Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General Please don't do Steam Early Access with D:OS

I haven't really been following what all the fuzz is with Steam Early Access.

Seems to me every gamer should be pro the system. It opens up sources of funding which I wished were available when we did Divinity II or Divine Divinity. You can rest assured those games would've been released in a better state then. Well, maybe not considering the publishers we had, but still, it would've opened up possibilities where otherwise there were no possibilities.

With regards to people criticising alpha versions - that's the entire point, isn't it ? Getting feedback ? That's why we're doing the alpha for everybody on Kickstarter. We don't really care about the form or tone in which we receive the feedback - what interests is how we can improve the gameplay experience. So if somebody writes something like "this is the worst game ever because you can't change the turn-order. Larian designers are morons, XYZ did that so much better. " we only remember - changing turn-order seem to be in demand

We can't do that when people don't post their opinion, so I don't see why that's a wrong thing. This goes for let's plays too - I learn plenty watching let's plays about my own game and find it one of the best sources to understand what we did wrong/what can be done better. I really prefer seeing these lets plays now instead of after release of the game because now we can still fix things, and we do.

Besides, I also think our target audience is smart enough to read through certain comments.

With regards to Kickstarter promises - I don't think there's a long list of things we're not doing. We're struggling with the npc schedules, that's true, but otherwise? Maybe the form changed here or there but nobody at Larian has the feeling that we're not living up to promises, bar some necessary compromises that are inevitable in any production. We'll have coop multiplayer, companions & more live this week I think btw. Stats/abilities/traits/perks/balance have received some significant attention, so expect quite a few changes there too.

As for backer backlash should we put it on early access? I can't see an objective reason why there should be such backlash so I'm curious to hear the reasoning behind that. Backers got the game at 25US$ + extras + plenty of exclusive extras at higher tiers. Alpha is free to all backers. Given this, why would any backer feel upset if he sees the game on early access at a higher price point? It's an early pre-order with the advantage that the developers can still integrate your feedback in the final game (and if not in the game that is released, perhaps in one of the patches that comes afterwards). It makes the game better. I really see nothing wrong in that.

But probably I'm missing something so do let me know please.

Thx!

Swen

You're right, Swen. The difference is that as a developer, you've naturally got a different perspective. I watch LP's to be entertained and informed about a game, and a guy who's doing that on release day by definition isn't going to know a lot about the game (and so the Day-1-LP'er will tend to make their LP's about themselves instead of the game). Of course, as a developer, the more feedback the better.

My comment about the kickstarter promises is based more on a LACK of information than anything else. From the outside, we don't know how fast you can work, or how much else is done, working, and just locked out of the Alpha stage. All we know is that the schedule has moved down a lot, there was a February 28 deadline, and there seems to be a lot of work left.

We're also playing on a 3-week old build. Once we see the newest build, we'll revise our expectations accordingly.

Blegh...steam forums,
The cheapest, whiniest, flea-bitten, rotten troll infested forum I've ever seen.

I hope everything goes well with the plans for the release and the crud those low-life scumbags will fling will not get too bad.

Sorry for the little outburts, I just depise the Steam forums and the average posting niveau they have.
We will see, I cross the fingers for Larian and suggest to offer some sacrifices to the gods for some good feedback.
How about one of the weresheeps?

*takes a slow, deep breath and gives some thumbs up*
I am ok again. Let's keep rolling folks.

If Larian thinks they can handle the additional work then I can only say go for it!

Extra publicity, feedback and funding does sound good. I must say, upon further consideration it now seems well worth it to me... especially if Larian is awesome enough to add some of those funds to Original Sin's development, I'd be cheering every purchase.

Perhaps as fans we just don't want to see a game we are invested in getting potentially badmouthed poorly criticised by retards people. Whereas developers are probably more used to it ;-) As Swen says, there is reason to have faith in D:OS's target audience. Perhaps we sometimes overestimate the impact of those few that complain loudly and badly rather than making informed constructive criticism.

Besides, D:OS is in a very different situation to Wasteland-2, it's in a more polished state and the alpha is free to all backers now. The only people who could possibly feel miffed are those who specifically paid extra for alpha access in the kickstarter, yet this has already been addressed months ago with refunds/credit for any of those who want it. Seems all good to me.

From what I can tell, the main things to do with early access are to release an already polished product, fairly priced, update regularly and maintain a good presence on the steam forms. If Larian ticks all these boxes, as I think they will, then do we really need to worry?



This. With only six weeks to go people are starting to wonder what's going on. I'm anticipating an update imminently ;-)


Edit: Lol @Bearhug, I think you aptly summed up the concern.

There are a couple reasons why gamers may not be keen on Early Access. These reasons might not apply specifically to Larian Studios. The big issue is that customers are paying full price for a product to be finished later, and so they are relying on the company to be ethical and live up to its promises, and if the company does not, they have no recourse to get the money back.

I'm sure everyone here trusts Larian to live up to its promises, but not every company is so worthy. I certainly would not consider buying any Early Access game on Steam, EVER, for that reason.


Jim Sterling did an episode on Early Access just today.

Personally I like the whole idea/premise behind Early Access - it can be good for both developer and consumer. However, the problem is there is an absolute flood of games coming out on Steam right now using the Early Access program, and many of them are showing signs that they might never actually get finished, few updates, etc.

It does open up a source of funding for the developer, but there is a great concern that if Early Access becomes too popular... then everyone will just do Early Access, as why bother finishing games when you can start raking in the money early? And heck, why even bother to finish making the game when you have already raked in people's money?

Not saying Larian are intending that, but that is a great fear I & many other's have.. that publisher's like EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc will go down this road. Heck, they already do it anyways as most of their games get pushed out early, are buggy messes, etc.




The problem Swen is that the people I'm talking about are not providing feedback about the game itself - they are all negative and attacking the price point, the fact it's in beta and not a finished game, that it's on Early Access, attacking Early Access, etc. Every thread I linked to in my OP was attacking InXile's choice to put Wasteland 2 up on Early Access in the state it was in, at the price point it was set at, and that it was incomplete and using the Early Access system.

The kind of threads/post's/feedback I'm concerned about regarding Early Access is NOT the kind of feedback your looking for - it's just negative trolling and bashing of the company/game/etc. The type of feedback your after you are currently getting from those who have time to playtest your Alpha build - and yes, you will get people who buy Early Access of steam who will provide proper/decent feedback, but you will also attract the crowd of trolls & idiots who will flame, troll and go mental because it's yet another Kickstarted game out to rip off consumers and profiteer off Early Access! (their words, not mine)




InXile obviously also thought that, but the amount of post's that have been posted whining/complaining/etc about the buggy state, that the content isn't all available, how they didn't realize it was beta, etc is staggering.

You would be very surprised how many people do NOT read store pages and/or game descriptions and just click the "buy now" button. There sadly is too many people who would not read the whole Early Access spiel.. click buy now, and then post about how they feel Larian is just ripping them off with an incomplete game, buggy mess, etc.




I completely forgot about that... so that does make some of my points in my OP moot, as everyone who backed has been given the chance to alpha and beta test the game, and you have handled those who paid extra for that with refunds/credit/etc.

However, I still have grave misgivings about the game going Early Access for the reason's I & others have stated. Although if you put it up at a low price point in Early Access, that will likely reduce some of the trolling that is likely to happen - as people on Steam have an expectation that Early Access games will be low cost.. like $5-15, vs the normal retail cost. However, even that will still not avoid the ire of people against yet another Early Access game and/or yet another Kickstarter game going Early Access.

An interesting reddit thread started by a developer...

Reddit - pros & cons of steam early access

From the OP:

+++ Pros +++

+ More revenue now: In theory, launching on SEAG means an injection of cash right now.

+ More exposure: Word of mouth marketing seems like it would get a shot in the arm, just from the increased number of people playing the game.

+ Steam Front Page: Some SEAG games get front-page treatment, and that can be a huge marketing boost.

+ More feedback before launch: Assuming you're interested, more players means more feedback. And more feedback could lead to a better game.

--- Cons ---

- Bad First Impression: This is probably the biggest and most tangible risk I can think of. If your game isn't ready, this is one way to let as many people know as possible. In many cases, first impressions stick, so this can be a rut that's near impossible to get out of later.

- Player Misunderstanding: A different shade of the above, some players don't "get" that SEAG is unfinished games, and will castigate devs for selling a "faulty" product. This can burn bridges with customers and create bad press.

- No Critical Mass: Many games become popular when enough people are talking about them simultaneously. Call it "going viral" or "10,000 fans" or whatever. Does SEAG diminish the "big spectacle" on launch day? Do we get two mediocre bangs instead of one big bang? Does that matter?

- Delayed Gold Launch: Integrating Steam during development takes time away from the game development process. If you're planning on launching via Steam anyway, this risk is moot. However, the timing of this delay could be non-optimal (e.g. latest build has a bad bug, and next patch is delayed by SEAG integration efforts).

- Less revenue later(?): Does the lifetime revenue get impacted by SEAG? Is there a chance that we're choosing between 10 sales now with 10 sales later, versus 0 sales now and 100 later? This is just another implication of the "no critical mass" above, but is worth pointing out.



... In sum, the developer in question considers that the pros are more tangible than the cons, which are uncertain, and so seems to be worth it so long as certain caveats are met (such as releasing in a polished state, regular updates & effective communication etc).

Some good insights and tips in that thread.

I figured this was good material to put on my blog so I took the liberty of quoting you a bit

http://www.lar.net/2014/01/14/steam-early-access-is-a-good-thing/

The summary - those cons really aren't that big cons. Which doesn't mean a final decision is taken about Divinity:Original Sin going to Steam Early Access btw. That's a decision that will be taken today or tomorrow. But we are indeed preparing for it because it's more likely than not that we'll go ahead with it.

The fact that YOU don't see means only that YOU don't see it. There have been reviews on almost every early-access game so far (you think they will skip an RPG release, really?), not just in so-called "professional" gamejur media but on YT (popular - and I mean it - "youtube" reviewers; here is, for example, Angry Joe's state on beta/alpha early access) as well. Game WILL be reviewed ("mmm, it could be better here") and WILL be judged (by public) by it's current state (despite all the logic) and as it happened before with others - the overall impression will stuck on that unfinished state.

-"What, Original Sin? Oh yeah, I saw that game, didn't really like it and it was buggy, may be I will try it one day. May be."

There is always another side of the coin and not very pretty one.

The only harmless way to release DOS as an early-access, in my opinion, will be releasing finished game without the schedules. So, basically what was mentioned before.


UPD:
I just saw Robcat's post - well, pretty much what I said.

Nice blog post, put D:OS up on early access already



I think the internet hoohah about Steam Early Access (SEA) can partly be explained as cynicism in gamers resulting from the less than stellar practices of some game studios and publishers (coupled with the sheer inanity one witnesses in gaming forums leading gamers to worry for humanity the industry).

A fear I’ve often seen expressed is that SEA might contribute to poorer release states of games, due to unscrupulous companies taking advantage of the conditioning of gamers to unfinished products; which is usually accompanied by the observation that there are more games being released in an unfinished, buggy state these days. Personally, I’m not sure that this perception is accurate; there have been plenty of such games in the past and I suspect that it is rather the proliferation of media itself through the internet which is highlighting OMG THIS GAME IS A BUGGY DISASTER HATE RANT NET SLANG VENTING an ongoing issue. Nor do I see how SEA would necessarily lead to a detrimental effect on the quality state of released games. The internet hasn’t exactly been silent regarding games like Battlefield-4 and I don’t see why such backlash would abate merely because SEA exists. Unscrupulous companies will get away with whatever they can, if we let them, not because SEA somehow supposedly enables them to.

Another common concern people raise is the sheer number of games being released on SEA, implying that this is indicative of the greed of developers to cash in before the game is even ready, rather than simply a good business move that may also benefit consumers. Scepticism is good. Gamers need to be more discerning about what they are buying on early access. However, cynicism is not as helpful as it tends to overlook the real benefits of SEA in favour of an alarmist position in the attempt to protect gamers from shoddy business practises. That unscrupulous behaviour occurs does not invalidate SEA as a valuable mechanism that can benefit both developers and consumers. The same can be said of kickstarter, which is also a system open to abuse, yet is arguably one of the best things to happen to gaming, well ever.

However, despite some similarities including the reliance on trust, in my opinion Kickstarter and Steam Early Access are quite different beasts. More importantly, they are regarded differently. In short, Kickstarter is seen to be more ‘okay’ because it is about pledging, whereas SEA is more about buying. It is important to note that this is a distinction made mostly in the minds of backers/consumers. SEA can easily be seen as a way to support the development of a game and company you believe in. Yet Kickstarter is more selflessly supportive and encourages personal investment in the game’s development. You won’t see many people paying many times more the cost of the game on SEA, or being as understanding regarding the state of development, I’d wager. Kickstarter is more about the shared endeavour to help create exciting visions that otherwise wouldn’t be possible, while SEA is more of a straight business transaction to purchase a discounted unfinished game to play right away. SEA is seen as being for games that are near completion and don’t need public funding so much. So people are naturally more suspicious and question the notion of paying to essentially test a game more in this model than in the feel-good kickstarter dream factory.

The upshot of all this is that it might be a very good move to stress to the steam community the value of purchasing D:OS to the game’s development, both through feedback and additional funding. Demonstrate your integrity and show that their trust in buying your early access game is well founded. Bring a little of that kickstarter feel-good magic to SEA so that people are more invested and feel good about themselves for supporting the game. “You are not just getting to play something now at a discount, you are helping us to make a better game for everyone. We appreciate your trust in us and will use your feedback and money to make you something awesome.”

Which is after all, what we all want.

I fully agree with you.

I have nothing against Steam Early Access. On the contrary, I think it's a good thing. You can use it but you don't have to. Choice is up to the user which is always a good thing.

There will always be users who don't understand or react in a strange way. That's business as usual. You can't and shouldn't base your analysis solely on the bad aspects and the most mouthy users. And I also recognized a rising amount of trolling in the Steam community and the new recommendation system. DayZ is the best example to show that people just write bullshit for the sake of being cool or whatever.

Imo most people know exactly what Steam Early Access is and what you can expect from it and what not. And everyone who buys something without informing themselves before purchase are just plain dumb...

I have more concerns about DOS being released to early in February than it being on Steam Early Access. The alpha is nice but so many things must be fixed and polished until relase. I hope you make it in time...

Nice posts Robcat and LordCrash.
I have been swayed by your arguments

And also this from the post by Swen:


is exiting!

FWIW, I'll also put my 5 cents in the jar. I don't think I'm bringing something new to the discussion, but this is how I currently understand the matters.

When I try to distill a bit what has been said, I have the impression that the concerns boil down to essentially two points:

- Apparently, a subset of gamers misunderstand 'early access' as "It's done, but our marketing team told us that releasing the game on date x will give it the best attention it can get, but if you really want, you can play it now.", or something along those lines.
If one thinks that is what early access is, then (s)he's bound to be upset when the early access price is higher than (or even the same as) retail: "Hey, I payed extra to play this sooner, but the thing is like unfinished or something, wtf! Did I pay extra for *that*? What a rip-off." -- Proceeds to spread bad press about this scandal, and discredits the product.

- Apparently, a subset of kickstarter backers have the impression they simply buy a product when they back something, and do not fully take to heart that they're making an investment in a project that they'd like to see completed, but may fail completely, or fail to live up to all promises. Thinking about kickstarter in this oversimplified way seemingly makes the platform just an elaborate early access point of sale.
If one thinks this is what kickstarter is, then (s)he's bound to be upset when the steam early access price is lower than (or the same as) their pledge: "What the hell, I was like a year early with buying my early access game, and it bought me nothing. Jerks. :-/", maybe even forgetting about some extra goodies they got with the game. -- Proceeds to spread bad press about these corporate jerks and discredits the company.

I personally think that both problems can be alleviated with good two-way communication with the fans/clients, which happens to be something that I think Larian is doing a splendid job at. Of course there will always be people that will ignore all warnings and notes and messages, but I don't think anyone should bother to be bothered by other people's ignorance, because you probably can't do good for them anyway. In the words of Swen from his blog post: "So yes, some misunderstanding about what’s in an alpha or a beta is inevitable, but I think that as people play more of these early access games, it’s something that’ll correct itself over time and they’ll learn how to judge things." -- I agree.

@Robrecht
Good communication is essential. But it was also very well communicated that Wasteland 2 is still very much in beta state and the Steam early access version is not the final product. You can only do so much with good communication. The internet is a wild place in which happen weird, unexpected and just plain silly things. Just look at all the comments and dumb user reviews about DayZ....



I also add here what I wrote on Swen's blog:


As an alternative:

Why not opening up Divinity Original Sin for preorder on Steam and giving every person preordering the game access to the beta version?

Usually people are more forgiving when playing a beta named beta than playing an early access game. It's really just a wording thing but words can be important when it comes to expectations and treatment of games and stuff.

And don't forget that 3 of the 4 pros can even be achieved with a free beta and even more so because people are much more forgiving when playing something for free. A free beta is seen differently as a paid early access version. A free beta is seen as a community service and an effort to make the game better while paid early access is often seen as a cheap way of getting revenue for an unfinished product.....

But of course that would probably cause some problems with the kickstarter userbase. Maybe you could give people paid access to the alpha and early beta and release a free and more polished beta later, just 2 or 3 weeks before release or so (maybe raffling 10k beta-keys or something).

And when doing a Steam Early Access approach, the price point is extremly important: many people fail to understand that some ealry access games have a higher price than the final release product in order to bring the pricing on the same level as corresponding kickstarter tiers. You guys have the benefit that every backer gets the beta version so you could reasonably price your early access version which means that it could be on the same level as the release price or even below that. That's a very big pro compared to Wasteland 2 which is priced 60$ in early access (or Planetary Annihilation which is priced 80$....)

Larian and Swen -I think you do your best to make game better as much is possible and even the Early Access seems is or would a bad deal for a lot of people, I belive that Real fans will never give up to follow by YOU and YOUR games and remember that "For every deed people can find either 100 excuses or 100 accuses."
Do things as hint your hearts and I think you`ll find your way.
Good luck and I wish THE GREAT success on Early Access and at release of D:OS !!
Sorry for not good language I hope you can catch my drift
All fans are patiently waiting and crossed fingers for you together and forever ,like the Damned wish to step on Rivellon again !
P.S

Difference between real fans and "fanboys" is the the first actually care and not afraid to express their opinion if they think something is wrong and why it is wrong, the second just blidnly follow, like a puppy, and pretend to care.

What do you want to say?

I said that I think that Early Access is NOT wrong.

a) I think that some of the backlash on early access is due to those games that charged significant $$ for alpha/beta (wasteland 2, planetary...) and were forced to do so on steam (this is not relevant to D:OS)

b) (my concern): beware the vocal minority (but this is relevant to both steam and here. Being vocal does not equate with goodness

c) No matter how many times you state 'this is not a finished' product there will be some backlash to crashes and unfinished areas et all.

d) You might take a peak at m&m legacy X and blackgaurds boards on steam (two recent early access). blackguard response has been very positive and they continue to give update and feedback. m&m legacy x is somewhat more negative with the update stopping after a couple of weeks and the 'beta' tester feeling like they were ?jerked?.
-
I suspect this will be much closer to the black guards model but given how small your staff is I would think it would be difficult to maintain good communication both here and on steam so perhaps you should direct all the early testers to one place or the other when you go live on steam ?
(personally I would just recommend steam forum since that is what the folks on steam will expect).

I really think Robcat and LordCrash summed it up very well, and I share their views on this too. Go ahead and do it, Larian! But, just like LordCrash heeded, please don't release the game too early. Take your time, if you can, that is.

And I said you should be more careful in your quick judgment and labels.