The terribly named multiplayer phenomenon PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds was announced for the PlayStation 4 this week, but the reveal was met with real scepticism. Sony’s policy on Early Access is a bit confused: in 2014 it said it was looking into ways of supporting it, but only Ark: Survival Evolved has released thus far. Even more baffling is the fact that the likes of DayZ and H1Z1 were announced for Sony’s system eons ago, but still haven’t arrived.
It would appear, then, that unlike its competitor, it’s generally decided against Early Access releases – but should it change its stance? The question comes at an interesting time, as PlayStation Store curation is a hot topic following the release of Life of Black Tiger among others. Some people think that the Japanese giant should be blocking the release of these finished but heavily, heavily flawed games; we disagree.
But if we’re against curation in general, then surely that means we should be in favour of Early Access? Well, yes and no. The problem with the business model is that it can be easily exploited: games are sold on the premise that they’ll be updated over time, but there are no shortage of projects on Steam that have been dropped before they’ve had the chance to be polished off. It’s a discussion with lots of nuance as a result.
And that’s why we’ve come to you. What do you think about Early Access? Do you reckon it’s something that Sony should enable on its system, or do you think it’s right to put its foot down? Would you pay money for Early Access software, knowing it may never be finished – or are you fed up of games launching unfinished as it is? Do let us know your thoughts in the comments section below, and remember to vote in our poll while you’re at it.
Should Sony allow Early Access games on PS4? (160 votes)
- Yes, options are always appreciated
- I'm really not sure
- No, only finished games should be allowed
Please login to vote in this poll.
[source bit.ly]
Comments 57
No absolutely not. The only way that it's acceptable is if all early access games are free.
Sony has one flaw with its online services like this: It doesn't give consumers choice, just like the thinly veiled issue of EA Access.
Choice is good.
Even if those choices are games that look like they came from Early Access anyway.
@adf86 in other words Betas but yes i agree if a game is unfinished then it shouldn't be available for sale
@BLP_Software Is it a flaw in this instance, though? To play devil's advocate, there'd be plenty of people queuing up to complain if a game got sold as Early Access, didn't work properly, and never got updated.
"Why did Sony allow this?" Etc.
No. I don't understand why people like early access games. You are doing a play testers job for them, for free. Make these companies pay play testers money to find the bugs in these games.
There are too many games to play as is, I don't want to spend my precious free time trying to find a new game on a digital store and have to sift through unfinished shovelware.
Perhaps if Sony developed some kind of refund policy, i.e, if the dev's promises of certain specified updates aren't met by a certain date then the buyer's eligible for a refund, or partial refund.
But then they'd have to develop a digital refund for everything else too, I guess, which they clearly aren't keen on doing.
But yeah, generally I'm in agreement this route should be avoided. The culture of releasing unfinished games is bad enough already without further legitimising it with projects like this.
I don't really care about multiplayer so it doesn't bother me either way.
@get2sammyb Early Access, I believe as a concept, is flawed.
I believe one reason consoles remain poular is simple. The ecosystem of verification. User curated content, no matter how Valve wants to pretend, isn't sustainable under any circumstance. They may want the image of a cute ma and pa store, but its still Valve Corporation, so bloody hire people.
For Sony, and other manufacturers, this is their caveat. It's verified.
If Early Access type things happened on PS4, I would say yes, IF it was SONY verifying, and not users.
Steam Early Access is a mess of letting the world run itself in what Valve calls idealism, where there are no checks (They said they hate updating mobile apps because it takes time, but that's for consumer quality reasons jackasses) and they refuse to have their own staff do a job just to maintain the image of their market.
Sony could be logical about it, and put effort in. As I said, if it happened, I wouldn't object, but only on that circumstance being met.
But as @PaperyWhiteBoy states...this would also involve refunds. And this is Sony we are talking about.
So we have two problems. Valve likes letting consumers rule the roost and it cant be upheld, but they have refunds as a get out card for goodwill. Sony could have curated Early Access, but they have a reluctance to give consumers money back, no matter how many times its a problem brought up even in law.
Is there any real difference between early access and the paid closed betas that they already offer?
I find it insulting, people are doing a service for them and they ask them to pay for it? Aside from the fact that you're playing a game that's half finished, buggy, that takes away from immersion. It's a beta, either let people play it for free to help you out, or pay for game testers. I just don't think it's very ethical.
Yeah, no thanks.
You could say we already do this considering the number of games that get released and still need fixes from bigger companies. But in all seriousness, I really don't have enough good faith to give an unfinished, unproven project my money before a formal release.
I don't quite understand the purpose and point of early access. Paying for an explicitly unfinished game? For what? To start a playthrough early and then learn that the scheduled full release has just reworked some early parts of the game you may now need a new save file to experience? Sounds weird.
I understand the hype to play a game you're looking forward to as soon as possible, but I think it's well-cured by the existing backlogs (including several more long-awaited games you started simultaneously because you were hyped to play them ASAP). We're living in the patch age as it is; I can't help seeing early access as merely a way to increase the number of patches you'll download later. Am I not accounting for something beyond that?
As I stated before, consoles should adhere to a higher standard in terms of games they allow on their respective platforms. Leave the early access games to PC, it's already flooded with it. We already have enough games with a "finished" label slapped on it that feel like they're still in beta, let's not give developers another reason to slack off even more.
@nhSnork There are some games that just don't exist outside of early access that provide unique experiences. Battlegrounds is one of them. I usually don't bite on early access, but this game really has potential to become something great. Time will tell of course, if they can live up to the task, but as far as I'm concerned, I've already gotten my money's worth out of it, and it'll only get better in the future.
Some early acces games are just fun to play, they may never get finished but what's there already can still be enjoyable. And most of these games have a significant price cut while in early acces which makes the gamble more affordable.
And remember, unfinished and bad games do not automaticly equel no fun or enjoyment. Even those games have a market and people that like them shouldn't have less options because others do not like them.
Early access seems like a bad idea for everyone. Sure the developers get paid for people to bug-test their game, but then there are all these negative early impressions of the game posted online for eternity... Even if a game is polished by the final release. That hurts sales.
Of course, that problem isn't exclusive to early access. Games like Drive Club that get significantly patched after release can never change the review scores and public opinion based on first impression.
No. If a game is not finished, don't get people to purchase an un-finished game. If they end up liking it and it never arrives...there will be complaints, just as many complaints as there would be if it wasn't the best. No matter what, and it's basically this day in age, there will be too many complaints, and if Sony allowed early access to these, Sony would be the one at fault no matter what (in peoples eyes). Companies get too much backlash as it is, so why add more flames to the already burning fire.
No. PC is the platform for people who want to experiment (and indeed I have subscribed to a couple early access games that have proven reputable on there).
I prefer nothing but finished games on my consoles, thanks.
I've been playing games on Steam since early access was introduced. There's been several titles which have been worth time invested.. Probably about 15% of which made it to full release. On console? NO. Just.. no. It's bad enough paying £50 for an unfinished game on full release, and that without f'n pre-order bonuses, season passes etc.. No. Grr..
@sketchturner
Yep.. Developers get paid for people to bug test their game, rarely listen to feedback, and then abandon the project because they made more money than they expected, couldnt be bothered anymore, or because they got bought out by a bigger company, or lead developer had a baby.. You name it.
While early access as a concept can be pretty good, it can be really easily exploited, so if only Sony can provide dedicated creation of the titles with mandatory polices to regularly update and be transparent about there in dev game then sure but considering the so so result by Sony i am not really sure.
But if they went the steam way then hell no.
I'm not completely against Early Access games being allowed, but I don't think I'd spend any money on them until they're released.
Sorry i'm no QA tester unless i'll get paid for Early Access? & there is no why i'm paying to do that. Keep that on PC please, people still have an option to play early access if thay want on PC.
No.
Nope definitely not! Too many games get launched as Early Access and... thats it. Sure maybe incremental updates, but too many games languish for years without much improvement.
@WasabiPeanut And they use the Early Access branding as a shield from criticism. "Oh, don't be too harsh guys, it's not finished! We've only been in Early Access for 3 years!"
I think early access is fine. As long as early access games were clearly labeled as such in an isolated section of the store, and priced in a reasonable manner then I see no problem in allowing people to make their own choices.
An example would be some games that are relying on the early access funds to continue development. In return for paying for early access, people get to help shape the game and in fact quite often this is exactly what the devs want, feedback from players to help make the game people want. Personally, I like that idea. Of course there will be blatant cash grabs, but that is why we should research every purchase before making it.
So bring on early access, let people choose. Only a complete idiot would spend money on something without fully researching what they are buying anyway.
Unfinished games are released all the time...
I don't like early access games and would never buy them but, once again, they should be allowed. Options are always better and it's moronic to me that people are so against it. Like it or not, games are, if they haven't already, going to become more service oriented and this is part of the deal. Let developers release their early access games, then let the market decide if its something that is wanted or not.
I'd take a finished game over a rushed game anyday.
I don't understand why people are so against it, don't buy them if you don't want to but there's a huge amount of people that want this, Ark was the best selling game on PS4 the month it was released it's clear what the fan's want. Nobody should get a refund if they buy an early access game, it's obvious why not and anyone that ask's for one should be shot. The only reason I can think people are scared of early access game's is that they are worried it will be so popular and spill over into all game's, it only affect's online game's though your SP game's would be safe.
@Gamer83 I don't think it is moronic disagreeing. Each to their own and all that.
In my opinion, the majority of retail sectors do not allow unfinished products to be purchased without guarantee that the product will be completed at a later date. Sure it is possible that a product on the shelf will be of low quality or have issues but then, as a consumer, there should be consumer protection on that product (which is a whole other discussion when it comes to games). I personally think that unfinished games leave the consumer far too open to fraudulent practices. There are lots of examples of early access games on Steam ripping people off.
I get the argument about consumers shaping games but, personally, I am not sure that is a good idea any way. I don't really want a developer to have a vision and then change that vision because a subsection of players demand it. Play testing and beta is one thing to observe what does and doesn't work but encouraging feedback can be a dilution of the creative process.
I have no problem with crowdfunding game development or demos /beta's but rewarding the release of unfinished games with revenue is a slippery slope in my mind.
@Rudy_Manchego right on Rudy my thoughts exactly.
I understand people want more choice, I get that. But I would rather have less choice on finished products of better quality than more choice on unfinished alphas.
I've given up on beta access entirely too, it was a novelty initially, but when you can play the pantheon of full games on PS4 already what's the point?
Only with a good refund policy until then absolutely not.
As long as it's clearly labelled and isn't hurting anybody, whatever.
@themcnoisy Sure and I don't want to limit people's choices but I think unfinished games are an industry problem at the moment. Take Mass Effect Andromeda - I think it is fair to say that they knew it wasn't quite ready but it got released anyway. The result? Slower sales then expected, mediocre critical and player response. Fair enough, the market had spoken. They could, however have slapped early access on it and then everyone would forgive the issues and say, oh wow this game will be awesome in 6 months.
Publishers would love that but the gamer gets the worse deal.
Also, I feel like I need to point out that one of the reasons I, and probably others, are against early access appearing on PSN and more curation happening, is not because we're evil and want to deprive people from playing them. Yes, I can ignore all the noise and grab what I want, but I feel it affects the discoverability of smaller cool titles that don't have the money to lead big marketing campaigns. I like going through new releases and checking out things I've not heard before, but that's nearly impossible on Steam anymore, and even worse on the mobile storefronts. There is so, so much shovelware and early access games, that I only go there if I want something specific. I don't want this to happen on PSN, even though it seems it's slowly moving that way.
I don't play early access games, but I think the option should be there. That is dependent on Sony having a refund policy though, it's already a joke you can't get refunds on PSN.
Curate the trophies. My Name Is Mayo doesn't deserve more than 1 bronze trophy. And building an early access version is a waste of development time. Just finish the game.
No, we are getting too many "unfinished" games as it is in this day and age and need day one and often, several patches to sort out the bugs and glitches.. Devs are getting lazy as it is without possibly releasing early and receiving a major cash boost and slowly trickling the patches. .
@Rudy_Manchego
If it was up to me, we wouldn't have things like early access games. You get a budget, you make a full game, release it and that's that. But the times change, the industry changes and early access is a thing, there's no reason for any company that's trying to be competitive to block it if it appears people want it and based on the fact that this doesn't seem to be slowing down there must be a market for early access.
Aren't they doing this already? When was the last time a game did not get a massive series of patches and updates ? I only buy playstation games 3 to 6 months after release to avoid the early access.
To be honest, I think if early access games are clearly marked (or perhaps if they had their own section on the Store), I don't see why not. I get that a lot of people take a stance against early access, it's certainly a debatable subject, but for the people that do support it and want to get involved via PS4, why not let them?
@Gamer83 Yeah, I can see your point and we all want Playstation to be competetive. Personally, I wouldn't necessarily say that consoles are the market for things like early access - the PS4 has sold content pretty well without it.
@DrClayman Really good point about smaller titles from developers doing things properly getting overlookd because of early access, which will just encourage them to go early access.
PSN is enough of a quagmire without allowing unfinished games on it. No way. Finish it then sell it.
I'm for curation and for early access, which may sound counter-intuitive, but it really isn't. Early access, when it is done correctly, is a great thing - it allows a company to release a game without constraints of larger software houses which likely would not have gotten past a financial meeting elsewhere. The problem is obviously when you get people who cheat the system to make a quick profit and run off, but that also happens with full releases too. Early access is the reason why Minecraft exists as well as one of my current favourite games, Factorio.
I think the best solution would be to create an area of the store that is dedicated to early access titles so they don't clutter up anywhere else and can be ignored by those who aren't interested. I'd also like for Sony to allow people to write proper reviews on games if they wish which would help with any issues in both early access and the current glut of shovelware that is seeing a store release.
I think it would also be an idea to have an extra section for indie releases if Sony keep allowing anything to be released on its store. In the new section any new release that isn't curated would be put, but then any game that pays a small fee to be curated by Sony could be put on the main store if it passes. As the games' publishers are paying for this service it wouldn't cost Sony any more money and it should create a better shopping experience for its customers.
No.
You only have to look at the whining over things like the GT Sport beta to know that far too many people don't seem to have a clue about what "early access" or "beta" means, and seem to think of them as demos of the final product. Consequently, it can adversely affect sales of the final game.
People complain about the things which are, essentially, the whole point of an early access/beta. In GT Sport for example, people are complaining about the sound of the engines, and the limited selection of cars - neither of which are the point.
Nope. If your game is unfinished and you need feedback, do a beta.
No, as far as I'm concerned only games that've actually been finished should be allowed on the PlayStation store.
I actually do the opposite and generally wait 3-6 months to buy a new release so it's more complete and less buggy when I play it.
I'm in no rush and with the amount of great games available today not sure why people would want early access to flawed products when there are loads of complete ones out there. Must just be impatience!
I'd love to play games early, i'm very impatient but for the console, they really need to be a polished and finished product. I can understand Betas and stress testing but not unfinished games
YES - absolutely yes. There is no objective definition of a "finished" game.
Minecraft is considered finished, but Mojang continues to release content just like they did pre 1.0. Factorio or Battlegrounds are called unfinished, yet they have more content and run more stable than some games that are officially released as finished...
Calling a game finished is arbitrary, especially in the the days of DLC and content patches.
The biggest reason we should embrace PSN Early Access: Sony would be way more selective than Steam. On Steam everybody can sell a barely working alpha build with dreams and promises. Sony on the other hand could only allow games like Battlegrounds, Factorio or Oxygen Not Included = games of trustworthy devs that already play like a finished product, even though the devs - for whatever reason - call them "unfinished".
This is a definite No. And we already kind of got Early access games lately (Driveclub, FFXV and some more) I rather wait (like GT sport) than having a game with bugs and not finished. I really miss the time when you bought a guy and that was it. I like that they have the ability to patch some critical bugs but that should be all. We pay $60+ for a game the least is that it comes in a finished state
@HefHughner Did you see how well early access did on Steam. It is a nightmare where games are never finished.
@Dodoo What you are saying makes sense. But it is also a shame to see that now you have to wait all that time for the game to be actually in a finished state. I kind of miss the times where you got what you bought. But I also like the fact that sometimes sh**t happens and then can fix it. But For me Thats only what it should be. Fixing issue not adding content to a game.
@atadakimasu No doubt, Steam EA is a total mess, but thats why I wrote it will not be like Steam, because PSN is handled differently. Sony would be way more selective than Valve.
Take Oxygen Not Included as an example. Klei proved again and again the games they release as early access are stable, playable and get finished (and even expanded months and years after release). Games like this (or Factorio or Battlegrounds) could and should be allowed to release labeled as Early Access.
@HefHughner I understand, If the early access is done for a very few games I am all for it as it can help bring some new games to the PS4. But sony will have to be very selective in order to avoid any issue.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...