thainatos

Spacebase!

Recommended Posts

I need to listen to this episode still but that attitude as you describe it bums me out. I don't know that developers should feel the need to match other developers schedules for early access, as long as expectations are properly communicated. Prison Architect was basically nothing when it launched and they were clear about it and still developing it.

"Fully fleshed out game" just doesn't seem like it should be a defensible expectation for something called "early access" and labeled "alpha 1."

 

But it is quite expensive for what they are offering don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's there right now is only semi-relevant because part of the point with early access games is to look at what's there now, then see if the trajectory is exciting to you and seems worth the cost of admission now (and the potential exposure to a still half-baked version of an idea you see potential in) or if it would be better to wait it out and see how the game turns out definitively.

If there was no early access and you were just pre-ordering the final game for $25 it would probably be seen as a reasonably fine price point. So why does getting early access make it a worse deal? Your ownership of the game doesn't go away as it's developed. Most long term pre-orders don't give you the game mid-development, they instead give you a bullshit CGI trailer and a lot of hype talk, and take it for granted that you'll believe it's all true and preorder at full price. With early access games instead of all of that garbage you get to see (and read about) the actual game as it stands now and judge for yourself.

It is probably a lot to pay for what the game is today, but you're not buying today's build -- you are buying the final game and are being given alpha builds in the mean time. Early Access. If you don't want the game that is available right now, do not pay money for it. When the game hits 1.0, if it still not appealing to you don't buy it then either. If what you see now looks like you'll find it fun already, or if it looks like something with enough promise to you that you want to give the developers support, get early access

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's there right now is only semi-relevant because part of the point with early access games is to look at what's there now, then see if the trajectory is exciting to you and seems worth the cost of admission now (and the potential exposure to a still half-baked version of an idea you see potential in) or if it would be better to wait it out and see how the game turns out definitively.

If there was no early access and you were just pre-ordering the final game for $25 it would probably be seen as a reasonably fine price point. So why does getting early access make it a worse deal? Your ownership of the game doesn't go away as it's developed. Most long term pre-orders don't give you the game mid-development, they instead give you a bullshit CGI trailer and a lot of hype talk, and take it for granted that you'll believe it's all true and preorder at full price. With early access games instead of all of that garbage you get to see (and read about) the actual game as it stands now and judge for yourself.

It is probably a lot to pay for what the game is today, but you're not buying today's build -- you are buying the final game and are being given alpha builds in the mean time. Early Access. If you don't want the game that is available right now, do not pay money for it. When the game hits 1.0, if it still not appealing to you don't buy it then either. If what you see now looks like you'll find it fun already, or if it looks like something with enough promise to you that you want to give the developers support, get early access

 

I know that that's probably the right way to look at it, but I can understand, on a much more fundamental level, buying a product that is being sold and then finding out, rightly or not, that it isn't all that you wanted. Intellectually, you can frame it in terms of developer support or patronage, but if the game for which you paid money disappoints you, which is unfortunately likely if you buy into early access, the feeling doesn't become any less valid for said framework. That said, I suppose it's probably up to the developer to manage that feeling by only offering a game for early access when they themselves feel all the fun things are in place already.

 

Also, preordering is terrible. Because I am dumb, it took me years to realize that the most for which I could hope from a game I preordered is to not feel burned. Early access is certainly better in that regard, because at least you're paying for a product that either does or doesn't validate your decision, but it's bound to have some of the same feelings associated with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to listen to this episode still but that attitude as you describe it bums me out. I don't know that developers should feel the need to match other developers schedules for early access, as long as expectations are properly communicated. Prison Architect was basically nothing when it launched and they were clear about it and still developing it.

"Fully fleshed out game" just doesn't seem like it should be a defensible expectation for something called "early access" and labeled "alpha 1."

 

Although some of the objections were definitely feeling like Space Base was still "too early" even granting that it is still an early alpha, a lot of the criticism had more to do with Steam not doing a good enough job of communicating that what you are purchasing is an alpha build, and not a game. And I am inclined to agree with that criticism. I know the store page has those disclaimers or whatever, but I do think these early access games should be sectioned off from the rest of the store page. The co-mingling to my mind suggests that these early builds might be offering more than they actually are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I have the advantage of having bought it because it was a DF game, not because I saw it on Steam, so I knew exactly what I was getting. I pretty much bought it, played an hour, and am now content to wait.

 

But still, if you see the early access label on the Steam page, don't you at least do a google search and see how far along the game is that you're getting? Heck, don't you do that for every game you buy? I mean I was so very close to buying The War Z but I read a few articles and changed my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although some of the objections were definitely feeling like Space Base was still "too early" even granting that it is still an early alpha, a lot of the criticism had more to do with Steam not doing a good enough job of communicating that what you are purchasing is an alpha build, and not a game. And I am inclined to agree with that criticism. I know the store page has those disclaimers or whatever, but I do think these early access games should be sectioned off from the rest of the store page. The co-mingling to my mind suggests that these early builds might be offering more than they actually are.

Is the giant "EARLY ACCESS GAME" screaming at the person on the Steam store page not enough, anymore? Maybe they should they play an annoying repeating sound effect "NOT FINISHED. NOT FINISHED. NOT FINISHED."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the giant "EARLY ACCESS GAME" screaming at the person on the Steam store page not enough, anymore? Maybe they should they play an annoying repeating sound effect "NOT FINISHED. NOT FINISHED. NOT FINISHED."

 

It's bright and blue unlike anything else on Steam as well. Oddly enough, i've been calling it spacebase Alpha in my head for the last few weeks. I only saw i was wrong when i went to the store page use now...

 

I too will be waiting for more updates to this (and Prison Arc). There isn't enough meat in Spacebase at the moment to keep me interested nor to justify the time put into making a base that will inevitably fall to some bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarcasm aside, I think some sort of popup asking a person if they really want to make a purchase for something that is an early development would be preferable to the current setup. I would also point to a lot of comments I saw about the game Eldritch where people thought they had purchased an early access game only to discover that it was in fact a completed game. That suggests to me that there is, in fact, a fairly high likelihood of confusion for some of the games on Steam. It's certainly open for debate what is an acceptable amount of likelihood of confusion, but I would tend to think it would be in everyone's best interest to reduce that quantity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's there right now is only semi-relevant because part of the point with early access games is to look at what's there now, then see if the trajectory is exciting to you and seems worth the cost of admission now (and the potential exposure to a still half-baked version of an idea you see potential in) or if it would be better to wait it out and see how the game turns out definitively.

If there was no early access and you were just pre-ordering the final game for $25 it would probably be seen as a reasonably fine price point. So why does getting early access make it a worse deal? Your ownership of the game doesn't go away as it's developed. Most long term pre-orders don't give you the game mid-development, they instead give you a bullshit CGI trailer and a lot of hype talk, and take it for granted that you'll believe it's all true and preorder at full price. With early access games instead of all of that garbage you get to see (and read about) the actual game as it stands now and judge for yourself.

It is probably a lot to pay for what the game is today, but you're not buying today's build -- you are buying the final game and are being given alpha builds in the mean time. Early Access. If you don't want the game that is available right now, do not pay money for it. When the game hits 1.0, if it still not appealing to you don't buy it then either. If what you see now looks like you'll find it fun already, or if it looks like something with enough promise to you that you want to give the developers support, get early access

 

I understand your stand point and to be honest that is one of the better analogies i have heard for early access. I just think that £18 is a lot of money for an hours worth of game that isn't really that repayable, because there aren't enough systems in place yet. It is true that they will be coming and it will hopefully be great. But how long will that take?

 

EDIT: reading over this it seems that this is just me not being interested yet haha

 

This is more of a question rather than a criticism: 

What happens if not enough people buy early access? will team sizes have to shrink?

And If a devs see almost no interest in a game will they just abandon it in early access?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine that it follows the same rules as Kickstarter. Nothing is guaranteed. In theory, DF could say this game was "released" last week (it is a functional product, if somewhat lacking in features) and then run away with any remaining money. But then, there's nothing to say that you couldn't buy a complete game that's a buggy mess and never see any satisfaction there either (see The War Z.) I just want to invest in having a direct relationship between consumer and developer. I think it's a positive move for these smaller games, and I have some trust that the DF crew is going to do their best to make sure we get a good game. They might not succeed, but I know they're gonna try, and for $25, that's enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your stand point and to be honest that is one of the better analogies i have heard for early access. I just think that £18 is a lot of money for an hours worth of game that isn't really that repayable, because there aren't enough systems in place yet.

 

Again, you're not paying for the game you have now, you're paying for the final game. You're just getting access to it before it's complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you're not paying for the game you have now, you're paying for the final game. You're just getting access to it before it's complete.

 

Technically speaking, that isn't true. Here's how Valve puts it:

 

"Early Access is a full purchase of a playable game. By purchasing, you gain immediate access to download and play the game in its current form and as it evolves up and through 'release'."

 

Link: http://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/

 

Put another way, if there was some final state of a game you were paying for, and that final state never arrived, you would be able to sue a developer or Valve as a remedy for breach of contract to get your money back. However that's not something you could successfully do in this situation because all you are paying for is something resembling a game in early development, and future updates. The idea that you get something that we would call a "final game" is essentially a gratuitous promise, and unless there are some stipulations Valve has for being on the Early Access program that I'm unaware of, it's not something that developers actually have any obligation to fulfill.

 

I imagine most people here are already fans of Double Fine, and so there isn't any problem with giving them money to play an early build of a game regardless of whether you play it now or later. For someone that doesn't have that sort of attachment to a developer however this isn't an obviously good offer being made here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think early access is a pretty sweet deal for those who are already fans of the studio or interested in a specific game from early on. For the studio it's probably good as an alternative to kick starter and the like to generate so me money earlier.

In other situations it probably isn't that useful and maybe indeed Steam should educate buyers about that more.

I'm pretty happy with häving access to spacebase alphas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that is my position as well. I'm glad Early Access exists, I just wish Valve handled it a little differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sclpls, I think you are correct by and large, assuming that you are also acknowledging that no matter the wording, players buying early access games are taking a bigger risk than they would with a standard release plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, preordering is terrible. Because I am dumb, it took me years to realize that the most for which I could hope from a game I preordered is to not feel burned.

Wow, that's the opposite of how it works for me: the sting of paying has worn off, so if the game is good (and I take care to only buy the best games) there is only pure enjoyment left.

See also

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2013/05/20/5-ways-money-can-buy-happiness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...if the game is good...

 

That's the thing I just haven't learned how to tell, it seems. Total War: Rome II looked amazing and I liked Creative Assembly's work on Shogun 2 and the first Rome, but taking the dive on a preorder, my first time in several years, was an awful experience.

 

Anyway, back to Spacebase (Aceface).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, Which forum is the right place for giving feedback on the alphas? Steam or Double Fine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to make sure one of the developers sees your feedback I would think posting in the DF forums would be the way to go. I'm sure they check the Steam forums too, but probably not as frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had to give up on a rather big base with over 80 people. Everyone (except for some new recruits) had become Deeply Sad. I didn't notice this until equipment started malfunctioning. I also don't know what caused it, but there were some raider attacks where 5-10 people got killed so I suspect it might be that. Or something else caused by me finally exploring all the derelicts and docked ships, and trying to expand the area of the base. Can the fires in those bring down morale? They were burning constantly.

 

In the beginning of the game there was this one guy who was deeply sad for a long time. He was also listed as his own enemy. But eventually he got over it and started enjoying life. Then something happened and everyone went sad :( In the heyday, I had 85 people I think, and a huge garden. I was just building a new huge pub named Killbot-something, at the site of death of some crew members. But for some reason nobody showed up there, and soon after that shit went down, oxygen problems occupied all of my time.

 

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/506948908213322165/49A3C20FAC28D292DB1F6AAE4EEA7C7253AFA6C4/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think death currently creates cascading irreversible sadness. Internally I believe people now get more sad relative to how well they know the deceased crossed with how much they liked them, which fixes it significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are less likely to get to know each other when sad, then the narrative becomes a bunch of survivors unwilling to get close to anyone else after a tragedy. The way they deal with never losing again is never loving again.

 

Is there a single teardrop emoticon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will there be a way to encourage them to get on with their space life? A perky, overweight friend robot who has a deep-and-meaningful with them about how the deceased would want them to get out there and make the most of space life, really show those asteroids who's boss?

 

More seriously, having the residents making little memorials around about where their friends died would be pretty great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think death currently creates cascading irreversible sadness. Internally I believe people now get more sad relative to how well they know the deceased crossed with how much they liked them, which fixes it significantly.

 

How very Dwarf Fortress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now