Dawn.
You really need to stop talking in absolutes ("games that have been in early access for more than a year are very often..." -- NO they are NOT).
The guidance you should be giving is: Early access games are not finished and there are no guarantees they ever will be or will take the direction the developers originally told you. Some are good and some are bad, just like released games. Proceed at your own risk.
Instead you regurgitate some "unicorns and rainbows" garbage about early access games in development for over a year as justification for being good games. What fantasy world do you live in?
literally every single solitary early access game I have is solid except for one, and early access games are all I play anymore
Dont come and accuse me of making absolutes when I was responding to someone who was MAKING AN ABSOULTE!!!
my reply had the same weight and carelessness of hyper accuracy as his did.
I have been playing early access games almost full time of my game time for 3 years now and NEVER felt like I was 'testing'. what a bunch of bullshit
and nearly 1/2 of your examples have nothing whatsoever to do with bugs or testing. in fact the only time you use the words bugs are in abstract ways and instead focus on things not related to feeling like one is a tester.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
literally every single solitary early access game I have is solid except for one, and early access games are all I play anymore
That's your justification? Because it's true in the little bubble YOU live in? /facepalm
dude!
1. every example you posted nearly none of it was related to bugs in any specific way 2. you are asking me to not do something that the person I was responding did themselves! that is called a double standard. 3. I have been playing early access for 3 years full time (unlike most people in this forum) and I can tell you I never felt like a 'tester'. Games with bugs? yeah a few, even smaller few game breaking but never fucking 'a tester'.
Now I am getting exhausted from people who dont play any early access games at all (and likely never have) telling me how early access games are
your 'evidence' is 1. you dont even play early access titles. 2. a bunch of random information not related to bugs at all.
wow! and on top of it you find it helpful to expect one standard from me but not from others... nice
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I don't play early access games? Huh, I didn't know 7DTD was released. I also didn't realize all that time I played Grim Dawn was after it released. Not to mention ARK, which was the last straw before I finally gave up on early access games. I guess early access was an error on their part. Let's not even get into the others I tried over the past few years.
More assumption on your part. You really should start asking others before you start shoving words in their mouth. Back to your bubble, you clearly have trouble functioning outside of it.
I don't play early access games? Huh, I didn't know 7DTD was released. I also didn't realize all that time I played Grim Dawn was after it released. Not to mention ARK, which was the last straw before I finally gave up on early access games. I guess early access was an error on their part. Let's not even get into the others I tried over the past few years.
More assumption on your part. You really should start asking others before you start shoving words in their mouth. Back to your bubble, you clearly have trouble functioning outside of it.
1. yes..you likely do not play early access
2. the list your provided of evidence realted to the question of 'bugs' and feeling like a tester', read to me like you didnt even read my post because the majority of what you illustrated has NOTHING TO DO WITH BUGS OR TESTING. game being not released is not about testing, games having DLC attached to them is not related to testing, devs taking a shit for 6 months is not related to testing, devs liying about what will be in the game, is not about testing.
3. you hold me to a different standard then others. You doo not see saying 'early access I am not intrested in because I dont want to feel like a tester' as a broad general statement but you expect me to write a book filled with evidence of my claims.
4. Ark would not have the population it has if it was a buggy mess where everyone feels like they are testing btw.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
More assumption. Here, have a look at my Steam games.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond. You clearly have issues.
*postlarval slowly steps away from the crazy person...*
DUDE!
read very carefully
1. The list of examples you gave most of them didnt contain anything about bugs or testing. I dont think you understand the conversation was about feeling like your a tester. Developers taking vacations, selling DLCs and running late has
NOTHING TO DO WITH BUGS OR TESTING
2. You do not see this statement as being a broad general statement 'i dont want to play early access games because I dont want to feel like a tester'. but you do want to hold higher standard for what I say
3. owning a game and actually playing them is not the same thing. I believe I said 'you dont play early access games' if i said 'own' that was an error on my part
please focus on the meat of the conversation which is ITEM 1 ITEM 2
NOT Item 3
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
More assumption. Here, have a look at my Steam games.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond. You clearly have issues.
*postlarval slowly steps away from the crazy person...*
DUDE!
read very carefully
1. The list of examples you gave most of them didnt contain anything about bugs or testing. I dont think you understand the conversation was about feeling like your a tester. Developers taking vacations, selling DLCs and running late has
NOTHING TO DO WITH BUGS OR TESTING
2. You do not see this statement as being a broad general statement 'i dont want to play early access games because I dont want to feel like a tester'. but you do want to hold higher standard for what I say
3. owning a game and actually playing them is not the same thing. I believe I said 'you dont play early access games' if i said 'own' that was an error on my part
please focus on the meat of the conversation which is ITEM 1 ITEM 2
NOT Item 3
EVERY early access game I've played I've felt like a tester. I've never played an early access game that was polished enough that it felt like it was ready for prime time. Never.
More assumption. Here, have a look at my Steam games.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond. You clearly have issues.
*postlarval slowly steps away from the crazy person...*
DUDE!
read very carefully
1. The list of examples you gave most of them didnt contain anything about bugs or testing. I dont think you understand the conversation was about feeling like your a tester. Developers taking vacations, selling DLCs and running late has
NOTHING TO DO WITH BUGS OR TESTING
2. You do not see this statement as being a broad general statement 'i dont want to play early access games because I dont want to feel like a tester'. but you do want to hold higher standard for what I say
3. owning a game and actually playing them is not the same thing. I believe I said 'you dont play early access games' if i said 'own' that was an error on my part
please focus on the meat of the conversation which is ITEM 1 ITEM 2
NOT Item 3
EVERY early access game I've played I've felt like a tester. I've never played an early access game that was polished enough that it felt like it was ready for prime time. Never.
but the evidence you provided has nothing to with with bugs or testing.
You 'feel like a tester' because you are misguided on what you are frustrated about. Developers released paid DLC while a game in early access IS NOT TESTING. being late on delivery IS NOT TESTING. stop providing updates to the game IS NOT TESTING.
and I dont want to you to get distracted by this second point but its worth me stating that I basically dont believe your assertion. I say that with confidence because if you did feel about early access as you have stated you do you would not have continued to play or more likely not even start. I say that because of your attitude toward it in general. Its one thing to play something and be frustrated its something else to be highly biased, and highly against something but continue to play
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
More assumption. Here, have a look at my Steam games.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond. You clearly have issues.
*postlarval slowly steps away from the crazy person...*
DUDE!
read very carefully
1. The list of examples you gave most of them didnt contain anything about bugs or testing. I dont think you understand the conversation was about feeling like your a tester. Developers taking vacations, selling DLCs and running late has
NOTHING TO DO WITH BUGS OR TESTING
2. You do not see this statement as being a broad general statement 'i dont want to play early access games because I dont want to feel like a tester'. but you do want to hold higher standard for what I say
3. owning a game and actually playing them is not the same thing. I believe I said 'you dont play early access games' if i said 'own' that was an error on my part
please focus on the meat of the conversation which is ITEM 1 ITEM 2
NOT Item 3
EVERY early access game I've played I've felt like a tester. I've never played an early access game that was polished enough that it felt like it was ready for prime time. Never.
but the evidence you provided has nothing to with with bugs or testing.
You 'feel like a tester' because you are misguided on what you are frustrated about. Developers released paid DLC while a game in early access IS NOT TESTING. being late on delivery IS NOT TESTING. stop providing updates to the game IS NOT TESTING.
and I dont want to you to get distracted by this second point but its worth me stating that I basically dont believe your assertion. I say that with confidence because if you did feel about early access as you have stated you do you would not have continued to play or more likely not even start. I say that because of your attitude toward it in general. Its one thing to play something and be frustrated its something else to be highly biased, and highly against something but continue to play
nahh dude, when you play Open Beta, yah, you're paying to beta-test the game for them, regardless if you bother to fill out the bug reports, you're still a beta-tester, because you sure ain't playing live.
I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
I'd disagree with you on the bad business practices bit. If anything I think it promotes good business practices. If you take a look back to 2009 and compare that to now, the delta in how projects are being managed is quite different and we're seeing more and more projects being successful. That's mostly because people are looking for work to be finished up-front. Some might say that somewhat defeats the purpose of Kickstarter, but I think that it benefits the backer, which is a good thing.
On the second point, I also don't play early access, but I will back crowdfunding games. I have done my time in the trenches of betas (like real ones) and I have no interest in testing games anymore. However, if there is a project that I would like to see made, and if they present me with a value proposition that makes sense, I'll give them some money. I won't play the game until it's released, but I'll give them money.
So, the games industry over the last 10 (maybe 15?) years has, in most peoples opinions, stagnated. It is the same with any emerging industry - you get an initial growth period with businesses and investments of all sizes. As popularity, and thus money, increases, so does investment. With increased investment comes a natural desire to reduce risk, which is why stagnation occurs.
The outcome within the games industry has been that the AAA end of the market has become very stale - there is simply too much money to risk. The mid-end of the market has almost disappeared compared to my teenage years. You still have some companies pumping out mid-range games (like Codemasters) but too many of these companies have been bought out and destroyed by giants like EA. The indie scene is as it's always been, but has expanded in an attempt to fill the void left by the mid-range.
How does this relate to bad practices?
I have three main concerns:
1) Lazy Development
I work in IT as a project manager of sorts and I have worked in the games industry so have seen this first hand. Once you've been paid, the pressure comes off and development slows or even halts. There is clear evidence of this in the length of time that games are in early access, as well as how many games start developing new features or DLCs before actually finishing the base product.
2) Lack of Safeguards
This is slowly improving but there just aren't enough safeguards in place for consumers when it comes to early access and crowd funding. For every shining example of how great this new model is, there are 100+ failures. If you're a serious gamer, you can probably spot the problems and avoid them, so like Sean your experience might be very positive. For the average gamer thats not the case. If your purchasing decision is based off looking at the steam page and watching the video (like an average person), you probably wouldn't be aware of all the problems.
3) Ideas don't propagate
This is my biggest issue. With the generally long time involved with kickstarters and early access, the new ideas that we long for in the indie scene just don't seem to have the impact we're after. The hype and excitement for indie titles is usually small to begin with, but it's then spread out over months / years rather than condensed into a short release window. This reduces the visibility and means new ideas aren't being picked up by the big companies and the industry remains stagnant.
Really though, it is primarily an ethical issue for me. I feel it is wrong to charge people for an unfinished product with no guarantee it will ever be finished. It's even worse when devs start building new features without completing the base game. I feel that with early access specifically, developers are preying on the ignorant in a desperate cash grab.
Of course, being an ethical issue means my views are my own and aren't necessarily right, nor should I apply them to everyone. If you are a well informed gamer then there is no problem - you know what you're getting yourself into, I just feel devs don't do enough to safeguard the average gamer.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
@SEANMCAD I was curious about your 3 out of the top 6 steam games for 2016 were indie games comment. I can't seem to find anything to back that statement up.
I did some searching for top grossing steam games of 2016, best I can find is from Steam itself:
I can only see Rocket League and No Mans Sky in the top 12 that are indie games. Rocket League obviously did really well, No Mans Sky was almost universally slammed. No Mans Sky was also guilty of the problems you say exist outside the indie scene (over hyping etc).
I will admit, there were more indie titles in the top 100 than I was expecting. I personally don't really enjoy indie titles. Part of that is because the main genres I enjoy (RPG and MMO) require massive budgets to develop good games and so the indie scene can't do it. The other reason is that for every good indie title, there are 1000 terrible ones. I don't have the patience to wade through all that shit to find good stuff, so I tend to wait for the good ones to naturally emerge. So, I tried Prison Architect (my one and only EA purchase) and that was good, but admittedly I've not played it since release as it wasn't good enough to make me return. I bought Rocket League, but that was a one-trick pony and extremely dull. I also bought Kerbal Space Program and whilst I can appreciate the technical brilliance of that game, the actual minute-to-minute gameplay was boring as fuck.
Look I am going to try and take a break from these forums. I get up this morning take a look and the first two I read people claim I said something i didnt even say. They are very clearly not reading what I am saying
My apologies, you're right, you said early access.
The 2016 data is then very different to 2015 with all games in the top 12 being fully released. I did go searching for 2015 data but can't find anything official. The estimated top 20 lists I've found only have Ark in the top 6 as early access, all others were fully released.
As for No Mans Sky not being indie?
The studio was tiny
They developed and published the game themselves - this is really the only actual criteria for an indie (i.e. INDEPENDENT) studio
The games budget was small
The game experimented with new technology / ideas at the expense of graphics - a hallmark trait of the indie genre
The game sucked
The game fulfils the technical and social requirements for being an indie game. The only difference is sony picked it as a game to promote on it's platform at a time where sony were trying to differentiate themselves from microsoft by championing the indie cause. Can't really blame NMS for that.
I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
1. are you trying to suggest that you have information that would lead one to conclud that somehow 2016 would be radically different in sales then 2015 to the point that it seems early access is not popular? what is it that I am trying to illustrate? I am trying to illustrate that a lot of people like early access games? why do I even have to bother to do that? because a lot of people who are in the dark think I am the only person who likes these games. I am not, a lot of people do, its a popular, successful platform. PLEASE dont get hung up on the 2015 vs 2016 point, it doesnt really help.
2. A studio that gets funded by Sony for PR is in my mind not-indie. it is in fact a strick definition of not indie. More over, for reasons i have given its not plasualby possible that they didnt get money before it was publically known. please go back and read those reasons if you need i cant repost the quote
I'm just trying to understand the whole scene.
I have traditionally avoided the indie scene. I understand it's purpose, but literally every single experience of indie games that I or my friends have ever had has been disappointing IN COMPARISON TO MAINSTREAM.
The indie scene is more able to experiment with new ideas, this is true and it can be exciting. However, it is generally offset by the lower quality of code (more bugs and lower performance), lower quality of graphics, narrower scope of the game and either shorter length of game or repetitive nature of gameplay.
It feels to me that over the last 5 years, the indie scene has been given an awful lot of press. You have crowdfunding, a completely new business model for developing games. There's been an explosion in early access. Sony and Microsoft have both gone out of their way to promote indie developers on their networks. Digital distribution has made it easier than ever to get indie products to market.
However, despite all the extra press, there still seems to be few games that actually emerge from the indie scene and gain mainstream notoriety and nothing seems to have changed regarding the overall quality. Hence my surprise when you said that 3 out of the top 6 games of 2015 were early access. That doesn't match my expectations and so I'm trying to search for a deeper understanding.
Is this a long term trend? Is this a natural market correction due to high-end stagnation? Have the quality issues been solved with cheaper and easier to use tools? Is it just another hyped bubble? What is the actual data?
You have an extremely poor way of handling discussions on these forums which makes it very hard to understand your point of view. Yet you are extremely dedicated to the indie scene and to crafting games, both of which I have limited experience with which is why I continue to read your poorly-composed posts - you probably have insight worth reading.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
I'd disagree with you on the bad business practices bit. If anything I think it promotes good business practices. If you take a look back to 2009 and compare that to now, the delta in how projects are being managed is quite different and we're seeing more and more projects being successful. That's mostly because people are looking for work to be finished up-front. Some might say that somewhat defeats the purpose of Kickstarter, but I think that it benefits the backer, which is a good thing.
On the second point, I also don't play early access, but I will back crowdfunding games. I have done my time in the trenches of betas (like real ones) and I have no interest in testing games anymore. However, if there is a project that I would like to see made, and if they present me with a value proposition that makes sense, I'll give them some money. I won't play the game until it's released, but I'll give them money.
So, the games industry over the last 10 (maybe 15?) years has, in most peoples opinions, stagnated. It is the same with any emerging industry - you get an initial growth period with businesses and investments of all sizes. As popularity, and thus money, increases, so does investment. With increased investment comes a natural desire to reduce risk, which is why stagnation occurs.
The outcome within the games industry has been that the AAA end of the market has become very stale - there is simply too much money to risk. The mid-end of the market has almost disappeared compared to my teenage years. You still have some companies pumping out mid-range games (like Codemasters) but too many of these companies have been bought out and destroyed by giants like EA. The indie scene is as it's always been, but has expanded in an attempt to fill the void left by the mid-range.
How does this relate to bad practices?
I have three main concerns:
1) Lazy Development
I work in IT as a project manager of sorts and I have worked in the games industry so have seen this first hand. Once you've been paid, the pressure comes off and development slows or even halts. There is clear evidence of this in the length of time that games are in early access, as well as how many games start developing new features or DLCs before actually finishing the base product.
2) Lack of Safeguards
This is slowly improving but there just aren't enough safeguards in place for consumers when it comes to early access and crowd funding. For every shining example of how great this new model is, there are 100+ failures. If you're a serious gamer, you can probably spot the problems and avoid them, so like Sean your experience might be very positive. For the average gamer thats not the case. If your purchasing decision is based off looking at the steam page and watching the video (like an average person), you probably wouldn't be aware of all the problems.
3) Ideas don't propagate
This is my biggest issue. With the generally long time involved with kickstarters and early access, the new ideas that we long for in the indie scene just don't seem to have the impact we're after. The hype and excitement for indie titles is usually small to begin with, but it's then spread out over months / years rather than condensed into a short release window. This reduces the visibility and means new ideas aren't being picked up by the big companies and the industry remains stagnant.
Really though, it is primarily an ethical issue for me. I feel it is wrong to charge people for an unfinished product with no guarantee it will ever be finished. It's even worse when devs start building new features without completing the base game. I feel that with early access specifically, developers are preying on the ignorant in a desperate cash grab.
Of course, being an ethical issue means my views are my own and aren't necessarily right, nor should I apply them to everyone. If you are a well informed gamer then there is no problem - you know what you're getting yourself into, I just feel devs don't do enough to safeguard the average gamer.
Yeah, I can definitely understand your perspective, but I don't see hundreds of games failing. In fact, I collected a list of projects from back in 2013-2014 and there were 400 or so projects and 3% were on hiatus or failed. So while I respect your concerns, from an ethical perspective, the actual issues you raise aren't actually legitimate, and you're actually vastly overstating the reality of the situation saying that for every 1 good title there are 100 failed ones. All you need to do is search for Kickstarter on Steam to see that's simply untrue. It's unfortunate that you'd devalue your entire argument with an overblown statement like that, because I feel like you actually made some valid points.
It's also sad that your experience is that development becomes lazy once they are paid, but that's clearly not true in the vast majority of cases. Possibly you just worked somewhere with poor management or a poisonous environment? I've worked in the game industry and I've worked in software for 2 decades and I can't say I've seen this. I've seen poisonous environments where people don't want to work, but that's not a product of being "paid" it's a problem with the person and we will generally exit those people as quickly as possible as they provide no value to our goals. If this wasn't happening in your experience, that's just sad. Furthermore, if this is an attitude being propagated down from upper management then the company is simply poisonous. Get out!
On the ethics of the model, I can see your problem, and I would tell you not to back the projects. However, it's also sad and irresponsible that you project these ideas of developers preying on the ignorant without any real evidence. That's just my opinion though.
@SEANMCAD I was curious about your 3 out of the top 6 steam games for 2016 were indie games comment. I can't seem to find anything to back that statement up.
I did some searching for top grossing steam games of 2016, best I can find is from Steam itself:
I can only see Rocket League and No Mans Sky in the top 12 that are indie games. Rocket League obviously did really well, No Mans Sky was almost universally slammed. No Mans Sky was also guilty of the problems you say exist outside the indie scene (over hyping etc).
I will admit, there were more indie titles in the top 100 than I was expecting. I personally don't really enjoy indie titles. Part of that is because the main genres I enjoy (RPG and MMO) require massive budgets to develop good games and so the indie scene can't do it. The other reason is that for every good indie title, there are 1000 terrible ones. I don't have the patience to wade through all that shit to find good stuff, so I tend to wait for the good ones to naturally emerge. So, I tried Prison Architect (my one and only EA purchase) and that was good, but admittedly I've not played it since release as it wasn't good enough to make me return. I bought Rocket League, but that was a one-trick pony and extremely dull. I also bought Kerbal Space Program and whilst I can appreciate the technical brilliance of that game, the actual minute-to-minute gameplay was boring as fuck.
Look I am going to try and take a break from these forums. I get up this morning take a look and the first two I read people claim I said something i didnt even say. They are very clearly not reading what I am saying
My apologies, you're right, you said early access.
The 2016 data is then very different to 2015 with all games in the top 12 being fully released. I did go searching for 2015 data but can't find anything official. The estimated top 20 lists I've found only have Ark in the top 6 as early access, all others were fully released.
As for No Mans Sky not being indie?
The studio was tiny
They developed and published the game themselves - this is really the only actual criteria for an indie (i.e. INDEPENDENT) studio
The games budget was small
The game experimented with new technology / ideas at the expense of graphics - a hallmark trait of the indie genre
The game sucked
The game fulfils the technical and social requirements for being an indie game. The only difference is sony picked it as a game to promote on it's platform at a time where sony were trying to differentiate themselves from microsoft by championing the indie cause. Can't really blame NMS for that.
I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
1. are you trying to suggest that you have information that would lead one to conclud that somehow 2016 would be radically different in sales then 2015 to the point that it seems early access is not popular? what is it that I am trying to illustrate? I am trying to illustrate that a lot of people like early access games? why do I even have to bother to do that? because a lot of people who are in the dark think I am the only person who likes these games. I am not, a lot of people do, its a popular, successful platform. PLEASE dont get hung up on the 2015 vs 2016 point, it doesnt really help.
2. A studio that gets funded by Sony for PR is in my mind not-indie. it is in fact a strick definition of not indie. More over, for reasons i have given its not plasualby possible that they didnt get money before it was publically known. please go back and read those reasons if you need i cant repost the quote
I'm just trying to understand the whole scene.
I have traditionally avoided the indie scene. I understand it's purpose, but literally every single experience of indie games that I or my friends have ever had has been disappointing IN COMPARISON TO MAINSTREAM.
.....
my experience has been the exact opposite. In fact in between 2004-2012 or so I was gaming miserable and almost quit gaming completely. I find mainstream games boring to annoying as hell. stories I dont care about, forcing me into cut scenes I dont care about, 3rd person view totally destroying immersion, no crafting, no building, no free form exploration. By comparison to games like The Forest I frankly find mainstream games absolutely terrible.
Now....am I a special snowflake? no I am not are there likely a lot of people like me? yes there is and the number appear to agree with that estimate.
The trend I think is likely to grow, more and more people will start gravitating toward more indie games, but I could be completely wrong but one thing is for sure, the indie scene isnt likely to go away despite many who dearly wish it would
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Look I am going to try and take a break from these forums. I get up this morning take a look and the first two I read people claim I said something i didnt even say. They are very clearly not reading what I am saying
My apologies, you're right, you said early access.
The 2016 data is then very different to 2015 with all games in the top 12 being fully released. I did go searching for 2015 data but can't find anything official. The estimated top 20 lists I've found only have Ark in the top 6 as early access, all others were fully released.
As for No Mans Sky not being indie?
The studio was tiny
They developed and published the game themselves - this is really the only actual criteria for an indie (i.e. INDEPENDENT) studio
The games budget was small
The game experimented with new technology / ideas at the expense of graphics - a hallmark trait of the indie genre
The game sucked
The game fulfils the technical and social requirements for being an indie game. The only difference is sony picked it as a game to promote on it's platform at a time where sony were trying to differentiate themselves from microsoft by championing the indie cause. Can't really blame NMS for that.
I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
1. are you trying to suggest that you have information that would lead one to conclud that somehow 2016 would be radically different in sales then 2015 to the point that it seems early access is not popular? what is it that I am trying to illustrate? I am trying to illustrate that a lot of people like early access games? why do I even have to bother to do that? because a lot of people who are in the dark think I am the only person who likes these games. I am not, a lot of people do, its a popular, successful platform. PLEASE dont get hung up on the 2015 vs 2016 point, it doesnt really help.
2. A studio that gets funded by Sony for PR is in my mind not-indie. it is in fact a strick definition of not indie. More over, for reasons i have given its not plasualby possible that they didnt get money before it was publically known. please go back and read those reasons if you need i cant repost the quote
I'm just trying to understand the whole scene.
I have traditionally avoided the indie scene. I understand it's purpose, but literally every single experience of indie games that I or my friends have ever had has been disappointing IN COMPARISON TO MAINSTREAM.
.....
my experience has been the exact opposite. In fact in between 2004-2012 or so I was gaming miserable and almost quit gaming completely. I find mainstream games boring to annoying as hell. stories I dont care about, forcing me into cut scenes I dont care about, 3rd person view totally destroying immersion, no crafting, no building, no free form exploration. By comparison to games like The Forest I frankly find mainstream games absolutely terrible.
Now....am I a special snowflake? no I am not are there likely a lot of people like me? yes there is and the number appear to agree with that estimate.
The trend I think is likely to grow, more and more people will start gravitating toward more indie games, but I could be completely wrong but one thing is for sure, the indie scene isnt likely to go away despite many who dearly wish it would
I don't think our experiences have been that different. I experienced the same stagnation you have and in particular, I fucking hate games which are heavily story dependant and in the last 6 or 7 years, too many devs have been pushing the story angle and I hated it.
It's why I retreated into MMOs and mostly gave up on single player games (didn't touch single player games from 2007 - 2013).
However, I've not found relief in the indie scene. My experiences haven't been good, only Prison Architect provided sustained fun. I mostly just play "good" blockbusters (most recently, Total Warhammer, Steep, GTA5, Deus Ex) alongside games that I've been enjoying for years. What was slightly depressing is that I still play FF7 on a regular basis. I've literally been playing the same RPG for 20 years and I still consider it superior to every other RPG I've ever played! It also helps that I have a 6 year gap of games to catch up on, though often astonished by how mediocre the gameplay has been on some of these.
Also, I want to make it clear that I don't want the indie scene to go away. It should never go away, there will always be solo devs and small studios who will want to give it a go. I just don't enjoy the games myself.
What I do dearly want to see is the mid-range dev companies returning. My hope is that the indie devs that are successful are able to build upon their success and turn into the sort of companies that can churn out fun games once a year. Companies like Firaxis, Paradox and Codemasters. With the larger teams, their games can have more breadth to them and a bit more quality than most of the indie scene, but they aren't so expensive to make that they don't take risks.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
Look I am going to try and take a break from these forums. I get up this morning take a look and the first two I read people claim I said something i didnt even say. They are very clearly not reading what I am saying
My apologies, you're right, you said early access.
The 2016 data is then very different to 2015 with all games in the top 12 being fully released. I did go searching for 2015 data but can't find anything official. The estimated top 20 lists I've found only have Ark in the top 6 as early access, all others were fully released.
As for No Mans Sky not being indie?
The studio was tiny
They developed and published the game themselves - this is really the only actual criteria for an indie (i.e. INDEPENDENT) studio
The games budget was small
The game experimented with new technology / ideas at the expense of graphics - a hallmark trait of the indie genre
The game sucked
The game fulfils the technical and social requirements for being an indie game. The only difference is sony picked it as a game to promote on it's platform at a time where sony were trying to differentiate themselves from microsoft by championing the indie cause. Can't really blame NMS for that.
I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
1. are you trying to suggest that you have information that would lead one to conclud that somehow 2016 would be radically different in sales then 2015 to the point that it seems early access is not popular? what is it that I am trying to illustrate? I am trying to illustrate that a lot of people like early access games? why do I even have to bother to do that? because a lot of people who are in the dark think I am the only person who likes these games. I am not, a lot of people do, its a popular, successful platform. PLEASE dont get hung up on the 2015 vs 2016 point, it doesnt really help.
2. A studio that gets funded by Sony for PR is in my mind not-indie. it is in fact a strick definition of not indie. More over, for reasons i have given its not plasualby possible that they didnt get money before it was publically known. please go back and read those reasons if you need i cant repost the quote
I'm just trying to understand the whole scene.
I have traditionally avoided the indie scene. I understand it's purpose, but literally every single experience of indie games that I or my friends have ever had has been disappointing IN COMPARISON TO MAINSTREAM.
.....
my experience has been the exact opposite. In fact in between 2004-2012 or so I was gaming miserable and almost quit gaming completely. I find mainstream games boring to annoying as hell. stories I dont care about, forcing me into cut scenes I dont care about, 3rd person view totally destroying immersion, no crafting, no building, no free form exploration. By comparison to games like The Forest I frankly find mainstream games absolutely terrible.
Now....am I a special snowflake? no I am not are there likely a lot of people like me? yes there is and the number appear to agree with that estimate.
The trend I think is likely to grow, more and more people will start gravitating toward more indie games, but I could be completely wrong but one thing is for sure, the indie scene isnt likely to go away despite many who dearly wish it would
I don't think our experiences have been that different. I experienced the same stagnation you have and in particular, I fucking hate games which are heavily story dependant and in the last 6 or 7 years, too many devs have been pushing the story angle and I hated it.
It's why I retreated into MMOs and mostly gave up on single player games (didn't touch single player games from 2007 - 2013).
However, I've not found relief in the indie scene. My experiences haven't been good, only Prison Architect provided sustained fun. I mostly just play "good" blockbusters (most recently, Total Warhammer, Steep, GTA5, Deus Ex) alongside games that I've been enjoying for years. What was slightly depressing is that I still play FF7 on a regular basis. I've literally been playing the same RPG for 20 years and I still consider it superior to every other RPG I've ever played! It also helps that I have a 6 year gap of games to catch up on, though often astonished by how mediocre the gameplay has been on some of these.
Also, I want to make it clear that I don't want the indie scene to go away. It should never go away, there will always be solo devs and small studios who will want to give it a go. I just don't enjoy the games myself.
What I do dearly want to see is the mid-range dev companies returning. My hope is that the indie devs that are successful are able to build upon their success and turn into the sort of companies that can churn out fun games once a year. Companies like Firaxis, Paradox and Codemasters. With the larger teams, their games can have more breadth to them and a bit more quality than most of the indie scene, but they aren't so expensive to make that they don't take risks.
fair point on disappointed with AAA. I will say however, I have been very pleased and very impressed with the indie scene.
There are many a titles in the 'indie scene' that I consider to be CONSIDERABLY more engaging and entertaining then AAA market. would you like more concrete examples?
sample: What I dont like about AAA titles are almost exactly to the letter what indies are opposite of -I dont like 3rd person indies I play are often in 1st person -I cant craft in AAA indies I play I can craft -I cant build in AAA indies I play I can build -I dont like stories in my games indies I play dont have stories.
its highly measurable
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
meanwhile the only article someone like PC Gamer writes is 'whats wrong with early access' and never 'what is good about early access'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The 2016 data is then very different to 2015 with all games in the top 12 being fully released. I did go searching for 2015 data but can't find anything official. The estimated top 20 lists I've found only have Ark in the top 6 as early access, all others were fully released.
As for No Mans Sky not being indie?
- The studio was tiny
- They developed and published the game themselves - this is really the only actual criteria for an indie (i.e. INDEPENDENT) studio
- The games budget was small
- The game experimented with new technology / ideas at the expense of graphics - a hallmark trait of the indie genre
- The game sucked
The game fulfils the technical and social requirements for being an indie game. The only difference is sony picked it as a game to promote on it's platform at a time where sony were trying to differentiate themselves from microsoft by championing the indie cause. Can't really blame NMS for that.I'm now curious about something else. Like many others, I avoid early access, kickstarter and other crowd funding routes. My primary reason is ethical (I believe it encourages seriously bad business practices in an industry that already has too many), my secondary reason is first and second hand experience with actually playing games that have not officially released.
So, I'm wondering, do any non-indie games go through the early access process? By non-indie, in this context I mean the social definition (small team / budget / non-established dev company). You see, in my mind, if a game is in early access it means it is also indie, hence my mistake in my question.
2. A studio that gets funded by Sony for PR is in my mind not-indie. it is in fact a strick definition of not indie. More over, for reasons i have given its not plasualby possible that they didnt get money before it was publically known. please go back and read those reasons if you need i cant repost the quote
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I'd disagree with you on the bad business practices bit. If anything I think it promotes good business practices. If you take a look back to 2009 and compare that to now, the delta in how projects are being managed is quite different and we're seeing more and more projects being successful. That's mostly because people are looking for work to be finished up-front. Some might say that somewhat defeats the purpose of Kickstarter, but I think that it benefits the backer, which is a good thing.
On the second point, I also don't play early access, but I will back crowdfunding games. I have done my time in the trenches of betas (like real ones) and I have no interest in testing games anymore. However, if there is a project that I would like to see made, and if they present me with a value proposition that makes sense, I'll give them some money. I won't play the game until it's released, but I'll give them money.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
For those who do not play early access games their logic make 100% sense and is 100% sound HOWEVER...surprisingly to me and even shocking to me the reality of it doesnt match up with the logic.
Games are good (they should be bad) games are solid (they should be buggy) developers should take money and run (they often offer more than originally planned).
So for you specially the take away I give you is this:
Games that have been in early access for more than a year are very often VERY solid and playing them doesnt comes remotely close to feeling like 'testing'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yup, and I totally get that. Grim Dawn is an example of a game I actually played in Early Access.
My biggest thing is time. I don't want to invest time into something I'll just have to restart later on. That's a biggie for me. Also, it's a big reason I don't play these wildly open games like Space Engineers or Minecraft. I just want to have some sort of goal or objective. I want a 30 or 40 hour experience that I can come away with feeling like I accomplished something or saved some world, lol.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I dont have these problems
oh and my rally car on My Summer Car is almost done so I can race it (objective....stated)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Gloria Victis, supposed to release in June 2016. Still in early access, major lag issues, and a crash-fest.
The Repopulation, originally supposed to release in December 2016. Still in early access and practically unplayable.
Ark, originally supposed to release in June 2015. Still in early access, major pathing problems and buggy as hell. Can't get the base game right but that doesn't stop them from offering DLCs in early access.
H1Z1, originally supposed to release in February 2016. Still in early access, missing major game features, new content consists of purchasable skins instead of gameplay, and has bugs galore.
DayZ, originally supposed to release in December 2013, almost no improvements in the past two years and known exploits left unfixed.
Exceptions: 7DTD, Rust, The Long Dark, Grim Dawn.
You really need to stop talking in absolutes ("games that have been in early access for more than a year are very often..." -- NO they are NOT).
The guidance you should be giving is: Early access games are not finished and there are no guarantees they ever will be or will take the direction the developers originally told you. Some are good and some are bad, just like released games. Proceed at your own risk.
Instead you regurgitate some "unicorns and rainbows" garbage about early access games in development for over a year as justification for being good games. What fantasy world do you live in?
~~ postlarval ~~
Dont come and accuse me of making absolutes when I was responding to someone who was MAKING AN ABSOULTE!!!
my reply had the same weight and carelessness of hyper accuracy as his did.
I have been playing early access games almost full time of my game time for 3 years now and NEVER felt like I was 'testing'. what a bunch of bullshit
and nearly 1/2 of your examples have nothing whatsoever to do with bugs or testing. in fact the only time you use the words bugs are in abstract ways and instead focus on things not related to feeling like one is a tester.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
~~ postlarval ~~
1. every example you posted nearly none of it was related to bugs in any specific way
2. you are asking me to not do something that the person I was responding did themselves! that is called a double standard.
3. I have been playing early access for 3 years full time (unlike most people in this forum) and I can tell you I never felt like a 'tester'. Games with bugs? yeah a few, even smaller few game breaking but never fucking 'a tester'.
Now I am getting exhausted from people who dont play any early access games at all (and likely never have) telling me how early access games are
your 'evidence' is
1. you dont even play early access titles.
2. a bunch of random information not related to bugs at all.
wow! and on top of it you find it helpful to expect one standard from me but not from others... nice
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
More assumption on your part. You really should start asking others before you start shoving words in their mouth. Back to your bubble, you clearly have trouble functioning outside of it.
~~ postlarval ~~
2. the list your provided of evidence realted to the question of 'bugs' and feeling like a tester', read to me like you didnt even read my post because the majority of what you illustrated has NOTHING TO DO WITH BUGS OR TESTING. game being not released is not about testing, games having DLC attached to them is not related to testing, devs taking a shit for 6 months is not related to testing, devs liying about what will be in the game, is not about testing.
3. you hold me to a different standard then others. You doo not see saying 'early access I am not intrested in because I dont want to feel like a tester' as a broad general statement but you expect me to write a book filled with evidence of my claims.
4. Ark would not have the population it has if it was a buggy mess where everyone feels like they are testing btw.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond. You clearly have issues.
*postlarval slowly steps away from the crazy person...*
~~ postlarval ~~
read very carefully
1. The list of examples you gave most of them didnt contain anything about bugs or testing. I dont think you understand the conversation was about feeling like your a tester. Developers taking vacations, selling DLCs and running late has
NOTHING TO DO WITH BUGS OR TESTING
2. You do not see this statement as being a broad general statement 'i dont want to play early access games because I dont want to feel like a tester'. but you do want to hold higher standard for what I say3. owning a game and actually playing them is not the same thing. I believe I said 'you dont play early access games' if i said 'own' that was an error on my part
please focus on the meat of the conversation which is
ITEM 1
ITEM 2
NOT Item 3
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EVERY early access game I've played I've felt like a tester. I've never played an early access game that was polished enough that it felt like it was ready for prime time. Never.
~~ postlarval ~~
You 'feel like a tester' because you are misguided on what you are frustrated about. Developers released paid DLC while a game in early access IS NOT TESTING. being late on delivery IS NOT TESTING. stop providing updates to the game IS NOT TESTING.
and I dont want to you to get distracted by this second point but its worth me stating that I basically dont believe your assertion. I say that with confidence because if you did feel about early access as you have stated you do you would not have continued to play or more likely not even start. I say that because of your attitude toward it in general. Its one thing to play something and be frustrated its something else to be highly biased, and highly against something but continue to play
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The outcome within the games industry has been that the AAA end of the market has become very stale - there is simply too much money to risk. The mid-end of the market has almost disappeared compared to my teenage years. You still have some companies pumping out mid-range games (like Codemasters) but too many of these companies have been bought out and destroyed by giants like EA. The indie scene is as it's always been, but has expanded in an attempt to fill the void left by the mid-range.
How does this relate to bad practices?
I have three main concerns:
1) Lazy Development
I work in IT as a project manager of sorts and I have worked in the games industry so have seen this first hand. Once you've been paid, the pressure comes off and development slows or even halts. There is clear evidence of this in the length of time that games are in early access, as well as how many games start developing new features or DLCs before actually finishing the base product.
2) Lack of Safeguards
This is slowly improving but there just aren't enough safeguards in place for consumers when it comes to early access and crowd funding. For every shining example of how great this new model is, there are 100+ failures. If you're a serious gamer, you can probably spot the problems and avoid them, so like Sean your experience might be very positive. For the average gamer thats not the case. If your purchasing decision is based off looking at the steam page and watching the video (like an average person), you probably wouldn't be aware of all the problems.
3) Ideas don't propagate
This is my biggest issue. With the generally long time involved with kickstarters and early access, the new ideas that we long for in the indie scene just don't seem to have the impact we're after. The hype and excitement for indie titles is usually small to begin with, but it's then spread out over months / years rather than condensed into a short release window. This reduces the visibility and means new ideas aren't being picked up by the big companies and the industry remains stagnant.
Really though, it is primarily an ethical issue for me. I feel it is wrong to charge people for an unfinished product with no guarantee it will ever be finished. It's even worse when devs start building new features without completing the base game. I feel that with early access specifically, developers are preying on the ignorant in a desperate cash grab.
Of course, being an ethical issue means my views are my own and aren't necessarily right, nor should I apply them to everyone. If you are a well informed gamer then there is no problem - you know what you're getting yourself into, I just feel devs don't do enough to safeguard the average gamer.
I have traditionally avoided the indie scene. I understand it's purpose, but literally every single experience of indie games that I or my friends have ever had has been disappointing IN COMPARISON TO MAINSTREAM.
The indie scene is more able to experiment with new ideas, this is true and it can be exciting. However, it is generally offset by the lower quality of code (more bugs and lower performance), lower quality of graphics, narrower scope of the game and either shorter length of game or repetitive nature of gameplay.
It feels to me that over the last 5 years, the indie scene has been given an awful lot of press. You have crowdfunding, a completely new business model for developing games. There's been an explosion in early access. Sony and Microsoft have both gone out of their way to promote indie developers on their networks. Digital distribution has made it easier than ever to get indie products to market.
However, despite all the extra press, there still seems to be few games that actually emerge from the indie scene and gain mainstream notoriety and nothing seems to have changed regarding the overall quality. Hence my surprise when you said that 3 out of the top 6 games of 2015 were early access. That doesn't match my expectations and so I'm trying to search for a deeper understanding.
Is this a long term trend?
Is this a natural market correction due to high-end stagnation?
Have the quality issues been solved with cheaper and easier to use tools?
Is it just another hyped bubble?
What is the actual data?
You have an extremely poor way of handling discussions on these forums which makes it very hard to understand your point of view. Yet you are extremely dedicated to the indie scene and to crafting games, both of which I have limited experience with which is why I continue to read your poorly-composed posts - you probably have insight worth reading.
Yeah, I can definitely understand your perspective, but I don't see hundreds of games failing. In fact, I collected a list of projects from back in 2013-2014 and there were 400 or so projects and 3% were on hiatus or failed. So while I respect your concerns, from an ethical perspective, the actual issues you raise aren't actually legitimate, and you're actually vastly overstating the reality of the situation saying that for every 1 good title there are 100 failed ones. All you need to do is search for Kickstarter on Steam to see that's simply untrue. It's unfortunate that you'd devalue your entire argument with an overblown statement like that, because I feel like you actually made some valid points.
It's also sad that your experience is that development becomes lazy once they are paid, but that's clearly not true in the vast majority of cases. Possibly you just worked somewhere with poor management or a poisonous environment? I've worked in the game industry and I've worked in software for 2 decades and I can't say I've seen this. I've seen poisonous environments where people don't want to work, but that's not a product of being "paid" it's a problem with the person and we will generally exit those people as quickly as possible as they provide no value to our goals. If this wasn't happening in your experience, that's just sad. Furthermore, if this is an attitude being propagated down from upper management then the company is simply poisonous. Get out!
On the ethics of the model, I can see your problem, and I would tell you not to back the projects. However, it's also sad and irresponsible that you project these ideas of developers preying on the ignorant without any real evidence. That's just my opinion though.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
my experience has been the exact opposite. In fact in between 2004-2012 or so I was gaming miserable and almost quit gaming completely. I find mainstream games boring to annoying as hell. stories I dont care about, forcing me into cut scenes I dont care about, 3rd person view totally destroying immersion, no crafting, no building, no free form exploration. By comparison to games like The Forest I frankly find mainstream games absolutely terrible. Now....am I a special snowflake? no I am not are there likely a lot of people like me? yes there is and the number appear to agree with that estimate. The trend I think is likely to grow, more and more people will start gravitating toward more indie games, but I could be completely wrong but one thing is for sure, the indie scene isnt likely to go away despite many who dearly wish it would
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's why I retreated into MMOs and mostly gave up on single player games (didn't touch single player games from 2007 - 2013).
However, I've not found relief in the indie scene. My experiences haven't been good, only Prison Architect provided sustained fun. I mostly just play "good" blockbusters (most recently, Total Warhammer, Steep, GTA5, Deus Ex) alongside games that I've been enjoying for years. What was slightly depressing is that I still play FF7 on a regular basis. I've literally been playing the same RPG for 20 years and I still consider it superior to every other RPG I've ever played! It also helps that I have a 6 year gap of games to catch up on, though often astonished by how mediocre the gameplay has been on some of these.
Also, I want to make it clear that I don't want the indie scene to go away. It should never go away, there will always be solo devs and small studios who will want to give it a go. I just don't enjoy the games myself.
What I do dearly want to see is the mid-range dev companies returning. My hope is that the indie devs that are successful are able to build upon their success and turn into the sort of companies that can churn out fun games once a year. Companies like Firaxis, Paradox and Codemasters. With the larger teams, their games can have more breadth to them and a bit more quality than most of the indie scene, but they aren't so expensive to make that they don't take risks.
There are many a titles in the 'indie scene' that I consider to be CONSIDERABLY more engaging and entertaining then AAA market. would you like more concrete examples?
sample:
What I dont like about AAA titles are almost exactly to the letter what indies are opposite of
-I dont like 3rd person
indies I play are often in 1st person
-I cant craft in AAA
indies I play I can craft
-I cant build in AAA
indies I play I can build
-I dont like stories in my games
indies I play dont have stories.
its highly measurable
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me