2 ms·
The answer is to have your cake and eat it, with Early Access. You get a stream of cash whenever you launch an even somewhat finished game. You get a mountain
by brucethemoose2 3y ago
The answer is to have your cake and eat it, with Early Access.
You get a stream of cash whenever you launch an even somewhat finished game. You get a mountain of early feedback and real world testing, without the negative PR. And then, when the game is ready, you do the full launch + marketing with (from what I can tell) basically no PR/hype penalty from being in early access, as its a new game as far as the storefronts are concerned.
Maybe I am missing a big drawback, but it seems like such a no brainer. And it clearly works at any scale, see Rimworld (lone dev) and Baldurs Gate 3 (mega dev team), which coincidentally are among the most critically acclaimed games ever.
- giancarlostoro 3y agoI agree, this is the sweet spot. It's a shame early access is full of worse games. It's funny because BG3 had a lot cut off from the early access for a while, which is what I would suggest, cut out all the incomplete things, feature flag what isn't working reasonably well, and enable it once its ready, much easier with Early Access.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoYeah, the most successful early access campaigns are started when the game is "finished and playable," but not necessarily complete Rimworld was exactly like this too. It had a forum alpha, then a beta, then a polished early access release. The mod community was already raging before it even hit Steam. All this made the game that much more impactful when it hit EA and more features started rolling in.