Blips: Feature Complete

Source: Early Access exposes the lie that the best games should, or even can, be finished
Author: Rowan Kaiser
Site: Polygon

Another week, another opinion piece with some interesting gray areas to discuss. Over at Polygon, Rowan Kaiser picks up the discussion of Steam's Early Access games and what it means for a game to be "finished." Many players and critics have voiced complaints about Early Access games for a variety of reasons ranging from their pricing structure, to the clarity of their current status (i.e. what's broken), to their prominence and quantity in the Steam marketplace. Kaiser posits that we've been playing "unfinished" games for years, and in fact that unfinished-ness is by design. He states that in addition to what we understand as unfinished games that have not seen a complete development cycle and final retail release, there are also games that the player can't complete.

Unfinishable games include sports games, endless runners or puzzlers (Tetris), MMOs, and pretty much anything resembling a multiplayer mode. We can think of every version of Street Fighter as the same game, just with various updates, each sold separately of course. Kasier's essay draws a parallel between Early Access games and unfinishable games in that they both see tweaks and additions to gameplay months and years after "official release."

There are two points I'd like to voice in response. First, while it's great that there are seemingly "mandatory" status notices on the store pages for Early Access games, they're not all super helpful, including Rust, which is cited in the article. The description for Rust currently reads: "We are in very early development. Some things work, some things don't. We haven't totally decided where the game is headed - so things will change. Things will change a lot. We might even make changes that you think are wrong. But we have a plan. It's in our interest to make the game awesome - so please trust us." While this is enough information to tell me that now is not the time to spend money on Rust, I also don't think this is evocative of the transparent development process that consumers are supposedly buying "access" to, unless Steam starts allowing players to return games for refunds.

Point 2: Players can also "be finished" with games, unfinishable or no. Being finished with a game can occur at anytime for a player and even after the credits roll in "finishable" games, many players still aren't done playing them, be it a New Game+, some other bonus mode, or investigating speed run possibilities. And the rub with Early Access games is that players can "be finished" with them before they're even feature-complete or at their least broken. I prefer to think of game sequels as continuations of one game instead of disparate entities, which applies to unfinishable games like the ones Kaiser cites, but "finishable" games as well. This is why sequels to games like Gears of War are met with sentiments like, "well, it's more Gears" because that's exactly what it is. That the nature of Early Access games would be inherently tied to a conventionally unfinishable status just seems like a leap of logic to me.

Blips: No Sale

Source: Why Rampant Sales are Bad for Players
Author: Jason Rohrer
Site: The Castle Doctrine blog

I have to admit, part of the reason I started playing a lot of indie games on the PC is because of pay-what-you-want sales on games that were previously only available on platforms I did not own. Humble Indie Bundle V contained Braid, Limbo, Super Meat Boy, Superbrothers Sword & Sworcery EP, Bastion, Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Psychonauts, and Lone Survivor, and I got them all for $15. What a steal. It was a deal that seemed too good to be true, but there was no "catch" to be found. Since them I've been introduced to regular Steam sales where game prices dip down so low, they're practically free. I've held out on buying games for 50% off, just in case they're 75% off at some point during the course of a 2 week sale period. I don't buy computer games at full price, and I never pirate them. I just try to be a smart, informed consumer.

That said, I agree with a lot of what The Castle Doctrine designer Jason Rohrer has to say with regard to the detrimental consequences of a discount video game marketplace culture. The crux of Rohrer's stance is that when you launch a game at full retail price, then slice it in half the next time a Steam sale rolls around, you're throwing the dedication of your most ardent fans, the ones who bought your game at launch, back in their faces. You're telling them, "you should have waited," and the rub is that next time, maybe they will. Rohrer plans to counteract this with The Castle Doctrine by offering the game for 50% off as a pre-order/alpha, raising to 25% off for launch, and eventually raising back to full price a few weeks down the line. Rohrer claims he will not put the game on sale thereafter.

I'm curious to see how this goes for Rohrer (as if his game didn't have enough critical chatter as is) because the tidal wave of discounted games just seems so strong. In some ways, sales are all about the increased visibility as much as the lower prices. Even a 10% off sale can beget a ton of new players if it means the game shows up on Steam's front page. I think Rohrer's concerns about people buying games just to take advantage of sales is valid (the "pile of shame" is proof), but I'd also be concerned about interesting games living out their days in the shadows because no one remembers they exist two weeks after launch. I don't know that there's a right answer here, but I'm happy to see Rohrer exploring new options.

Blips: Support Indies, Buy Direct

Source: Want to support your favorite developers? Ditch Steam and buy direct
Author: Ben Kuchera
Site: Penny Arcade Report

I was quite pleased to find an article on a well-trafficked site like Penny Arcade Report about buying games directly from developers so that those teams earn more profit from game sales. And it's true, as Ben Kuchera points out, that in sales through Stream, Valve takes a certain percentage of each sales, leaving less for the actual game makers. While Steam is a pretty impressive and worthwhile service, if I already know about a game from other media and decide I want to buy it, I will always search for a direct purchase option before resorting to a middleman service.

This is part of what makes Humble Bundles so great. When you purchase a suite of games through Humble Bundle, you can choose to divide up where your money goes between developers, charity and Humble Bundle services, meaning you can ostensibly give it all to development teams if you would like. As someone who doesn't care for most of the meta-game services that platforms like Steam offer (automatic updates are nice though), I don't have any reason not to buy as directly as possible. In fact, I get a little bummed when I have to buy through Steam, as is the case with Antichamber and Kairo.

I'm not vouching for the abandonment of Steam and similar services across the board, but on a case by case basis where the option is available, it's worth the extra effort (if it actually ends up being extra) to find a developer site and purchase directly. This is a plea to the informed consumer to take action in greater support of some of the most creative voices making games today.