I think that rewarding early access-ers works when you're talking about a game that wouldn't otherwise be made or both needs the money AND is being tested. It gives testing that they pay for not you. But when you're talking about a game that's fully released with expectations that it should be done, you pay an inflated price to be the first to see it, and those who want to be able to access it at affordable prices have to wait until often a year or more. When people pay more to see something that's largely incomplete and possibly broken, that's where expectations get confused and the two market ideals mix in unsavory ways. People protect it by saying "You can't judge it because it labels itself as unfinished" but the ones who are upset are those who are used to paying more to buy in early on traditionally sold games.
On the otherhand you have games like minecraft or the castle doctrine here which reward early adopters. Whether that means they can't lower the price for affordability later is up to them, but it seems strange to alienate people who may find it a long time later without having a chance to be an early adopter. I think that line falls where you start selling it however. Expectations about price drops are in the commercial market, not the gaming one specifically and if you're willing to put your game out there early to make money, you have to look at the fact that consumers are paying to test your product, people will expect the game to lower it's price because you're asking for money, you are frontloading sales by putting it on the market before completion, and you have to decide how you'll deal with the price when it's actually completed.
This is to say nothing of the actual consumer side. I have more games than I've played, but the humble sales made it possible for me to start buying games semi consistently. I always vet which ones I keep and give the extras away to people who might not be able to get them. That way even with a somewhat unplayed library, I know that I can have plenty of games to jump into, say nothing of other sources. Not everyone will treat their libraries the same but that's ok. I'm much more happy with people having libraries filled with interesting games that they can try in anytime, games they might not otherwise have noticed or tried. Sure it might not let them get deep into it, but it's a reason for developers to make better intros to their games in this market, and will decide the consumer opinion of those who aren't so deep they would jump for the games at first. After all, people who are curious but cost averse are the ones who might try it, and they probably wouldn't have tried it at all otherwise.
I know some might find it wrong that I wait for sales, and I don't always(Nidhogg is a good recent one). But they got me into really getting games, and supporting people more consistently. When it often drills down to getting games first against cost I find it interesting how the point isn't addressed clearly. Especially when so much sales data points straight at it.
Log in to comment