With Electronic Arts, the question for me is whether the good games that they publish exist because of them of in spite of them.
You could argue that games with higher budgets would never get that kind of financial backing if the developer was on their own (Bioware for example). So was Mass Effect good because Electronic Arts supported the studio and gave them creative freedom or was Bioware good enough to slog through the corporate swamp and come out the other side with a gem?
For smaller games it becomes a bit more shady in my opinion. PopCap is a good example of a developer that was making beloved indie titles for a while (Peggle, sweet sweet Peggle) and after the acquisition turn some of them (Peggle at least!) into a microtransaction nightmare. I don't see why PopCap could not also exist as an independent studio, the talent is clearly there. Of course, maybe Garden Warfare would have been outside their scope as a studio but I am not sure how liked those games are.
The way I personally see Early Access is as a way to support smaller developers that mainly benefits them rather than the people buying the games, which I don't mean as a bad thing. If you believe in the developer and their ideas (like Supergiant for example) you can support them independently of what game comes out in the end and I think that that's a good thing to do. If you get a good game to boot, then great! What worries me a bit about early access is how it influences the development of games, how it can potentially influence development based on public opinion and away from the original intent of the developer. This is especially evident when one looks at the amount of Early Access games that look beautiful before they play well, I am assuming to drum up support before being in any way playable.
Then again, I personally find imperfect games with rough edges but with a clear vision coming from fewer brains more exciting than focus tested perfect spheres but that is a huge generalisation, I know.
Log in to comment