Wishful Thinking: Preview Mode Premium Games
I only categorize under wishful thinking because this model has been used on Steam for some time now and big game studios seem to have no interest whatsoever in it. And I don't doubt it will happen one day, just not soon and probably not by a company that was big to begin with.
So, what am I talking about? Some games on Steam, and now on Xbox are "Preview" games. These are not open betas. They are more like saleable Alphas in that you buy into them unlike most Beta and you have permanent access to the game, even after it launches and inclusion is generally cheaper than the game costs when it "goes live" in its official form.
I think that last piece is why major studios don't do it. Why offer it cheaper when you know they'll pay later? Well, I think there is a VERY good reason. These Preview games (to varying extents) can adapt the game long before it ever hits a final version. Including everything from changing rendering engines, completely rewriting logic and functionality to just about anything else. It also means free QA and earlier funding.
My argument is that a lot of games feel very cookie cutter and some completely miss the mark or, on the flip side are SOOOO close to being perfect but you're pissed about the little things they screwed up. And I'm not talking about Indie games. This close, early feedback with the community should lead to higher quality games. It should also lead to free advertising. And, I think there are ways around having too many full price sales cannibalized by this model for larger companies.
The easiest would simply be to limit damages by limiting the price cut. Some of these preview games can be MUCH cheaper in Alpha than in their final form (talking 50%+). But, you also don't truly know if the games will ever reach a final version with smaller companies at the helm so you're being asked to take a gamble. With a big game studio behind a project, your risk as a consumer is much lower and you should be willing to pay much closer to the final price even if the game might be janky on day 1.
The next is to either provide caps or a cut-off point. For instance, limit yourself to 10k Alpha copies sold or once the game features become finalized stop selling it until it is done. The most opportunistic people would buy the game as it nears completion to cash in on the discount while minimizing both the issues they might hit and also the value they give to you. Once you think you're truly at a beta quality product, shut down discounted access to the Alpha and let the Alpha players continue on as your beta players. Almost adds another nice reward to those who supported you early on. You could always do invite-only beta testing if the numbers drop too low. You could even call it a pre-order with free beta access and just move the price up to the final MSRP once Beta time rolls around.
Basically, I think that there are a lot of ways to balance out the financials of such a model. And maybe I'm wrong about that being the big concern. Maybe these companies just refuse to give up control and let outside opinions in. Truth is probably a bit of both. But I truly would be interested in seeing and playing a game built by a big, well financed team willing to listen to the community and have them involved from an early stage.
So, what am I talking about? Some games on Steam, and now on Xbox are "Preview" games. These are not open betas. They are more like saleable Alphas in that you buy into them unlike most Beta and you have permanent access to the game, even after it launches and inclusion is generally cheaper than the game costs when it "goes live" in its official form.
I think that last piece is why major studios don't do it. Why offer it cheaper when you know they'll pay later? Well, I think there is a VERY good reason. These Preview games (to varying extents) can adapt the game long before it ever hits a final version. Including everything from changing rendering engines, completely rewriting logic and functionality to just about anything else. It also means free QA and earlier funding.
My argument is that a lot of games feel very cookie cutter and some completely miss the mark or, on the flip side are SOOOO close to being perfect but you're pissed about the little things they screwed up. And I'm not talking about Indie games. This close, early feedback with the community should lead to higher quality games. It should also lead to free advertising. And, I think there are ways around having too many full price sales cannibalized by this model for larger companies.
The easiest would simply be to limit damages by limiting the price cut. Some of these preview games can be MUCH cheaper in Alpha than in their final form (talking 50%+). But, you also don't truly know if the games will ever reach a final version with smaller companies at the helm so you're being asked to take a gamble. With a big game studio behind a project, your risk as a consumer is much lower and you should be willing to pay much closer to the final price even if the game might be janky on day 1.
The next is to either provide caps or a cut-off point. For instance, limit yourself to 10k Alpha copies sold or once the game features become finalized stop selling it until it is done. The most opportunistic people would buy the game as it nears completion to cash in on the discount while minimizing both the issues they might hit and also the value they give to you. Once you think you're truly at a beta quality product, shut down discounted access to the Alpha and let the Alpha players continue on as your beta players. Almost adds another nice reward to those who supported you early on. You could always do invite-only beta testing if the numbers drop too low. You could even call it a pre-order with free beta access and just move the price up to the final MSRP once Beta time rolls around.
Basically, I think that there are a lot of ways to balance out the financials of such a model. And maybe I'm wrong about that being the big concern. Maybe these companies just refuse to give up control and let outside opinions in. Truth is probably a bit of both. But I truly would be interested in seeing and playing a game built by a big, well financed team willing to listen to the community and have them involved from an early stage.
Comments
Post a Comment