Wednesday, 2 April 2014

Developers Enhancing Contributions By Charging Gamers To Play And Give Feedback On An Unfinished Product -- An Analysis of Steam Early Access



With part 2 of “Enhancing Contributions” covered for this week’s lecture, I thought to return to the video game digital delivery platform of Steam. Specifically, the way Steam has integrated a bond between user and developer to guide the development of a game to completion on the “Early Access” model of game release.

Steam’s Early Access system is where a developer will upload an incomplete video game onto the Steam platform to allow users to buy and play, and contribute to development as the video game progresses through alpha and beta phases of development. This could be a positive and interesting concept in theory that benefits both the avid gamer wanting to try the game, and the developer, who may be unsure what the best route is to polish and evolve a game’s features to something people will want to buy.

Unfortunately, Steam Early Access as it is at the moment stands for developers exploiting the hype and excitement of a gamer by asking them to pay full price for a product that can be anywhere from 10% to 95% done. The user can still contribute to the ongoing development of the video game, but as Totalbiscuit points out, in many cases the gamers are simply being used as stress tests for multiplayer servers, and reporting of bugs and other requested features are either addressed slowly or not at all. A subset of this issue is the idea that users won’t get the game they were promised, and as such when paying full price for a game, they are relying more on the developer being trustworthy than knowing they’ll get what they paid for.



Game critic Jim Sterling covers this issue well, and his opinion is that Steam Early Access is far too unregulated and frequently exploited to have a user pay full price for the bare bones of a game. Totalbiscuit’s assessment of this system of user contribution to game development is even more ominous, and states that a game could evade criticism by saying “we’re early access, go easy on us!” and conceivably never come out of the beta phase. At the most cynical level, once a developer has the user’s money, why should they continue working on the game? The transaction has already taken place and the developer already has the fruits of their labour.


Enhancing user contribution by providing an ongoing platform for users to play test a game is a good idea on paper, however to implement this with little supervision from Valve, the overseeing company of the platform, and the ability to charge full price on a game that’s anywhere from barely started to near completion, leaves the margin far too wide for exploitative practice and conning gamers with half-baked games. Having a closed beta that’s free, to try a select portion of the game, would be a far better implementation of a system such as this to enhance contribution to a game’s development.

Fostering a community behind a game in its development phase is an excellent way to build a playerbase and deliver the best game possible to gamers; however developers and users must be careful not to take such a fragile relationship for granted.

4 comments:

  1. I would have to agree with the obvious weaknesses that the full pay system leads to - perhaps part-payments would be less open to exploitation.

    My 10 year old son has asked me to buy copies of such game for him and I to play (he lives 600 kms away) and I am always a little reluctant. Thankfully the ones he has got me to contribute to the development of have provided us with plenty of decent game play and we didn't feel let down by the experience. Playing beta versions I guess may give him a feeling of greater involvement in how the end game will turn out and therefore leave him with a more 'buy-in' feeling, but I'm not sure as I haven't asked him.

    Perhaps Steam needs to have a statement as part of the purchase process that says something in the way of "X% of Early Access games that you pay for reach the final version" so the community of game developers and/or buyers can see themselves what percentage fall over, or are just a scam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Jason, I believe Steam needs a better way to assure gamers that developers are actively involved in development and not simply reaping the seeds (quite literally) of what they may do. Perhaps Valve could force developers to have a graph displayed on the screen of their game in the Steam store to show what percentage of development is done.

      Offering refunds if gamers are unsatisfied is difficult, as that money may have been spent in development. Part-payments could work definitely, offering the game for cheap to begin and building up the price as the game becomes more complete.

      Yeah, I'd be careful about getting your son those games. My advice would be to take what Jim Sterling says, and watch Youtube videos of the Early Access game in action, and critiques of the game, before purchasing, if indeed you want to purchase. There are few Early Access games I've bought, as I know their development cycle can be erratic and take a long while before a game goes from borderline unplayable to a finished product.

      Delete
  2. I would never personally buy an incomplete game, anyone who does must have the patience of a saint. Even though I agree getting user feedback is invaluable, it seems like just an excuse to make money from an unfinished product.

    Purchasing Early Access games seem like a disaster waiting to happen as game companies risk pissing off their loyal customers with an inferior product.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From an external perspective it does seem like a roulette of "will this game be a buggy mess" to "will this game be great and just need some polish". I guess it depends on how invested you are in the game.

      Do you want to actively be a part of bug fixing and stress testing a game? Is a game worth so much to you that you want to play it in an unfinished state? Do you trust the developer based upon their record to maintain a good production cycle on such a game?

      What's one worse is a company that releases this as a finished product, which happened with Battlefield 4 and Call of Duty: Ghosts. I made that judgement call on both purchases last year and was heavily burned as a result. Ever since, I am deeply cynical before I buy any game, and I go to great lengths to research a game before I buy.

      The only way we can be sure is to wait and read critiques and see gameplay footage. Too often in the games industry is the developer or publisher overzealous in promoting a game and its promise, and this ends in tears for the consumer and some terrible PR for the game companies involved.

      Delete