Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

72 Comments

Steam Updates Early Access Rules, Guidelines For Developers

Valve appears to recognize Early Access has burned some customers, and it needs to clarify what the platform is really for.

Monetization of the development process has proven controversial. While Steam's Early Access program lets players participate in creation, it's led to confusion and anxiety when games go off the rails. Valve issued new documentation to developers about Early Access today, suggesting it knows it's an issue.

No Caption Provided

Several developers confirmed the existence of these new guidelines to me this morning.

The updated documentation is broken up into sets of "rules" and "guidelines," and opens with Valve trying to define exactly what Early Access is. It's mostly familiar, but written with the benefit of experience.

"Steam Early Access is a way to invite customers to get involved with your game as you develop, so that you can get the feedback you need to make better informed product decisions and to ensure the best outcome for your customers and fans. When you launch a game in Steam Early Access, there is an expectation by customers that you will continue development to a point where you have what you consider a 'finished' game. We know that nobody can predict the future, and circumstances frequently change, which may result in a game failing to reach a 'finished' state, or may fail to meet customer expectations in some other way. We work hard to make sure this risk is communicated clearly to customers, but we also ask that developers follow a set of rules that are intended to help inform customers and set proper expectations when purchasing your game."

First up, rules. This aspect is non-negotiable for Early Access participants. Valve now asks developers to specifically brand games as being in "Early Access" when Steam keys are being distributed off-site. This makes sense. Nobody should be buying a Steam key for a game without knowing it's not quite finished yet. Besides branding, Valve also asks developers to communicate the current status of the project.

"We work really hard to make sure that customers understand what they are buying when they get an Early Access title on Steam. But we've seen that many of these titles are sold as keys on other websites where there is no explanation of what Early Access is or what the current state of your product is now versus what you hope to achieve."

Interestingly, developers are now asked to avoid "specific promises about future events." This is likely to avoid developers bragging about how their game will eventually have co-op and other features that might be axed. This could lead to projects being more vague but more realistic about can really happen.

"For example, there is no way you can know exactly when the game will be finished, that the game will be finished, or that planned future additions will definitely happen. Do not ask your customers to bet on the future of your game. Customers should be buying your game based on its current state, not on promises of a future that may or may not be realized."

Next, Valve requires developers to launch on Early Access as the same time it's unlocked on other storefronts or web sites. Furthermore, sales have to be consistent, and developers cannot charge more on Steam than they're charging elsewhere. Consistency is key.

"We expect Steam customers to get a price for the Early Access game no higher than they are offered on any other service or website. Please make sure that’s the case."

What follows next are a series of guidelines, recommendations borne out of Valve watching some developers crash and burn on Early Access. We've all witnessed this. When it happens, it hurts everyone. Consumers begin to distrust Early Access (and the idea of participatory development more generally), and become wary of buying into the promise of new games, even if the circumstances are very different.

Since this section is so interesting, I'll just quote the whole thing.

"Don’t launch in Early Access if you can’t afford to develop with very few or no sales.

There is no guarantee that your game will sell as many units as you anticipate. If you are counting on selling a specific number of units to survive and complete your game, then you need to think carefully about what it would mean for you or your team if you don't sell that many units. Are you willing to continue developing the game without any sales? Are you willing to seek other forms of investment?

Make sure you set expectations properly everywhere you talk about your game.

For example, if you know your updates during Early Access will break save files or make the customer start over with building something, make sure you say that up front. And say this everywhere you sell your Steam keys.

Don't launch in Early Access without a playable game.

If you have a tech demo, but not much gameplay yet, then it’s probably too early to launch in Early Access. If you are trying to test out a concept and haven't yet figured out what players are going to do in your game that makes it fun, then it's probably too early. You might want to start by giving out keys to select fans and getting input from a smaller and focused group of users before you post your title to Early Access. At a bare minimum, you will need a video that shows in-game gameplay of what it looks like to play the game. Even if you are asking customers for feedback on changing the gameplay, customers need something to start with in order to give informed feedback and suggestions.

Don't launch in Early Access if you are done with development.

If you have all your gameplay defined already and are just looking for final bug testing, then Early Access isn’t the right place for that. You’ll probably just want to send out some keys to fans or do more internal playtesting. Early Access is intended as a place where customers can have impact on the game."

Every single one of those bullet points has been echoed before. Being able to see how a game goes through the ugly, often frustrating process of development is amazing, and the benefits certainly outweigh the problems. Game development has previously been mysterious. Now, less so. Yes, players will occasionally get burned on a game that doesn't pan out. That sort of risk is just inherent to these kinds of ventures.

Nonetheless, it doesn't absolve developers (or Steam/Valve) from making sure consumers are aware of the leap they're making. Failure is always a possibility, but if everyone is communicating, that's okay.

These guidelines and rules seem like a step in that direction, but the guidelines remain exactly that: guidelines. They're not rules, which means developers might still be tempted by potential Steam sales.

Patrick Klepek on Google+

72 Comments

Avatar image for slickdolphin
SlickDolphin

2

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By SlickDolphin
No Caption Provided

I just checked out that game in the image and it looks pretty slick. The devs seem to have promised a lot but it looks like they are handling it with all the updates since the release.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/279900/

Avatar image for dusker
dusker

236

Forum Posts

959

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By dusker

I've already been burned too many times to buy into Early Access anymore. Valve and other developers are going to have to start proving that these problems are resolved before I go back.

Avatar image for tehpickle
TehPickle

693

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By TehPickle

Spacebase is a prime example of everything that is wrong with Early Access. Double Fine alone has turned plenty of people away from Early Access after realizing that an established company can just abandon a project because the development costs were not going to 100% covered by early access purchases. It also sets a terrible precedent that early access games can just be abandoned at will over relatively minor set-backs, if you could even call it that in this case.

That isn't entirely fair to Double Fine. I'll be up front in saying that that some of their behaviour over recent years has left a rather sour taste in my mouth, but Spacebase's 'development costs not being 100% covered by early access purchases' is misrepresenting the situation quite a fair bit - a very common conclusion that seems all too easy to reach as more and more people get stung by Early Access.

DF did (allegedly) throw a good amount of their own money into the development, on top of the sales they were getting (or not getting) through early access. They hoped for sales that would offset their own costs and make it do-able. It was only when it became more apparent that Spacebase was hemorrhaging all around that it was canned.

While that doesn't really change what ended up happening, I think it's important that the distinction is made, though it wouldn't absolve them of other issues that the project was guilty of.

Avatar image for bobbarker
BobBarker

95

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@tehpickle said:

@bobbarker said:

Spacebase is a prime example of everything that is wrong with Early Access. Double Fine alone has turned plenty of people away from Early Access after realizing that an established company can just abandon a project because the development costs were not going to 100% covered by early access purchases. It also sets a terrible precedent that early access games can just be abandoned at will over relatively minor set-backs, if you could even call it that in this case.

That isn't entirely fair to Double Fine. I'll be up front in saying that that some of their behaviour over recent years has left a rather sour taste in my mouth, but Spacebase's 'development costs not being 100% covered by early access purchases' is misrepresenting the situation quite a fair bit - a very common conclusion that seems all too easy to reach as more and more people get stung by Early Access.

DF did (allegedly) throw a good amount of their own money into the development, on top of the sales they were getting (or not getting) through early access. They hoped for sales that would offset their own costs and make it do-able. It was only when it became more apparent that Spacebase was hemorrhaging all around that it was canned.

While that doesn't really change what ended up happening, I think it's important that the distinction is made, though it wouldn't absolve them of other issues that the project was guilty of.

At a certain point they had to start spending their own money, which they absolutely did not want to do. They gave one last attempt of stirring up sales with controversial humble bundles and deep sales hopping to spur something. When this failed largely due to the pathetic state of the game and they realized they'd have to fund it themselves they pulled the plug.

You could also argue based on how much time was actually spent developing the game, how many people, and how often they took time off to do non-DF9 related things that they never actually did end up digging into their own pockets. Overall they treated it like we hired them as contractors, and once the money ran out they said "well, I guess we're done here".

I believe my original description is more than fair to DF.

Avatar image for mbradley1992
mbradley1992

591

Forum Posts

261

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

I'm glad they are addressing this, but I still think Early Access is a bad concept. When are games "finished"? I've yet to see an Early Access game I bought become finished, despite good sales. Kerbal Space Program and Prison Architect have been up there for years, and while they update consistently, at a certain point the game should be finished. I don't see developers actually finishing games. I still see Early Access as a way for devs to sell their game "as-is", and then update it over time but never become actually "finished" because what's the point? A ton of people already bought it on Early Access, so why re-release?

Avatar image for theht
TheHT

15998

Forum Posts

1562

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 9

This is great to see.

Avatar image for 7x_
7X_

231

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By 7X_
@mbradley1992 said:

I still see Early Access as a way for devs to sell their game "as-is", and then update it over time but never become actually "finished" because what's the point? A ton of people already bought it on Early Access, so why re-release?

Games like KSP and Prison Architect are perfect examples of EA done right, I have no idea what you're talking about there. A game being constantly updated with new content is awesome and is something enough newer games don't do after release. Both games could be "released" into the steam store and would be well received, I see no issue continuing to update them with loads of new content until the developers feel its time to move on and release it then only promise things like compatibility patches etc. moving forward. I see no issue with this business practice in particular and both the consumer and developer profit from it.

This update would be a lot more respectable if STEAM didn't let utter trash into the actual store without having to be greenlit or Early'd. See The Slaughtering Grounds, a game I had to take into my own hands because the game stole artwork (Badass Troll Fairytale ) from a very cool freelancer by the name of Pekka, I highly recommend you check his stuff out @ Pekuska.

That being said, I have to do Steam's dirty work and report stolen artwork to freelance artists myself? It's ridiculous the game was even allowed because not only is it objectively worse in terms of quality to most Early Access games it features stolen artwork which I KNOW is stolen because I called the artist up myself to let him be aware of what has happened. Mutliple people have filed copyright flags against the game and it is still on the steam store potentially making sales off of stolen work.

No Caption Provided

That whole situation makes me far more cynical towards anything STEAM says regarding it's ecosystem being improved.

Avatar image for ph00p
ph00p

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Early Access has been so abused, I don't know if a few little rules are enough to salvage the system, might be ok just to let it die then start a new one with more solidified parameters.

Avatar image for bisonhero
BisonHero

12791

Forum Posts

625

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

@7x_: Yeah, Steam completely fucked up a few months ago when they loosened the rules to get on the store and to get through Greenlight. Now the new release list is full of Android port garbage and like you said, PC only games made on the cheap with stolen artwork. Valve should've kept the submission process the same and just hired more people to curate what gets on the store. There's a reason that Jeff makes fun of Desura, and it's because you can get anything on there unless it is explicitly a virus. Steam is rapidly approaching that point, and instead of improving the curation process, Valve simply redesigned the Store page to just not feature the hundreds of shit games they let through, and instead highlight the 10% or so of actually honest, good games that should be the only games getting on the store in the first place.

Avatar image for disabilityfishy
DisAbiLityFisHy

1185

Forum Posts

5926

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

At least it's something.

Avatar image for viking_funeral
viking_funeral

2881

Forum Posts

57

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

Edited By viking_funeral

Glad they're starting to take more steps.

Having the option to remove Early Access games from the front page was the best first step.

Avatar image for tpoppapuff
TPoppaPuff

522

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 1

Edited By TPoppaPuff

Some of those rules regarding sales are the exact rules Microsoft has consistently taken harsh criticism for. Of course, this is Valve who we already know are viewed as infallible.

Avatar image for jejoma
jejoma

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jejoma

I'll always remember that one podcast where Patrick was like "open the flood gates," concerning Early Access, and Brad was like, "I think this will be bad in the long term."

I think holding up Kerbal Space Program and a few other games as an argument for keeping Early Access as is, actually makes a better argument against it. If so few quality titles have come about because of the system, it's kinda not worth for me, as a Steam user, to have to sift through all the garbage to find what I'm looking for. I think Kerbal Space probably would have succeeded anyway no matter what it was labeled as.

Avatar image for xbob42
xbob42

926

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@jejoma said:

I'll always remember that one podcast where Patrick was like "open the flood gates," concerning Early Access, and Brad was like, "I think this will be bad in the long term."

I think holding up Kerbal Space Program and a few other games as an argument for keeping Early Access as is, actually makes a better argument against it. If so few quality titles have come about because of the system, it's kinda not worth for me, as a Steam user, to have to sift through all the garbage to find what I'm looking for. I think Kerbal Space probably would have succeeded anyway no matter what it was labeled as.

This implies that the majority of games on Steam are good. This implies that the majority of games on ANY gaming platform in existence are good. Going by the logic on display here, you'd have to come to the conclusion that gaming as a whole isn't worth it because there's so much garbage out there.

Most video games are terrible, boring things. The few we all get excited for? That keep us coming back? They're a drop in the bucket of produced games every year. That's not the point, though.

The point is that you having the mildly inconvenient experience of sifting through a few extra games per day does not outweigh the benefits of early access. There's plenty of good stuff out there, Necrodancer, Nuclear Throne, Endless Legend, Rust (Currently mid-rebuild, but still good), Day Z, Gang Beasts, Planet Explorers (I love this one), Project Zomboid, Wreckfest, Prison Architect, Massive Chalice and plenty more.

Maybe you disagree with something I listed. Good, because that brings up my next point: You're not the arbiter of quality.

I like lots of games other people don't like, I like lots of games other people do like, if we start weeding out "bad" games, then we lose out on games only some people think are bad. The same goes for Early Access. I don't give two shits what you think is good, I don't come to you for review information, like you don't come to me for review information. Allow me to make my own decisions, and present me with as many games as you reasonably can. I, SOMEHOW, will manage to survive and pick out the ones that seem most interesting to me.

It's like people forget that Steam has always had crap not everyone wants to play, Bad Rats hit before early access, folks. Steam doesn't vet by "quality," as that's totally subjective, nor should they ever try. Leave that to specialty (digital or physical) retailers, not mega-storefronts.

Early access is easily one of my favorite parts of Steam. Watching a game go through development, whether I participate in early access or not, is completely fascinating to me. Seeing the huge changes that go through is incredible, and opening up a game that recently got a patch that changed almost everything is something I've been wanting to experience since I was a kid. Dungeon Defenders 2 just got a patch where they overhauled the entire gear system -- and I couldn't be more excited!

I say open the flood gates even wider. Maybe add an extra filter for those who seem to literally get physically injured from having a few extra items on a list per day.

Avatar image for incar
Incar

10

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

In the end, whether a game is in early access or not, a lot of it comes down to the consumer. Any game purchased can be a complete hunk of crap, the consumer should do some research and not just purchase based on hype and promises. Personally I've only bought one early access game (The Long Dark), and I did quite a bit of research before doing so. It turned out to be a valuable purchase I think. Also won a copy of Endless Legend, another great game. However there are some like DayZ, which plenty love, but I refuse to buy into it because I already have the mod, and the progress made with the SA just doesn't seem worth it imo. I've also seen constant hate from those who did buy into it just because they loved the mod, but as much as they hate on the devs for bugs, lack of content, hackers and so on... They bought into promises based off fun they had on a mod, which hundreds of players/modders made what it is with extra additions. People should be less trusting and take a bit of time to learn about what they're buying. In addition to that, perhaps Steam should work a process with early access releases, and complete releases alike to provide demos for people to try before buying.

Avatar image for jejoma
jejoma

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@xbob42: Way to be an asshole, dude. I really don't understand why people get seriously emotionally charged over video games, but whatever.

I don't see how you can ignore that there's pretty much a consensus on the internet that Early Access has, more or less, not been a great thing for Steam. Why else do you think Valve is doing anything about it? It's not a loud minority. I would even go far as to say that people who really care about Early Access are the minority. I think most of the first Early Access successes were able to secure funding from places besides Steam.

I don't see why you're trying to divert the point of this into a subjective argument, other than to throw in that bit about me having shit taste in video games. That's a really weird thing to do. My point is that the sheer volume of Early Access titles, has kind of taken over most of Steam with games that never see a full release, because they are not able to bring the game into a state that would meet most people's standards, usually just in terms of a game functioning properly. The system has been abused, and everyone realizes it, except for a few free-market vigilantes.

If you want to argue about this subjectively, you should realize that you're also saying you think it's great that we're getting ports of mobile and facebook games. Do you really not want any kind of consumer protection on steam? In almost any business the onus is almost never on the customer to make an informed decision. I hate to be the one to break that to you, but that's how it is. Feel free to consider yourself more intelligent by the apparent fact that you research every purchase for weeks on end, but commerce out in the wild does not work that way.

Isn't it weird that when Steam still had Greenlight, a lot of the "quality" games you threw out in your examples passed inspection?

Avatar image for professoress
ProfessorEss

7962

Forum Posts

160

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

@tpoppapuff: Sorry Poppa, but if hypocrisy bothers you, you are in the wrong place.

Avatar image for mjbrune
mjbrune

176

Forum Posts

267

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By mjbrune

While all this is great. I don't see any outlines for punishment for breaking the rules. What if the game sells well but they don't meet any of their promised goals? I mean you see this happening with spacebase. Tons of features promised, they got a good chunk of money but was allocating money away from that game to different projects. No clause saying they have to pay back customers and allow the customers to keep the end result product if they don't "release" a game according to their promised feature set. The way Valve is pitching it actually sounds like you put money into a studio and get a game that you think you might like. Instead of putting money into a game you are fairly sure you will like in a studio you think might possibly finish it... Maybe, if you are lucky.

Avatar image for geraltitude
GERALTITUDE

5991

Forum Posts

8980

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 2

Edited By GERALTITUDE

@fisk0: Being sure you can finish a game is the craziest thing I ever heard!! :P

Hahaha ok not seriously but in my experience if you can actually make that call you are :

a) among the 1%

b) have no need of early access

Valve's policy spells this out clearly and all gamers *need* to come to terms with this - the vast majority of all game projects are never completed. NEVER (lady with arms crossed).

When you Kickstart or Early Access you should 100% of the time be ok with

a) the game never coming out

b) not getting your money back

Sounds like a raw deal? Nature of the beast! Keep in mind that these services are designed to circumvent publishers. Publishing is about risk. What I find hilarious/fascinating about all this stuff is people being angry about the risk involved in these services. Publishers are wary with their money for the same reason you are. Now you have some firsthand experience at least!

Avatar image for habibm
HabibM

9

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

"If you are trying to test out a concept and haven't yet figured out what players are going to do in your game that makes it fun, then it's probably too early." I hope the grass Grass Simulator devs are reading this