Seriously, go Early Access please

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 52242
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: Seriously, go Early Access please

Post by CBJ » Thu, 31. Aug 17, 11:47

dfm5000 wrote:Well with an army of beta testers, you wont have the problem of saying we had no one to test the game, because your community is here an eager to help.
That's all very nice, but having enough volunteer testers has never been a problem for us, and we have never suggested it was. Long before Steam came up with Early Access, DevNet was providing us with plenty of volunteers. So why the bugs, you say? Well, because it's yet another misconception that throwing more volunteer testers at a game will magically make it have fewer bugs. Testing is only one part of the process.

If you have an "army of beta testers" then you need a corresponding "small army of developers" to collate, organise and confirm their reports, and provide feedback so that testers don't think they are being ignored. And then of course there's the small matter of actually fixing the bugs that are reported and confirmed.

With a small development team, having a very large number of testers, especially volunteers who (understandably) don't necessarily have the skills, time or inclination to test and report in an organised fashion, and who (not unreasonably) expect some feedback on their contribution, isn't always the most effective use of the time and resources available.

I'm not suggesting that Early Access is always going to be a bad idea, but it's not the magic bullet that some people seem to think it is.

Artean
Posts: 1102
Joined: Tue, 14. Feb 06, 17:41
x4

Re: Seriously, go Early Access please

Post by Artean » Thu, 31. Aug 17, 12:44

CBJ wrote:I'm not suggesting that Early Access is always going to be a bad idea, but it's not the magic bullet that some people seem to think it is.
Based on experience from several EA titles on Steam, I would stear clear of that.

Few developers have shown such a great commitment supporting their titles as you guys have. Continue with that.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - D.N.A

User avatar
BigBANGtheory
Posts: 3175
Joined: Sun, 23. Oct 05, 12:13
x4

Post by BigBANGtheory » Thu, 31. Aug 17, 12:51

What EA does do though is give you more time for development at the expense of day 1 revenue. I would suggest its greatest value to ES is in the situation where they feel compelled or bound to a pre-planned release date around a tight window.

I don't think the market and PC gamers are tolerant of early release issues nowadays EA has shifted expectations. I recognize that is an issue for ES but it is what it is I'm afraid.

EA has to be actively managed and updated in order to work well that is the overriding lesson from all that have gone before. I don't think people mind too much about saved game and character wipes as long as its clear this is part of the EA experience.

Player
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue, 9. Dec 03, 15:13
x4

Re: Seriously, go Early Access please

Post by Player » Thu, 31. Aug 17, 13:00

CBJ wrote:
dfm5000 wrote:Well with an army of beta testers, you wont have the problem of saying we had no one to test the game, because your community is here an eager to help.
That's all very nice, but having enough volunteer testers has never been a problem for us, and we have never suggested it was. Long before Steam came up with Early Access, DevNet was providing us with plenty of volunteers. So why the bugs, you say? Well, because it's yet another misconception that throwing more volunteer testers at a game will magically make it have fewer bugs. Testing is only one part of the process.

If you have an "army of beta testers" then you need a corresponding "small army of developers" to collate, organise and confirm their reports, and provide feedback so that testers don't think they are being ignored. And then of course there's the small matter of actually fixing the bugs that are reported and confirmed.

With a small development team, having a very large number of testers, especially volunteers who (understandably) don't necessarily have the skills, time or inclination to test and report in an organised fashion, and who (not unreasonably) expect some feedback on their contribution, isn't always the most effective use of the time and resources available.

I'm not suggesting that Early Access is always going to be a bad idea, but it's not the magic bullet that some people seem to think it is.
Maybe it's not "magic" if you're seeing it from the development side. But on the consumer / client side being in EA works as a way to absorb and lessen the impact of poor launch of a game with many problems.

Skeeter
Posts: 3692
Joined: Thu, 9. Jan 03, 19:47
x3

Post by Skeeter » Thu, 31. Aug 17, 14:07

One thing EA can do is help with compatability issues as u have a bigger pool of players/testers hawrdware/machines something which a small group of more dedicated testers will surely lack. I mean some games and i think egosoft saw this once awhile back was a problem with very high specced machines as ego didnt have any of those to test on and it took awhile to find iirc because of that.

Especially if some of them players who have the best hardware might find a bug limiting performance on 4x gtx 1080ti sli config for example.
[ external image ]
7600x cpu 5.4ghz 32gb DDR5 5600mhz 6700XT 32" 1440p mon

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 52242
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: Seriously, go Early Access please

Post by CBJ » Thu, 31. Aug 17, 15:05

Player wrote:But on the consumer / client side being in EA works as a way to absorb and lessen the impact of poor launch of a game with many problems.
It can also have the opposite effect, especially if the development team is small, and doesn't have the resources to both manage the necessary feedback and actually fix the bugs that are reported.

Believe me, we are not oblivious to the benefits of Early Access. Indeed we have more experience than most of making use of volunteer help, not least through DevNet which has been running for far longer than Steam's programme. But we are also acutely aware of what can go wrong, and of our own limited resources to mitigate against that happening.

User avatar
ADMNtek
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue, 7. May 13, 16:07
x4

Post by ADMNtek » Thu, 31. Aug 17, 16:21

have to agree wit CBJ just look at star citizen even with its massive budget they have switched to a smaller but capable group of testers. having to many people just generates noise. for things like stability/server testing having a small army might help but not for a singleplayer game.

26072013
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri, 26. Jul 13, 11:04
x3tc

Post by 26072013 » Thu, 31. Aug 17, 19:18

ADMNtek wrote:having to many people just generates noise. for things like stability/server testing having a small army might help but not for a singleplayer game.
Well, whatever Egosoft did the last time... it didn't work for Rebirth.

Wanted Bob
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue, 21. Apr 09, 16:18
x3tc

Post by Wanted Bob » Thu, 31. Aug 17, 20:39

26072013 wrote:
ADMNtek wrote:having to many people just generates noise. for things like stability/server testing having a small army might help but not for a singleplayer game.
Well, whatever Egosoft did the last time... it didn't work for Rebirth.
And yet, it's worked for the titles before Rebirth. Not saying that the previous titles were perfectly polished and bug-free at release, but I doubt not choosing early access was the major source of Rebirth's problems.

I can see why a larger testing population could be useful to Egosoft, but also a major challenge due to them being a small team. Hopefully working with an engine that they have already developed a game in will make for a more polished experience.

A5PECT
Posts: 6170
Joined: Sun, 3. Sep 06, 02:31
x4

Post by A5PECT » Thu, 31. Aug 17, 20:43

Yes, Early Access is nice because you can have a lot of data coming in from a larger pool of testers.

But if the developer doesn't have the manpower or time to process and apply all of that information then it's useless.

At that point, you're looking mostly at negative first impressions brought on by Early Access, plus the delayed backlash of "______ issue was reported and never fixed!" and indignation that since the developer used Early Access, the game must be absolutely perfect on launch. So in the end it's a net loss for the developer.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step in figuring out how to make it worse.

desius
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon, 21. Jun 04, 18:06
x4

Post by desius » Thu, 31. Aug 17, 21:03

26072013 wrote: Well, whatever Egosoft did the last time... it didn't work for Rebirth.
The Devnet program was not the root of the difficulties behind the what the XRebirth launch experienced. Trust me, beta testers did their due diligence, as had been discussed many times before. The problems (in my opinion) were more in line with the design decisions and release schedule.

Early Access is not the same as Beta Testing.
There is no relation between the two except for a fundamental and widespread misunderstanding of what EA was actually intended to be.

Some developers have experimented (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) with using EA as a method to fund development to release, which usually ends up in a poor or abandoned product. There are some exceptions such as ARK, but the X games are a niche market without the massive customer base FPSurvival type games can offer. EgoSoft's small team won't scale well.

I would wager that 95% of the folks who would buy into EA on Steam are not interested in, or capable of, the standards required for proper testing and valid reporting.

EgoSoft typically involves Devnet fairly early in the testing process, when the bug to game ratio is far in favor of the bugs.

Beta testing requires some very specific methodologies to ensure the data coming in is useful and relevant. Every report coming in has to be reviewed, understood, validated, duplicated (sometimes), categorized, and approved... then fixed and retested. Those submitting bugs have to perform the work of making sure the defect hasn't been reported before, so they don't create a duplicate. They need to document it properly, with enough details to reproduce if possible, often including reproducing the defect themselves to find key causes. In some ways, some of the more experienced testers are front-line developers.

The vast majority of EA buyers only want to "get their game on" now; giving them instant gratification. When they see an unplayable game they're just going to leave a negative review and refund the game, having offered nothing constructive.

EA should only be used in the last few months before release, once 99% of the bugs are resolved, to generate hype and sales as part of the marketing plan.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 1. Sep 17, 02:23

26072013 wrote:...That would make sense. Egosoft could finish developing the game, declare it feature complete and ready for release, and then go into early access for a few months with quick bugfix releases until it's actually running well with a playable campaign.
That would be the only case where I would approve of any sort of Early Access program.

Furthermore, I'd limit that to a close beta scheme, where EA was not broadly open, no matter how much people wanted to pay for the game, but there was only a window of time for applicants, after which EA was closed until the game was finally released.

There are reasons for that weirdness, of course. But, since that really isn't how Early Access is normally used, it probably couldn't happen like that through Steam. (I'm much more in favor of closed/semi-closed late Beta and pre-candidate release "testing.")
dfm5000 wrote:Early access games help a lot, for one it funds their project. It allows users to provide feedback, it stops surprises on release date X-Rebirth...

Well with an army of beta testers, you wont have the problem of saying we had no one to test the game, because your community is here an eager to help.
I think that EA programs with very small developer shops might be of some help. But, they don't really work out well in the longrun for those who are trying to use them as some sort of "assistant developer" resource. For "ideas" that might actually improve the game then maybe... just maybe, they could be of help. But, most of those things don't need the actual game and can be hashed over in a forum. The dev knows their platform, so proper implementation is their job and they're suited for it.

Money. That could be a big help. But, there's an argument to be made that the possible negative impacts of EA ultimately outweigh any likely monetary compensation the dev would get in EA when compared to the slew of EA marketing failures that represent a very large loss in future sales.

If a dev can't get funding and can't continue because of that, then EA might be a good choice. But, it represents a serious threat to future sales.

Very few people who participate in EA actually contribute positively towards "testing" or in "helping to develop the game."

There was a time when there weren't any Early Access programs. There was no such thing as a public "Beta." Nobody got their hands on anything until release day. It didn't work out too badly.

Today, I think smart devs moderate how much they take advantage of certain sorts of modern opportunities involving their communities in their production process. I also think that the good ones fully understand exactly what they're doing when they choose to use such programs and have very accurate expectations of what the results will be.
desius wrote:
26072013 wrote: Well, whatever Egosoft did the last time... it didn't work for Rebirth.
The Devnet program was not the root of the difficulties behind the what the XRebirth launch experienced. Trust me, beta testers did their due diligence, as had been discussed many times before. The problems (in my opinion) were more in line with the design decisions and release schedule.

Early Access is not the same as Beta Testing.
There is no relation between the two except for a fundamental and widespread misunderstanding of what EA was actually intended to be......

I would wager that 95% of the folks who would buy into EA on Steam are not interested in, or capable of, the standards required for proper testing and valid reporting.

...

The vast majority of EA buyers only want to "get their game on" now; giving them instant gratification. When they see an unplayable game they're just going to leave a negative review and refund the game, having offered nothing constructive.

EA should only be used in the last few months before release, once 99% of the bugs are resolved, to generate hype and sales as part of the marketing plan.
The entire post was beautiful and a very accurate and appropriate description of the realities of "Early Access."

Nicely done.

User avatar
BigBANGtheory
Posts: 3175
Joined: Sun, 23. Oct 05, 12:13
x4

Post by BigBANGtheory » Fri, 1. Sep 17, 11:01

yes EA is not about bug fixing, in an ideal world its about:
- marketing/PR
- early access to revenue
- player feedback on the user experience
- small amount of bug testing
- buying more development time
- an ass ton of moaning :shock:

Yes : If you can engage with the EA players daily, update the dev progress weekly and release minor/major patches every 4-8 weeks with a mind to being flexible i.e. prepared to change a few things based on the feedback.

No : If you are on a fixed path, want to make a big impact, have no bandwidth for frequent communication with players and are principally looking for bugs and have the resources to do so.

Player
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue, 9. Dec 03, 15:13
x4

Post by Player » Sat, 2. Sep 17, 16:47

BigBANGtheory wrote:yes EA is not about bug fixing, in an ideal world its about:
- marketing/PR
- early access to revenue
- player feedback on the user experience
- small amount of bug testing
- buying more development time
- an ass ton of moaning :shock:

Yes : If you can engage with the EA players daily, update the dev progress weekly and release minor/major patches every 4-8 weeks with a mind to being flexible i.e. prepared to change a few things based on the feedback.

No : If you are on a fixed path, want to make a big impact, have no bandwidth for frequent communication with players and are principally looking for bugs and have the resources to do so.
+1

Well put.

User avatar
Hector0x
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon, 18. Nov 13, 18:03
x3tc

Post by Hector0x » Sat, 2. Sep 17, 17:42

I think EA would make a better working game at release but hurt sales. So they should stay out of it. With the new refund system on steam a strong focus on the early content seems to be critical for X5 :)

Bazza
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri, 22. Aug 03, 09:49
x3tc

Post by Bazza » Sat, 2. Sep 17, 22:56

BigBANGtheory wrote:yes EA is not about bug fixing, in an ideal world its about:
- marketing/PR
- early access to revenue
- player feedback on the user experience
- small amount of bug testing
- buying more development time
- an ass ton of moaning :shock:

Yes : If you can engage with the EA players daily, update the dev progress weekly and release minor/major patches every 4-8 weeks with a mind to being flexible i.e. prepared to change a few things based on the feedback.

No : If you are on a fixed path, want to make a big impact, have no bandwidth for frequent communication with players and are principally looking for bugs and have the resources to do so.
Based on this and given my experience with XRVR I suggest EA is not a good fit for Egosoft, but then again I'm not sure thier alternative method of premature full release works very well either.
ZORK, IW2:EOC, GIANTS, NOLF 1, Runaway, Gothic I&II, Mafia, Arx Fatalis, Divine Divinity, Vietcong... I Loved Those Games

ero_sk
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu, 30. Oct 08, 14:35
x4

Post by ero_sk » Mon, 11. Sep 17, 15:05

Please don't. I would rather wait far longer and receive a product that is ready rather than pay for uncompleted game without any guarantees of what the final shape it's going to be.

I never buy early access games. To me it makes even less sense than paying for pre-order. I'm surprised so many people would like to go early access although it's probably lack of patience unfortunatelly. Early access games tend to be stuck in this status for "ages", in some cases for ever. It's not an opinion, it's statistics.

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11880
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Post by Ketraar » Mon, 11. Sep 17, 15:47

ero_sk wrote:Please don't. I would rather wait far longer and receive a product that is ready rather than pay for uncompleted game without any guarantees of what the final shape it's going to be.
But cant you then just wait for it to get out of early access? :roll:

MFG

Ketraar

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8637
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Post by mr.WHO » Mon, 11. Sep 17, 16:41

Umh guys, there WILL BE AN EARLY ACCESS WHENEVER YOU/EGOSOFT WANT IT OR NOT...

...it's called <enter any X-game here> v1.0 :lol:

Egosoft was way ahead of everyone - they were making EA before anyone even called the EA :wink:, so don't rush them.

ero_sk
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu, 30. Oct 08, 14:35
x4

Post by ero_sk » Mon, 11. Sep 17, 18:43

Ketraar wrote: But cant you then just wait for it to get out of early access? :roll:

MFG

Ketraar
Well... no? Because Early Access means a game is stuck in development far longer than a typical game that follows standard release process. Again- statistics. Also as I mentioned- many (most?) Early Access games are stuck in this status for good.

Return to “X4: Foundations”