Early Access

[GeneralZift]

Given the state of release of the last several games I think it would be appropriate for Firaxis to pivot to an Early Access model. I don't say this as an insult but I just think it would be beneficial for them and the fans.

Since at least Civ5, that's 4 titles (5, BE, 6, 7) - the game has received criticism on release for what feels like unfinished gameplay. But we always hope that the game by 5 years later with all the expansions is polished and complete. Usually, this is true, and the end product is pretty good, enough to sink your teeth into.

However, it comes at a strange cost. So the developers seem to be in a rush to get things out. Mechanics are being changed heavily. Victories are being redesigned. Tons of missing UI and UX options are leaving players craving an update to validate their purchase.

So why not Early Access?

In my opinion, they would benefit greatly. People expect EA games to change heavily between their beta and release.
It gives Firaxis the space to do what they always wanted to do anyway, which is base their development off of player feedback.
And it gives the correct expectations for the game when you buy it.

I don't forsee any issues. Many years ago, it wasn't totally appropriate for AAA titles to release in EA. But nowadays even titles such as Battlefield are releasing in Betas to absorb player feedback.

 

[Siptah]

For the future, it might be a way. Provided they stick close enough to their vision for the next game nonetheless, without trying to please every potential customer that ever played a civ game in the past 30 years.

For civ 7 it's too late. And I don't think releasing expansions as early access is a way out.

 

[stealth_nsk]

1. Early access is really hard to market for AAA game in an established franchise. It's usually used when company says they are learning something new and want fan input, like BG3 or inZoi (although with BG3 it was kind of trick from Larian).
2. Early access conflicts with DLC model, you need to choose one of them. DLC pairs well with discounts, creating wide possibilities for segmentation. Early Access allows getting money earlier, but usually without segmentations as you normally don't run significant discounts and can't sell DLC (when inZoi announced their DLC I thought they're going to break this system, but I was wrong, they released it for free).
3. Early access relies more on the word of mouth than traditional marketing and it's hard to do for large and more traditional corporation like 2K. Early access is also easy to fail.

So, I don't think it makes sense for Civilization.

 

[itix]

EA would have been perfect case for Civ 7 due to new mechanisms. Frankenstein group is small and limited to hardcore fans.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My own experience with Early Access is that it is a very mixed bag for the company. In the past couple of years I have played 4 EA games, and of the 4, as a result I decided definitely not to buy two of them until (if ever) well after release, one I'm waiting to see what changes are made before release, and one I am eagerly waiting for release to buy the full game and play it.

Basically, for the companies involved, a 25% success rate at getting me to play their full price game, which might be enough if spread over a few million players, but also leaves 75% of the players not reccommending their games whole-heartedly, which, as they say, is Not Optimal.

 

[GeneralZift]

1. Early access is really hard to market for AAA game in an established franchise. It's usually used when company says they are learning something new and want fan input, like BG3 or inZoi (although with BG3 it was kind of trick from Larian).
2. Early access conflicts with DLC model, you need to choose one of them. DLC pairs well with discounts, creating wide possibilities for segmentation. Early Access allows getting money earlier, but usually without segmentations as you normally don't run significant discounts and can't sell DLC (when inZoi announced their DLC I thought they're going to break this system, but I was wrong, they released it for free).
3. Early access relies more on the word of mouth than traditional marketing and it's hard to do for large and more traditional corporation like 2K. Early access is also easy to fail.

So, I don't think it makes sense for Civilization.

I think the last 3 Age of Empires games by release (AoM Retold, AOE4, AoE2 DE) all came with fairly large beta stages, especially 4 which was a new title.
The latest Halo went through a beta cycle did it not? Battlefield we already mentioned. Indie titles of course, like Hades & II.
So it's not unprecedented.

Why would a game like Civilization struggle with marketing? They're massive and the only viable 4X game amongst a casual audience. Their games usually top the steam charts. They could release a Napoleon plushie and make money. Guess what, they just did

Moreover, why would they struggle with DLC? Most EA games release DLC. Rimworld released 4 expansions with 2 more to come.
DLCs and Expansions release on basically every game nowadays, whether they were EA or not, indie or AAA.

Anyhow, I will say this. Maybe the EA system is not for them. If not, then they should instead pivot to releasing fully polished titles on release.

 

[Krikkit1]

Given the state of release of the last several games I think it would be appropriate for Firaxis to pivot to an Early Access model. I don't say this as an insult but I just think it would be beneficial for them and the fans.

Since at least Civ5, that's 4 titles (5, BE, 6, 7) - the game has received criticism on release for what feels like unfinished gameplay. But we always hope that the game by 5 years later with all the expansions is polished and complete. Usually, this is true, and the end product is pretty good, enough to sink your teeth into.

However, it comes at a strange cost. So the developers seem to be in a rush to get things out. Mechanics are being changed heavily. Victories are being redesigned. Tons of missing UI and UX options are leaving players craving an update to validate their purchase.

So why not Early Access?

In my opinion, they would benefit greatly. People expect EA games to change heavily between their beta and release.
It gives Firaxis the space to do what they always wanted to do anyway, which is base their development off of player feedback.
And it gives the correct expectations for the game when you buy it.

I don't forsee any issues. Many years ago, it wasn't totally appropriate for AAA titles to release in EA. But nowadays even titles such as Battlefield are releasing in Betas to absorb player feedback.

Issue is people don't pay 70-120$ for Early Access, and not everyone that buys the game and is disappointed gets a refund (wheras with EA they would just not buy the game)

Perhaps they could do it with some Early Access DLC...(like the Shawnee and Founder's edition models)

As much as Firaxis devs might want community feedback, 2K wants the money now.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think the last 3 Age of Empires games by release (AoM Retold, AOE4, AoE2 DE) all came with fairly large beta stages, especially 4 which was a new title.

Beta and early access are totally different things, beta testers don't pay for the game. So, beta test is a way to get more playtests, while early access is a business model. Beta tests are quite the opposite to early access in terms of business as you have to present nearly feature-complete game to wide audience without selling it it, while early access sells the game way before it's feature complete.

If we speak about beta testing, it could be nice for civilization, but it wouldn't help with any Civ7 problems:

1. Beta test needs almost feature-complete game months before release, while Civ7 release was rushed. It would only brought some good if Firaxis would start beta test in February instead of releasing and released the game somewhere in the second half of the year.
2. Fundamental things like age transition can't be solved with beta tests. By the time game could be available for beta testing, they are already rooted too deep into the game.

 

[Krikkit1]

Beta and early access are totally different things, beta testers don't pay for the game. So, beta test is a way to get more playtests, while early access is a business model. Beta tests are quite the opposite to early access in terms of business as you have to present nearly feature-complete game to wide audience without selling it it, while early access sells the game way before it's feature complete.

If we speak about beta testing, it could be nice for civilization, but it wouldn't help with any Civ7 problems:

1. Beta test needs almost feature-complete game months before release, while Civ7 release was rushed. It would only brought some good if Firaxis would start beta test in February instead of releasing and released the game somewhere in the second half of the year.
2. Fundamental things like age transition can't be solved with beta tests. By the time game could be available for beta testing, they are already rooted too deep into the game.

I think the issue is civ games (from 5 on at least) are in beta ~10-12 months After "release"
And many fundamental things like age transition are deeply rooted... but they can be improved... and saying it is beta/EA essentially lowers expectations. So that the "Full Release" version is able to make those fundamental things (1UPT, unpacked cities, ages, happiness caps, etc.) actually good for a wide array of players. (because there is a functional UI that explains it, a semicompetent AI that uses it, and the balance means nothing seems worthless to have in the game)

ie the Civ 7 Beta effectively started in February and will be that way at least the rest of this year.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think the issue is civ games (from 5 on at least) are in beta ~10-12 months After "release"
And many fundamental things like age transition are deeply rooted... but they can be improved... and saying it is beta/EA essentially lowers expectations. So that the "Full Release" version is able to make those fundamental things (1UPT, unpacked cities, ages, happiness caps, etc.) actually good for a wide array of players. (because there is a functional UI that explains it, a semicompetent AI that uses it, and the balance means nothing seems worthless to have in the game)

ie the Civ 7 Beta effectively started in February and will be that way at least the rest of this year.

Yes, calling it beta would soften many angles for Civ7, but wouldn't allow selling it before the official release. And I believe Firaxis were under some time constraints.

Another important thing is that beta test requires additional infrastructure setup, with players participating in the program, telemetry gathered, way to gather and analyze qualitative information and so on. Many of the companies mentioned above already have this infrastructure set up and used for multiple games, but Firaxis doesn't, as far as I know.

 

[GeneralZift]

Yes, calling it beta would soften many angles for Civ7, but wouldn't allow selling it before the official release. And I believe Firaxis were under some time time constraints.

Another important thing is that beta test requires additional infrastructure setup, with players participating in the program, telemetry gathered, way to gather and analyze qualitative information and so on. Many of the companies mentioned above already have this infrastructure set up and used for multiple games, but Firaxis doesn't, as far as I know.

They should aim for their regular release window but at that point, release it as a beta, then aim for a full version in 1-2 years.

You're right on many accounts by the way. Although I must think they already have this stuff in place. Don't we always talk about their access to player data?

 

[stealth_nsk]

They should aim for their regular release window but at that point, release it as a beta, then aim for a full version in 1-2 years.

You're right on many accounts by the way. Although I must think they already have this stuff in place. Don't we always talk about their access to player data?

Usually you want from beta testing much more than regular analytics. At least you want people to describe their experience and analyze the results.

 

[Krikkit1]

Usually you want from beta testing much more than regular analytics. At least you want people to describe their experience and analyze the results.

People are doing that currently on forums

 

[stealth_nsk]

People are doing that currently on forums

It's different kind of data. Forums include a lot of people who didn't buy the game, but still push strong narrative, for example. It's not bad for public opinion, but is not very useful if you wan to see test results. Similarly, moderation is generally a good thing, but if you want raw people experience, you don't want anything in between you and their thoughts.

Also, you could ask specific questions in beta tests (and formulation of these questions is quite a skill), while forums or even steam reviews may avoid things you're interested in.

 

[GeneralZift]

It's different kind of data. Forums include a lot of people who didn't buy the game, but still push strong narrative, for example. It's not bad for public opinion, but is not very useful if you wan to see test results. Similarly, moderation is generally a good thing, but if you want raw people experience, you don't want anything in between you and their thoughts.

Also, you could ask specific questions in beta tests (and formulation of these questions is quite a skill), while forums or even steam reviews may avoid things you're interested in.

They could use both, why not? Beta test discussion, polls, forums, the more info the better.
Both broad public opinion and specific questions.

 

[stealth_nsk]

They could use both, why not? Beta test discussion, polls, forums, the more info the better.
Both broad public opinion and specific questions.

Yes, of course. I was talking specifically about beta tests. They need some processes to go.

 

[GeneralZift]

Yes, of course. I was talking specifically about beta tests. They need some processes to go.

I suppose so. Anyway we are speaking in hypotheticals. Do you think even if done right, Civilization 8 could be done in EA? Or no?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I suppose so. Anyway we are speaking in hypotheticals. Do you think even if done right, Civilization 8 could be done in EA? Or no?

Early access clearly no, beta possible, but in any way it wouldn't solve the problems they had with Civ7.

Every civ game has a concept to build the game around - Civ5 had 1UpT, Civ6 unstacked tiles, Civ7 - age transition and civilization change. Those things are unfortunately defined before there's anything to test and it's a question of vision. Once the game reaches beta state, changing core is already impossible. That's the first problem of Civ7, the second one is too early release, which again has nothing to do with testing, it's likely was a constraint from management, not sure at which level.

 

[bbbt]

I'm not sure there's any advantage for Firaxis. Unless Civ-8 preorders are really tanking and they feel like they need to rebuild confidence.