Early Access - a suggestion

[Harthwain]

Early Access - a suggestion

Bear with me after reading this title, before you unleash the righteous fury upon me.

I am currently playing another game, since it was in alpha stage. It came over entirely by accident, I liked the idea (a turn-based game, mostly that) and I knew it was done by people who are reknown for their other games, so it was unlikely to be a scam or something poor. I bought access to it - along with a copy for a friend, but I have no idea whom to give it to, because I don't know too many people who like turn-based games - and started to play. I knew it was alpha, so I simply played and left feedback to the developers (bugs, suggestions, ideas, what's good, what could be changed, etc.). It was up to them to decide what's worth and what's not and proceed accordingly.

And then I saw - in the subsequent updates - how our input did matter. How the game was changing for the better. But for that to happen we did have to play, to experience it. I do understand that CDPR is listening to the feedback of the fans, but there is only so much feedback that can be given when all the would-be players have is the most recent news. I doubt CDPR will change their approach on a whim (and that's fine), but I put this thread as a suggestion and to discuss with the community if Early Access wouldn't be feasible in terms of supporting the developers even more while at the same time allowing the players to have impact on the game before all is set and ready for the final release.

Honestly I doubt Early Access happening, if they have a timetable - they most likely do, it's nothing out of ordinary - or making changes would be considered too much time and effort consuming, but if they do plan on making games in the future it might be worth considering different approaches than a traditional one when developer is making a game and is only releasing a finished product. Great games were made that way, but I always wonder if input from players wouldn't make it even better. Or worse.

What do you think?

 

[227]

What do you think?

Are you talking about Original Sin? Part of me is opposed to early access on the principle of the thing and the floodgates it seems to allow to open for unfinished games (there was a gane called Cities or something that highlights the dangers best), and having big-name devs embrace it legitimizes it somewhat, making it that much more likely of happening often. On the other hand, Original Sin looks magnificent because of it.

But I don't like the idea of CDPR going that route. Larian gives me great stuff that I know I want, so early access makes a certain amount of sense there, but CDPR for me is all about delivering things I (and other fans) don't know I want yet. They should have plenty of money after Witcher 3 makes the sales charts cry wolf, too, rendering additional fan support unnecessary,

 

[Harthwain]

Are you talking about Original Sin?

Invisible, Inc. I will surely check out Original Sin though. Thanks for the suggestion.

But I don't like the idea of CDPR going that route. Larian gives me great stuff that I know I want, so early access makes a certain amount of sense there, but CDPR for me is all about delivering things I (and other fans) don't know I want yet.

Well, I agree that keeping out details would be impossible that way, but early access is there for those who are willing to participate. Not everybody has enough trust, time or money to preemptively buy a game on a promise of what it's supposed to be. Some, as you say, don't like to have their surprise spoiled. That's why creating something akin to early access section would be sensible, to not conflict people. I am not sure if getting information from someone else is the same to experiencing the game, in terms of laying down suggestions on how good the features are or what to change to provide even better experience.

My point is - we perceive and we experience. What we perceive might not align to what we (would) want or what we think we will experience.

They should have plenty of money after Witcher 3 makes the sales charts cry wolf, too, rendering additional fan support unnecessary,

It's not about the money.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I wouldn't say no, if CP was a game that was testing the waters with controversial ideas (for this time and age), so to speak, like some indies or games like Might & Magic X (which turned out great), and not seemingly aiming mainstream from the start. Early access is, imo, more of an aid for the relative "small timers" with ideas outside of the market norms (like more oldschool gameplay and/or presentation).

 

[227]

Never heard of Invisible, Inc. I'm a big fan of turn-based games, though, so I'll look that up sometime. Anyway, I wasn't talking about surprise or spoiling anything. What I mean is that they come up with ideas that the fan base as a whole wouldn't because of how the company tends to think outside of the box. That'd be lost somewhat if fan input ever became a big thing, and I'd prefer them running around unchained, making crazy things that we'd never expect to enjoy, but do.

That money thing was in response to the "giving them more support" thing, by the way. That usually means money when people bring early access up, but that's my bad if you only meant idea support.

 

[Harthwain]

What I mean is that they come up with ideas that the fan base as a whole wouldn't because of how the company tends to think outside of the box. That'd be lost somewhat if fan input ever became a big thing, and I'd prefer them running around unchained, making crazy things that we'd never expect to enjoy, but do.

We do exactly what you say that we would. Right now. Recall the multiplayer thread. We state our opinions about something that we've only heard, with no or little substance behind it. We might think we won't enjoy something, but that's what early access players can do. Check out how it plays out for them. Someone is supposed to eat what the developers are cooking after all, so it's sensible to check out what people find fun (or not) in the meal that the developers has envisioned, rather than gamble on people liking it, because they think it's great. It might be. Or not. While you're still early in the development you have more room to make changes. When the game is done, it's done and you're stuck with what's there. I am not saying that the game will be bad if they won't make early access. They do make good games (and great RPGs) without it and are currently one of the best developers in their own country, but constructive critique or suggestion is more helpful when it can be applied.

 

[dragonbird]

Nope, totally opposed to it. CDPR got the licence to make the game because of THEIR vision for it, they're the ones putting up the money, they're the ones whose livelihood depends on it, and they should be the only ones who decide what goes in, without having to explain why they're NOT implementing this suggestion or handle a constant barrage of people upset because they've been turned down. There's a place for open access and committee-based decision-making in lower-budget games, or where the developers don't have a clear vision, but not for a CDPR game.

I expect and want CDPR to do what they've always done. Provide information when they think it's right, sit back and see what the response is, and then quietly decide whether or not to do something about it or ignore it.

 

[Suhiira]

I'm in early access of both Original Sin and Wasteland 2, and have made my bugs reports and comments and seen both games evolve mostly for the better.
BUT ...
Neither of these is primarily a role-playing game (yes there is a certain amount in both, but it's more window dressing then "game core") so leaks about game content are fairly irrelevant.
Since CP2077 is going to be primarily an RPG I don't think public early access is a good idea.

 

[Harthwain]

Nope, totally opposed to it. CDPR got the licence to make the game because of THEIR vision for it, they're the ones putting up the money, they're the ones whose livelihood depends on it, and they should be the only ones who decide what goes in, without having to explain why they're NOT implementing this suggestion or handle a constant barrage of people upset because they've been turned down. There's a place for open access and committee-based decision-making in lower-budget games, or where the developers don't have a clear vision, but not for a CDPR game.

I agree with you entirely, but at the same time I also think you miss the point somewhat...

Yes, CDPR will make the game basing on their vision of it. They're the ones putting up the money. They're the ones whose livelihood depends on it, and they should be are the only ones who decide what goes in. They don't have to explain why they're NOT implementing this suggestion or handle a constant barrage of people upset because they've been turned down. Nobody is even suggesting a committee-based decision-making. What you're saying is true, but it simply doesn't apply to what's being told here, because nobody is questioning it in the first place.

Since CP2077 is going to be primarily an RPG I don't think public early access is a good idea.

You mean terms of the story? Like the plot being leaked out of when a very popular book, that everybody wants to read, is under translation?

 

[Suhiira]

You mean terms of the story? Like the plot being leaked out of when a very popular book, that everybody wants to read, is under translation?

Yep, story, NPC companions, consequences of decisions, all that stuff.
While some people would never play a game without a game guide at hand and access the internet to check the consequences of decisions in game because to them the only thing that really matters is "winning" or getting the best possible results in a game the majority of real RPers prefer to decide and deal with the consequences of their decisions based on their characters perspective.
And unless you totally stop reading any and all net posts concerning the game before it's released you are going to wind up with spoilers if it's doing any sort of public alpha/beta.

 

[dragonbird]

Yes, CDPR will make the game basing on their vision of it. They're the ones putting up the money. They're the ones whose livelihood depends on it, and they should be are the only ones who decide what goes in. They don't have to explain why they're NOT implementing this suggestion or handle a constant barrage of people upset because they've been turned down. Nobody is even suggesting a committee-based decision-making. What you're saying is true, but it simply doesn't apply to what's being told here, because nobody is questioning it in the first place.

Then what would be the point of open access? If there's no declared intention to modify the game as a result of feedback, then why should people be asked to play and give feedback? Even worse, why should people be asked to PAY to give feedback?

By giving open access, the developer is telling the players concerned that they will take their views into consideration. If they intend to ignore most of them, then they're misleading the gaming community. If they DO intend to take their views into consideration, it implies that they're willing to compromise their vision (or that they don't have one). Either way, it isn't something that would make me more confident about CP77, it would make me very, very worried.

 

[Suhiira]

Then what would be the point of open access? If there's no declared intention to modify the game as a result of feedback, then why should people be asked to play and give feedback?

This too.

 

[Harthwain]

Then what would be the point of open access? If there's no declared intention to modify the game as a result of feedback, then why should people be asked to play and give feedback? Even worse, why should people be asked to PAY to give feedback?

By giving open access, the developer is telling the players concerned that they will take their views into consideration. If they intend to ignore most of them, then they're misleading the gaming community. If they DO intend to take their views into consideration, it implies that they're willing to compromise their vision (or that

I must say I am quite puzzled by your opinion.

The point of open access is exactly this, although I'll copy the definition: "Open access (OA) means unrestricted online access to peer-reviewed scholarly research". The developer is working on the game, implementing what has been planned and can check out the feedback. People don't pay for the ability to give feedback. They pay for the ability to play before the game is considered completed* and are free to leave their feedback on their own accord. Not write ultimatums or demands, like a bunch of terrorists. It's up to the developer to take players' suggestions into consideration, but there is no guarantee that they'll be good enough, in the minds of developers, to be implemented into the game. I don't see how the willingness to change or tweak something - that was originally considered great and fun by the developer - is undermining their vision or can be base for questioning its very existence. Do you mean that a vision can not be re-thought, no matter what to accommodate for the feedback, when the feedback is considered solid enough to call for a change? Especially when the developers are there to be the ultimate judges of that? It's their vision and their game, after all.

* It's like asking why people pay for special editions.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Original Sin and Wasteland 2
....
Neither of these is primarily a role-playing game

(yes there is a certain amount in both, but it's more window dressing)
....

CP2077 is going to be primarily an RPG

What? What might be the reasoning here?

A bit off topic, but....

 

[dragonbird]

I
the definition: "Open access (OA) means unrestricted online access to peer-reviewed scholarly research". The developer is working on the game, implementing what has been planned and can check out the feedback. People don't pay for the ability to give feedback.

Sorry, but it's the wrong definition. This isn't about scholarly research, and it is definitely NOT a peer review, which means review by those who are considered as expert in the field as the creator. Perhaps it's better to use Early Access instead, which of course you did, in your original post :unworthy:

If the purpose of Early Access is simply to give the potential customers a sneak preview, then I'd put it in exactly the same category as the demands for trailers, gameplay videos, or any other kind of information from the developer. It's solely a marketing exercise, nothing more nor less. It's entirely up to the developer what information they want to release and when, and if they feel that the marketing should, or should not, include any kind of access, that's their decision. Based on CDPR's track record in the Witcher games, I do not expect them to do so, as they don't like showing their games to the public in an unfinished state.

Asking the potential customer to pay to receive marketing information isn't something I'd approve of, and as this is primarily a stand-alone game with no DRM, there're also practical considerations - if one person gets it, the rest of the world can too, which means that the supposed privilege of early-access would have no value.

And yes, the fact that it's a story-based RPG does make a difference. For every potential customer who is drooling over getting a sneak look, there'll be at least one more who is totally pissed off when the story is leaked.

 

[Suhiira]

What? What might be the reasoning here?

A bit off topic, but....

Original Sin is primarily a kill stuff and search containers for randomly generated loot game ... kill stuff to get better loot to kill stuff to get better loot to kill ...
What story line there is seems to be seems to mostly to direct you to the next area to kill stuff to get loot to kill ....
That said, some of the non-main-storyline quests in are quite good, interesting, and unique.

Wasteland 2 does have a central story-line, but again it seems to exist mostly to direct you to new areas to explore.
Again some of the non-storyline quests are interesting/unique, and the whole game is filled with dark humor, references to other games, movies, TV series, books, etc. which are fun in their own right.

 

[Harthwain]

Sorry, but it's the wrong definition. This isn't about scholarly research, and it is definitely NOT a peer review, which means review by those who are considered as expert in the field as the creator. Perhaps it's better to use Early Access instead, which of course you did, in your original post :unworthy:

I thought it's obvious that I am not using this definition literally - word for word - but I'll make it more clear then. Early access means unrestricted access to game in development that's reviewed by players. Is it really that ambiguous?

If the purpose of Early Access is simply to give the potential customers a sneak preview, then I'd put it in exactly the same category as the demands for trailers, gameplay videos, or any other kind of information from the developer. It's solely a marketing exercise, nothing more nor less.

I am not talking about marketing. I am talking about early access to gameplay, to the game. It's like pre-order mechanic, but you can voice your opinion as game is still in the stage of being developed. CDPR team members say they are listening to what's happening on the forums, so why would it be so off of them to listen to people who actually play their game when they voice their opinions, concerns and suggestions? By following the logic from your earlier post there should be no suggestions here, only conjecture, because suggestions would be outside the developer's vision and implementing them would require adding or altering something.

Asking the potential customer to pay to receive marketing information isn't something I'd approve of, and as this is primarily a stand-alone game with no DRM, there're also practical considerations - if one person gets it, the rest of the world can too, which means that the supposed privilege of early-access would have no value.

I agree, because nobody would ask the potential customer to pay to receive marketing information. You don't understand the principle of early access, which is within the very meaning of these two words. It is not about marketing and I am at loss here, trying to understand why you take such line of reasoning. It's not about you not liking the early access. It's more about you having incorrect notion of it, and it impacts your judgement, effectively rendering it null. There is no ground to build upon. It's like trying to complete an equation. If there is an error somewhere, the whole equation is flawed.

And yes, the fact that it's a story-based RPG does make a difference. For every potential customer who is drooling over getting a sneak look, there'll be at least one more who is totally pissed off when the story is leaked.

In the game I am in the early access the story isn't even implemented as gameplay elements must come first. You need a base game to put story in. You can also lock off players of the main story by having different developer version than the player version. It has been shared with us too, so we know what's going on (and we're probably about to get some story elements soon). The game is still coming together great, because we're enjoying the gameplay elements that all the other players will have to experience too. You can have a well written story - like in Ws - but you have to use your weapon nonetheless, making combat vital part of the game. Just to give an example.

 

[dragonbird]

The reasoning that it's a marketing gesture was this:

People don't pay for the ability to give feedback. They pay for the ability to play before the game is considered completed* and are free to leave their feedback on their own accord.

* It's like asking why people pay for special editions.

I can only see two reasons why a player would want early access, and three why a developer might. These appear to be the same reasons as you're giving.
A player would want it
- because they're impatient to see the game, and willing to pay for a preview (A)
- because they want the opportunity to impact on the game's development. ( B )
A developer may want it
- because they want to "sell" the game by showing it to the public before it's ready, and by getting people to pay for it (A)
- because they are happy to have the game influenced heavily by their future customers ( B )

(A) is a marketing strategy and would be inappropriate for a story-driven RPG, as it would either reveal the entire story or be a lie.
( B ) is a "design by committee" strategy and would be inappropriate when the developer intends to develop according to their own vision.

 

[Harthwain]

(A) is a marketing strategy and would be inappropriate for a story-driven RPG, as it would either reveal the entire story or be a lie.
( B ) is a "design by committee" strategy and would be inappropriate when the developer intends to develop according to their own vision.

1) Early access as means for getting money when we talk about CDPR is questionable marketing strategy. Wouldn't it be much easier to create better sales and publicity by selling pre-orders - including exclusive versions - and dosing information well enough to build a hype around the game? As for revealing the entire story, you can make a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), with secret subforum for those with early access ("Final Fantasy XIV" case).

2) You still haven't explained how vision of the developer can exclude player input. From topic "Cyberpunk 2077 - Your ideas for a dream RPG ":

We want the Cyberpunk 2077 to be the best RPG possible. Feel free to share your ideas and features that you would like to see in our upcoming game.

We want to hear your input

If they want input from players, then that means they are already fine with people trying to "influence their vision", so this argument hold no water. Either that or they're misleading their users that their input matters (because if it would then it'd influence the game).

EDIT: One more important thing about vision - you sound like players are going to re-design the whole game while they are only leaving feedback. It's up to developers to decide what to change, if they want something to be changed at all and what fits into their vision, even if a lot of feedback would be against something as a bad gameplay mechanic or poor feature (just giving example). Feedback has purpose and vision is not a dogma. If developers don't want input then early access is a moot point, but I think that is not the case here.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

What story line there is seems to be seems to mostly to direct you to the next area to kill stuff to get loot to kill ....

That's nearly every cRPG ever made; Baldur's Gate, Icewinde Dale, Fallout, Witcher, Wizardry, you name it, heck, even PST has it's trashmobs. There are degrees of difference in the balance between different approaches and gameplay elements (like Fallout being inherently less combat focused than Baldur's Gate - and by being more versatile, being better a game), and some do their job well and others just plain bad, but that's the crux of it still.

What makes you think CP will be any different; and how will it be is probably the better question?
Not going to argue about "what is an RPG", but if Wasteland 2 (even with it's flaws) is just a window dressing of an RPG, I can't think of a game that you would consider "a proper RPG".

I always held Bethesda's shit, and the like, the window dressing games for being simply "nothing matters" hack'n slash hiking simulators with some numbers smacked on top of the menu.