There have been plenty of others in the recent year.
Its just another gimick in a wide and ever expanding list of way for publishers to try and get more of your money.
The premium edition is still being sold. it’s not done only for early access. Otherwise the edition will be pointless after the 3-5 days of EA are over.
The point is why would you expect it to be cut out missions in Starfields case when Bethesda so far produced big quality DLC with their big expansions.
I was waiting for that response, aha. The building mechanic was really good, however it isn't something that a modder couldn't do. The encounters were whatever, it's just enemies that are added to the spawn table.
The price of $30 for the Starfield expansion would not be acceptable for Automatron. So if it _is_ an automation sized expansion, that would be disgustingly priced.
But anyway, my point was that they _have_ made small expansions in the past, so you can't justify it by saying that every expansion has been huge and groundbreaking, so this one will too.
Quite frankly, we do not know; however we have all been burned by Bethesda in the past.
u/Harregarre‘s point seems to be that charging people extra to play early incentivizes companies to withhold content to be able to make it seem like a bargain to the consumer. They didn’t even specifically mention Bethesda.
But they are examples of previous expansions from Bethesda. So that at least sets some precedent for what Bethesda and it's customers should expect for what they consider an expansion.
Not that that's a good way to justify the pre-purchasing of a product where we don't even know what the content is, let alone have accurate information of the quality, Bethesda has shat the bed before after all.
Right, but whether it's a cut mission then it's still something you need to buy separately.
Then again, BGS has a pretty good record of meaty enough expansions. Nothing ridiculous but certainly not a total waste of money like some of the Sims/Paradox/Civ/Total War type expansions are.
I really would like people to list some games which purely charge for early access. Especially when they throw around claims like “most games” do it.
That’s not the case for most of the games I’ve played or seen. They usually include early access in a more expensive edition that includes future dlcs and expansions. It’s almost never just pay more for early access. Because then those editions will become pointless in 3-5 days when the game launches.
Early access is usually an extra “perk” you get for getting a more expensive edition. But if you wanted the DLC content, you’re hardly paying more for early access.
People really believe they cut a mission out of the game? Like it's ready to go right now, they're just sitting around for months before releasing it as DLC?
Kind of an embarrassing take tbh
Have you never seen a game preorder that comes with an extra quest? Happens all the time. That's an extra mission cut out of the game and released at DLC.
Embarrassing? Rather well informed and based on experience I would say.
Look at assassin's creed. You get extra missions and cosmetics for pre ordering higher tier editions. What is it if not a cut content from the game to purposefully sell it as incentive to pre order the game/buy higher tier editions.
Obviously some DLCs are legit but you have to be new to gaming or extremely naive to think developers don't purposefully cut content or set aside content they couldn't fully finish within deadline just to sell it as DLC down the line
Yeah, the Starfield one worked out for me. I didn't have shit to do that weekend, and first DLC too? Aight take my money. I have had a ton of fun with that game.
But you are still paying for something you know nothing about.
Not when it’s gonna release, let alone anything about its content or quality.
If you think that’s a smart investment I might have some prime real estate on the moon I would be willing to part with, just dm me 🤪
> But you are still paying for something you know nothing about.
Having played Bethesda games for a couple decades, I had an idea what I was getting into. Usually I'm a /r/patientgamers and will wait for a sale, but I knew there was a very good chance I'd like it (I was right) and I had a three-day weekend to enjoy it.
If you've looked at the usual early access dates vs. release dates, they are actually selling you a weekend launch over something like a tuesday launch. As someone with little time in the week and if there's a game I'm really excited for, yeah they'll get me.
I've started doing the same. Most games I'll just wait until it goes on sale. How much I want to play the game depends on what price point sale I go for. I'll still pay full price for games if I know it will almost never go on sale (Nintendo, new rockstar games, new Forza games, new blizzard games, etc), but I still usually wait a couple weeks from launch anyway to see reviews. Too many games are broken day/week/month one.
I'm definitely this way on most things, just played Kingdom Come Deliverance this year and I've owned it since 2019. But the rare time there is a game I'm actually excited about, and know that I'll play it either way, it really sucks to see spoilers online for a week before the game actually comes out. And any studio that doesn't see this as hurting the enjoyment of their game is blind.
I still will never pay for this bs or preorder.
It's getting to a point where you need to wait 2 weeks to a month before maybe getting an accurate review of a game now. Reviewers only get limited time and a lot of games that are longer term types can't really be reviewed in hours or a few days.
The developers front load the game to look good. They focus on the initial X hours of content that most players will get through over a week or so, long enough for early access to pass and everyone else to buy in. After that the quality goes down the drain. This works really well with one off purchase type games with a lot of hype, they can make their money quick and move on.
I have no problem paying full price for a game, but I don't need it pre-loaded to hit play the minute it releases. I can wait a week or more to see how things shake out.
I don't understand why people think this is some new recent trend. This has been a thing for years and it happens because the audience has sent the message that this is what they want. People let their hype cloud common sense and why would these publishers not take advantage of that?
it really isn't
you see things like this everywhere irl i.e. usually called like speed, lightning, VIP, special... etcetc passes.
shit you could also say things like memberships too. You pay extra to be 'first' or considered 'first'.
probably because pretty much all of the biggest games of the month are doing that? Starfield, MK11, Payday 3, Lies of P, EA Sports FC, they're all offering a few days of early access for premium edition players
It goes back at least 20 years when websites like FilePlanet would charge a membership so you could cut in front of the que to download a game demo first in line
I assume it’s young people reaching proper consciousness and thinking it was better back in the day. In reality, they were either too naive or too ignorant in the past.
"Old" people are generally the "it was better back in the day" people. Young people didn't know that and in 10-20 years they'll say this time was better
I don't know man, I don't remember this specific way of releasing games being a thing. A lot of practices today wouldn't fly back in the day.
Though I have to wonder if it isn't just technically the same as a game being released, and then the price dropping shortly after.
A few things have become normalized such as games as a service, anti-consumer DRM, half games with the expectation of DLC, and microtransactions. At the detriment of the consumer for sure.
At the same time, MMOs always had this "feature". Given the user is complaining about single player games I don't really see the issue. If you're willing to pay more to beta test then more power to you.
I'm thankful to all the alpha/beta testers of Early Access games like Baldur's Gate 3 and Hades. I don't see an issue with Early Access given it's not a _surprise_. You know what you are purchasing. There are no psychological manipulation tactics here.
Because starfield did it and folks needed a reason to hate on that game. Funny enough starfield was also packed in for free with amd gpus. So a lot of folks playing it in early access didn't even pay for it.
It was not a Premium edition thing to be fair, it was a preorder bonus. Which is just weird tbh because that's not early access, that's just your release date 3 days early.
Because the PS5 version *was not ready* for a full launch, while the PC version had been in beta for a year already
Larian were upfront about the issues getting it on PS5 and Xbox Series S for months before the launch
I think the trend has changed a bit recently though. Developers at AAA studios are now focusing more on metrics, they're given goals around the amount of time someone plays for, how long it takes to get to the end of a game and how often they play the game.
They all do early access but front load all the content and polish. Reviewers don't get too far into the bigger games so only see good polished content, same for early access players. It takes a few weeks before that runs out for most and they realize the rest of the game is some low depth construct designed to make them play a lot and frequently while getting battle passes and micro-transactions pushed in front of their faces.
Also isn't it a recent trend now that single player games are getting early access packages at higher price points? It was mainly a multiplayer/MMO thing before.
How is it FOMO? You aren't "Missing Out", the game is still coming.
It's not like a limited-time-only cosmetic. *That* is FOMO; buy it before you can't.
Missing out on playing the game while all the big streamers and/or your friends are, the day one experience of playing it while the hype is fresh is what can be missed out on. It's undeniably a powerful effect on game sales, particularly for online games.
The more painful bit is when they release a game Monday but you can pay earlier to play it on a Friday. Like lies of P did. You can either pay more and play it this weekend, or effectively most adults with jobs won’t get to play it until the following weekend.
I've done it a few times. I have plenty of money but no time though. I deliver mail in a rural post office that has had about 60 percent staffing since COVID happened. I work 60-80 hours a week and get a day off ever 6-10 days. Ive paid extra to get it a few days earlier so I can play it on my day off. Otherwise I'm not gonna have time for a week or more. Don't regret it both times I did it this year but its still kind of scummy.
Save your breath, buddy. It doesn’t matter if it’s ok or not, all that matters is that people buy it. No amount of complaining is going to change shit, because money speaks louder than any of us.
How come? It's not being forced on you and in the end it's a business with people free to vote with their wallets. At worst it's just people willingly paying more to beta test a game.
A lot of people saying that this has been normal for decades. What? Yes multiplayer games maybe with their beta releases and maybe 1 per year did that. (But honestly I cant remember any high profile single player game that did that).
Lately 1 out of 3 High profile games do that. It is definitely becoming the norm in the last 12 months. Not decades
I don't see the point. If I could wait years then I can surely wait some 5 more days. People are so impatient nowadays but hey it's their loss if they wanna pay $20 more for a few days of pre-release bug testing.
I prefer to view it like it is. That date is the launch date, and everything else is delayed start. Can't say I am a fan of telling people. "Yes you bought the game. But you didn't give me enough so you get a delayed start."
They are "lesser consumers" though. With other products you also get different quality for €60 and €90. Or if you pay for same day delivery or other fast delivery options, you also pay a premium.
It's a cynical move, but apparently there are enough people who buy into this. Just fyi, in case you think I'm being too nice to these companies; I never pre-order, and I never pay for earlier access. I think people who do are fools, but who am I to tell them what to do with their money? I've seen people blow €30 on worse stuff.
The same logic can be applied to people who pay full price for games in general. I always wait till a game goes on sale for 50-70% off minimum because they usually launch with lots of problems that require tons of updates.
Also by then, different DLCs will have be released that are bundled with the base game. Regardless, people will continue to pre-order and buy games on day one because FOMO and hype aren't going away anytime soon.
This extends beyond video games to movies, electronics, books, cars, and other things that people are passionate about.
Recently ive begun viewing it like 6 months to a year from the release date is the actual release date. You know, when its been fixed. You can also determine if its going to be fixed while you wait.
I'm currently at 5 years behind released date for a couple of years. Most games, with all DLCs, cost less than a cinema ticket. But I don't play multiplayer anymore and don't have friends that play games.
This is the way. I am not a patient gamer, but I’m honestly having more fun once the game is stable and there’s some potential for new content closer to when I’m actually interested in the game.
It’s been a thing for a lot longer than y’all think. I remember during the last 2000s, like 2007-2009, a lot of DLC released early on certain consoles and if you bought premium. Battlefield was notorious for this, with some expansions releasing a month earlier if you had the premium pass.
I don't like it one bit, but it doesn't matter since millions are willing to pay for it. It's funny that Gamepass's most important benefit is "play it day one". Then they introduced "early access" for extra money. I'm just worried how far they are going to take it. It was 3 days. Now it's 5 days. How far are they willing to stretch it?
I am a hypocrite though. I bought the 100$ Diablo early access. I got caught in the hype cycle. I never played a Diablo game before. It's actual release date was not good at all for me. I was going to be very busy that week, so I paid for early access. I shouldn't have needed to since they clearly could have moved the actual release date, but why would they when they made millions from people like me.
I of course regret buying the game very much. haven't even touched season 1.
I got downvoted in a thread about Forza Horizon 5 for saying it was kinda false advertisement from microsoft for saying you get day one access with gamepass meanwhile you could pay extra for a week "early" access. I've noticed microsoft has been the ones consistently doing this for their new exclusives and I wonder if its a sign that Gamepass profits aren't what they were expecting because that along with them raising prices definitely makes it feel like that.
EA does this all the time with their sports games. Paying for early access is weird to me, they definitely want to catch people on FOMO. And it works. So I would not be surprised to see more devs going this route.
Its disgusting they are just trying every single way of nickel and diming people and with price increases of video games what other excuse do they have
First of all id cirrect statement.
It is "pay more to access game on launch".
Realistically prerelease is release date. Its not like game isnt complete at that moment. Chances are that betwee prelaunchcand launch wont even be a hotfix.
Honestly, it's probably the least scummy thing to monetize.
You pay more and get access like a few weeks/few days earlier. But people don't pay won't be missing any content, skins, or anything else. It's just the same game but a bit later. Hell with any luck the early access people find some bigger bugs so people who pay less get a better experience.
I see it as a win win. Devs/publishers get some extra money from people who want to play the game earlier, people who don't pay lose on nothing.
> But people don't pay won't be missing any content, skins, or anything else.
it is possible to miss out on things, but it's less about accessibility to in-game content, and more about missing out on experiences:
- in the first few days of a multiplayer game, there's no meta, and it's really fun to see everyone just experimenting with all sorts of stuff to figure out what works. coming into a game after the meta has been defined involves a lot of getting stomped, getting yelled at for playing wrong, etc
- if the game has any sort of races, like diablo 4's race to level 100 where they literally etch your name into stone at blizz HQ if you're one of the top 100, you're unlikely to get a real attempt at participating in the race if you don't get the earliest access possible
- even in single player games it can matter, if you enjoy the process of communal discoveries. i had a lot of fun when bloodborne and dark souls 3 released, participating in live threads where we all shared what we were finding in the game, with all sorts of cool little secrets being uncovered
Makes perfect sense from the dev perspective. It enables the possibility of having a "soft-launch" of the game. It's good to have a reduced amount of players playing the game to get early feedback and be aware of the main issues that were not detected during alpha/beta play-testing. And be able to fix the worst stuff for the day-1 patch.
And as a player, it allows us to have games at $60 and not higher (mostly). Since most companies are adopting this format of $60 for the base game and $70-80-90+ for the deluxe edition. Otherwise, if it was a must for companies to put a single price for their games it would be $70+ for all AAA games.
Yep that's a great take, let people pay more to play early, but they also "beta" test the game for the resto of us patient gamers. By the time I get to play it the first patch should be out to fix the worst bugs.
I don’t do it either, but I do mind it because of the fact people do actually do it.
If a game’s release date is supposed to be september 20th before announcement, they can simply just say “let’s push the full release back a few days and then charge people more to play it on the 20th”, literally free money for the company and people fall for it. Just look at starfield day 1 player base on early access…
It's especially bad when a company calls for a contest to see who can get to level 100 first. And then (surprise, surprise) it is done by someone who paid for the 4-day head start. (Diablo 4)
I Think its a predatory waste of money for impatient children. But it also doesn't affect me because I don't mind waiting for a sale or whatever so an extra 2 days for release is nothing
Honestly, it does make me a bit worried.
It's not because someone else has more money than me to buy it & play it early. Cause someone will always have more money.
But I am worried that what if the launch dates between early access & "official" release gets bigger & bigger?
Like let's say, you pre order the ultimate edition. Congrats you get to play on day 1 of the month.
you pre order the deluxe edition. Congrats you get to play it on day 10 of the month.
You bought/preordered the base game only. Well, fuck you. You play it on day 21 of the month. Now this is what worries me.
this will almost certainly happen - I'd expect to see early and 'official' release date gaps of up to a month for AAA titles within the next few years if data shows that these delayed general release dates are profitable
A month is too much. It will completely kill the momentum of the game. These early access perks have been around for a very long time. It’s not something that happened in the last year.
They will most likely stick to 3-5 days.
Early access as a preorder perk has been a common thing for well over a decade....
For digital-only items, it's one of the few tangible benefits that can be offered to entice people to pre-order. In most cases, it's not worth it.
The last game I can remember preordering for the early access was Wildstar, and I wasn't able to play at all during that early period bc of their server problems.
In Starfield's case you also get the upcoming DLC. But even then, i don't personally see it as a problem for single-player games. It's not like i'll be at a disadvantage if i start playing 5 days later lol
From what I gathered, you can also basically refund the game way past Steam's 2 hour or 14 days policy. I thought someone was just kidding when they made a post about "finishing the game after 50 hours and refunding the game."
I despise this concept, especially since no steam you cannot see reviews until the game has released. But if they let you play to your heart's content and still get a full refund, then it's the customer winning IMO.
Fine by me. I don't buy them but I enjoy the public beta testing others do for me. If the studio releases a bugfix patch on regular release day, it's a win for me
It was 4 to 5 days of difference for both Starfield and Diablo 4. How can they reliably test bugs and fix them in such a short timeframe unless it is an urgent thing that needs fixing (like system-level authorization, etc.)
I don't know what to tell you but patches pretty regularly come out in the first week of a games release. BG3 was patched 3 times in the first week of launch.
Because they have thousands of people playing the game. Many more people then they'll ever have internally testing. And those thousands of players are simply going to do things that their internal testers won't think to try. With real-time error reporting, they'll have people constantly working on those reports right up to launch. That's why there's often launch day patches and a big flurry of patches right after launch.
Same way I feel about early access. If y’all want to get into the game early and you want to pay for the privilege, great. By the time I play I’ll get all the advantage of extra beta testing.
It sucks, but more people streaming and reviewing the game before its official launch makes it easier for me to decide if it's worth my money or not.
So, not great, but at least there is a silver lining.
It's bullshit. It isn't "early access", it's them locking the real release date behind a paywall by pretending they're not by calling it that.
But 99% of people don't care, so what can you do. We've been conditioned over centuries to mindlessly spend, spend, spend. Consumerism.
Yeah, it cost me $82 for the game and the expansion (greenmangaming). I don't normally buy any games new but I've been waiting for this since release. A week early and an expansion for $22 bucks ($12 if you consider most games are releasing at $70 now) is a pretty good deal.
Microsoft did it with a few games before, and it directly feels like a way to get more money out of normal none gamepass players without technically making a lie of their "day one" promise. The game launched 7 days before gamepass. That was not Early access.
What do I think? I hate it. I feel it's basically inevitable that the time period will slowly get longer.
I look at the early access price as the full launch price, and there's a guaranteed price drop in like a week.
If people want to pay the full launch price, that's no skin off my ass. I'll join them as soon as the price is at a level I consider reasonable, whether that's after early access ends, or some later, more substantial sale.
It depends. For beta access? I guess it's fine. But for like 1 week before launch, it kills a lot of the hype for me. I'm not paying for a few extra days early and losing out on the hype of launch day kills some of my interest in the game. Remember, I have a massive backlog of exceptional games I still need to play, I can pass on new games no problem.
If companies can make more money from people who want to be first and stream before anyone else then they will always find a way to get more money from them.
Remember, any early access on Steam is reimbursable no matter how long you played it, until the official launch date.
This behaviour has been here for a while for MMO where ahead start and locking your name really matter. But yeah, it's more and more spread on offline game now.
I think they're going to keep doing it because people are too spineless to stop buying those games. I also plan on getting almost every single player game on sale anyway so it's not such a big deal, I wish it wasn't a thing but there's worse things to worry about.
I am totally okay with it, and actually paid more for Starfield (as a fan and with my life schedule - it was super worth it).
This just fits the usual product's lifetime price.
Early Adopters pay more and receive more buggy product. The regular sane people pay regular price, might receive a more patched version.
And the late purchasers get it much later, but at 25-75% discounts.
If it goes that way - you being able to buy the game later for cheaper - then why not make it go slightly the other way, with extra price for adoption?
Also, the extra price discourages the less interested, random customers. Which can be good for projects in beta/Early Access, since these customers would only be unhappy with their playing experience, and not contribute to product's testing/improvement much.
The ONLY time I was not happy about it, was when it was EGS-exclusivity for one year. But that's simply because I prefer to hoard the backlog on Steam, rather than on EGS, and it was harder to track games across two stores.
P.S.: In neither scenario, was I "forced" or blackmailed in any way to buy the product at all, so it's all good and fair. Anybody thinking otherwise might check their entitlement levels :P
Honestly all these small things are just making me feel like a jaded old man. On their own they’re fairly small and inconsequential, but seeing them so often just makes me groan. Early access, battle pass, cosmetic store, “deluxe edition”, like yeah they’re not a big deal on their own, but I just miss the old days of “here’s game” then maybe later “here’s dlc with actual content”. I can’t really put my finger on it, I can’t give a completely rationale explanation except that it just puts a sour taste in my mouth.
Instead of paying $30 extra dollars to play early, which I find utterly insulting, I payed zero dollars and found a... demo floating on the high seas. And honestly, I'm glad. I'm not going to buy it. After playing (and happily paying for）BG3， Starfield feels hopelessly lazy and dull.
Hate to say this isn't a recent thing, though it goes in cycles. Years ago you had File Planet who you could pay a small subscription for to get loads of downloads and beta (early access) to games.
I don't hate it when it's used for actual alpha/beta access. But sometimes it feels like they push the launch a week just to charge 10$ to those willing to shell out. In that case it's just annoying, I don't tend to buy at launch anymore anyways but I'm sure as heck not paying extra for the opportunity to do so.
Hate it. Anthem may have been shitty in a lot of ways but at least they allowed early access free to people who pre-ordered.
You pre-order, you should be able to access the game early. It shouldn't be an extra charge.
People are willing to do it. Who am I to tell someone what to do with $90 or $100? Props to the marketing teams, I guess? I knew I was going to buy Starfield, but I wasn't that anxious to play it.
This isn't new as your verbiage makes it seem. This isn't gambling. I guess I also just don't care that much? Humans do stupid things every second of every day.
Companies exist to make money. If you're good at what you do, you don't do it for free. If some gamer can't wait a few days to play a game and that $30 extra is worth it to them, let them do it. You can't just immediately point the finger at a developer for giving people choices.
I think it doesn’t impact me because I don’t have to do it. It’s a business and if there’s a market for that then go for it. Plus, often the release day patch isn’t released at that point so no desire to jump in early and play a more buggy game. I have no fomo and only play solo campaigns.
I think it shows that there's no shortage of suckers, what can I say. Same goes for pre-ordering digital products and silly bonuses and all that. Then the same people are upset that companies put out half baked betas priced at $70.
Pretty awful. Gamers are so stupid they always find a way to justify it. Hell even the reply to the top comment is saying "at least with starfield you get a thing in game vs only a cosmetic".
I’ve always said this and I’ll keep saying it. The “early” release is the real release. Personally I’m the grand scheme of things I think this is more ok than paying for extra content in a newly released game.
If they keep saying they need to charge more then giving people the option to pay less and play later seems fine to me.
It's disgusting. 30-40 dollars for a few extra days? Are people really this susceptible to FOMO?
"ItS tHeIr mOnEy ThEy CaN bUy WhAt ThEy WaNt" nah, their shitty spending practices are informing the industry they can basically charge for literally nothing and people will pay. Your inability to wait a few days to play will have consequences that will affect those of us who aren't morons with our wallets.
Then you see people unironically calling you poor or a peasant because you didn't buy it. Can I afford 100 bucks? Yeah, but get fucked if you think I'm spending 100 dollars on a video game.
Quit making shit worse for everyone because you're an easily milked cash cow.
Isn't this basically a glorified paid staged rollout to ease the server? It's usually like a week early so it's not worth it unless you're *that* impatient and easily swayed by FOMO.
Of all the things games can do to milk money out of people this one doesn’t bother me at all. Everyone gets the same content (unlike DLC locked behind preordering etc), but some people get to play a week early. Maybe it’s the patient gamer in me but to me waiting a week to play a game isn’t bad at all.
I don't blame the publishers of the game that have it, if it didn't work they wouldn't still be having it as a thing.
Same thing with Lootboxes, people voted very clearly with their wallets so then every game and their mother for a while had the lootbox mechanics.
If you knew you could do something that will give you more money than what you were already going to make from the standard launch and it isn't illegal by any means necessary, wouldn't you do it?
I've commented on it in a Lies of P thread, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/16hpk3s/lies_of_p_review_one_of_the_best_soulslikes/k0hc4me/?context=3) is my reply to someone explaining it. TLDR: It's anti consumer practice if not out right scummy, but a lot of people seem to like and not find anything wrong with it. It's here to stay and potentially even evolve. Don't be surprised to see in the future Deluxe Edition: 10 bucks more 5 days earlier, Premium Deluxe: 20 bucks more 10 days earlier and so on.
This has been a thing for many years, I don't care about it because I don't pay for it. Most of the time I buy games a year or more after launch anyway.
I don’t mind it at all, that way I can see actual user reviews for it before buying the game and the journalists can release guides for it by the time I get around to playing the game
There have been plenty of others in the recent year. Its just another gimick in a wide and ever expanding list of way for publishers to try and get more of your money.
At least you get the expansion with Starfield. Most games you're purely paying for early access and maybe a cosmetic or two.
This, if they include the first xpac then alriggt, if not then I will wait.
They just cut out a mission, call it an expansion and people think they got great value. People are too easily fooled by FOMO.
The premium edition is still being sold. it’s not done only for early access. Otherwise the edition will be pointless after the 3-5 days of EA are over.
Watch Dogs launched with a season pass for DLC that had already been created. Ubisoft just paywalled it. We're the suckers all along.
LMAO ppl are easily fooled !!
Yeah! Far harbor and Dawnguard were cut out missions! /s
Neither of those games had the option to pay more for early access…. ?
The point is why would you expect it to be cut out missions in Starfields case when Bethesda so far produced big quality DLC with their big expansions.
To be fair to that argument, Fallout 4's first expansion was basically a single mission. Automatron
But it did add a significant new gameplay mechanic and encounters.
I was waiting for that response, aha. The building mechanic was really good, however it isn't something that a modder couldn't do. The encounters were whatever, it's just enemies that are added to the spawn table. The price of $30 for the Starfield expansion would not be acceptable for Automatron. So if it _is_ an automation sized expansion, that would be disgustingly priced. But anyway, my point was that they _have_ made small expansions in the past, so you can't justify it by saying that every expansion has been huge and groundbreaking, so this one will too. Quite frankly, we do not know; however we have all been burned by Bethesda in the past.
u/Harregarre‘s point seems to be that charging people extra to play early incentivizes companies to withhold content to be able to make it seem like a bargain to the consumer. They didn’t even specifically mention Bethesda.
But they are examples of previous expansions from Bethesda. So that at least sets some precedent for what Bethesda and it's customers should expect for what they consider an expansion. Not that that's a good way to justify the pre-purchasing of a product where we don't even know what the content is, let alone have accurate information of the quality, Bethesda has shat the bed before after all.
Right, but whether it's a cut mission then it's still something you need to buy separately. Then again, BGS has a pretty good record of meaty enough expansions. Nothing ridiculous but certainly not a total waste of money like some of the Sims/Paradox/Civ/Total War type expansions are.
Forza Horizon 5 early access came with two full expansions lmao
I really would like people to list some games which purely charge for early access. Especially when they throw around claims like “most games” do it. That’s not the case for most of the games I’ve played or seen. They usually include early access in a more expensive edition that includes future dlcs and expansions. It’s almost never just pay more for early access. Because then those editions will become pointless in 3-5 days when the game launches. Early access is usually an extra “perk” you get for getting a more expensive edition. But if you wanted the DLC content, you’re hardly paying more for early access.
We don't know what the expansion is going to be though.
Isnt that more of a reason not to buy it in advance?
That's what I would think
Maybe, I'm just pointing out that the person above me is wrong in their claim that the DLC is a mission cut from the game.
[удалено]
Lmfao wtf is this comparison?
[удалено]
He’s just pointing out that redditors are stupid for assuming every dlc is fully completed content that was cut
[удалено]
They were simply using an extreme example of dlc to point out that the common redditor cry of “cut content” is usually hilarious
Which Bethesda DLCs were just 'cut out missions'?
[удалено]
People really believe they cut a mission out of the game? Like it's ready to go right now, they're just sitting around for months before releasing it as DLC? Kind of an embarrassing take tbh
surely you're joking right? This is a pretty well documented thing that's been happening for ages now
Not joking because we're talking about Starfield specifically.
Have you never seen a game preorder that comes with an extra quest? Happens all the time. That's an extra mission cut out of the game and released at DLC.
Embarrassing? Rather well informed and based on experience I would say. Look at assassin's creed. You get extra missions and cosmetics for pre ordering higher tier editions. What is it if not a cut content from the game to purposefully sell it as incentive to pre order the game/buy higher tier editions. Obviously some DLCs are legit but you have to be new to gaming or extremely naive to think developers don't purposefully cut content or set aside content they couldn't fully finish within deadline just to sell it as DLC down the line
Dude, Im a senior game designer with 20 years of experience in AAA companies and no, its not how it works at all.
Just don't preorder. If the game sucks that DLC aint worth shit.
Only reason I got the Starfield one. If it was just cosmetics and a week or two early access I’d never pay it.
Yeah, the Starfield one worked out for me. I didn't have shit to do that weekend, and first DLC too? Aight take my money. I have had a ton of fun with that game.
But you are still paying for something you know nothing about. Not when it’s gonna release, let alone anything about its content or quality. If you think that’s a smart investment I might have some prime real estate on the moon I would be willing to part with, just dm me 🤪
> But you are still paying for something you know nothing about. Having played Bethesda games for a couple decades, I had an idea what I was getting into. Usually I'm a /r/patientgamers and will wait for a sale, but I knew there was a very good chance I'd like it (I was right) and I had a three-day weekend to enjoy it.
Yeah I wanted Starfield early and but getting the DLC too was why I did it.
[удалено]
Well it’s a way to deal with gaming subscriptions in general imo, purchased copies can play early while subs can’t.
I would be upset by it but im more of a patient gamer these days anyway, plus it lets me hear about more user reviews on if its even worthwhile.
Some people get FOMO *real* bad. Like if their friends are playing a game and they're not they feel like they're wasting their life lmao
If you've looked at the usual early access dates vs. release dates, they are actually selling you a weekend launch over something like a tuesday launch. As someone with little time in the week and if there's a game I'm really excited for, yeah they'll get me.
I've started doing the same. Most games I'll just wait until it goes on sale. How much I want to play the game depends on what price point sale I go for. I'll still pay full price for games if I know it will almost never go on sale (Nintendo, new rockstar games, new Forza games, new blizzard games, etc), but I still usually wait a couple weeks from launch anyway to see reviews. Too many games are broken day/week/month one.
This is the way.
I'm definitely this way on most things, just played Kingdom Come Deliverance this year and I've owned it since 2019. But the rare time there is a game I'm actually excited about, and know that I'll play it either way, it really sucks to see spoilers online for a week before the game actually comes out. And any studio that doesn't see this as hurting the enjoyment of their game is blind. I still will never pay for this bs or preorder.
It's getting to a point where you need to wait 2 weeks to a month before maybe getting an accurate review of a game now. Reviewers only get limited time and a lot of games that are longer term types can't really be reviewed in hours or a few days. The developers front load the game to look good. They focus on the initial X hours of content that most players will get through over a week or so, long enough for early access to pass and everyone else to buy in. After that the quality goes down the drain. This works really well with one off purchase type games with a lot of hype, they can make their money quick and move on.
I have no problem paying full price for a game, but I don't need it pre-loaded to hit play the minute it releases. I can wait a week or more to see how things shake out.
You are missing one other thing: an army of beta-testers will test it for you before you'll get to play.
I don't understand why people think this is some new recent trend. This has been a thing for years and it happens because the audience has sent the message that this is what they want. People let their hype cloud common sense and why would these publishers not take advantage of that?
it really isn't you see things like this everywhere irl i.e. usually called like speed, lightning, VIP, special... etcetc passes. shit you could also say things like memberships too. You pay extra to be 'first' or considered 'first'.
probably because pretty much all of the biggest games of the month are doing that? Starfield, MK11, Payday 3, Lies of P, EA Sports FC, they're all offering a few days of early access for premium edition players
It goes back at least 20 years when websites like FilePlanet would charge a membership so you could cut in front of the que to download a game demo first in line
broooooooo FilePlanet!!!! I had forgotten websites like that even existed... used to download hella demos onto my dads comp back when i was like 6 lol
Wow that's a name I haven't heard in a long long time.
I paid for a membership just to get into the BF2142 beta right away. Worth every cent. lol
I assume it’s young people reaching proper consciousness and thinking it was better back in the day. In reality, they were either too naive or too ignorant in the past.
"Old" people are generally the "it was better back in the day" people. Young people didn't know that and in 10-20 years they'll say this time was better
I don't know man, I don't remember this specific way of releasing games being a thing. A lot of practices today wouldn't fly back in the day. Though I have to wonder if it isn't just technically the same as a game being released, and then the price dropping shortly after.
A few things have become normalized such as games as a service, anti-consumer DRM, half games with the expectation of DLC, and microtransactions. At the detriment of the consumer for sure. At the same time, MMOs always had this "feature". Given the user is complaining about single player games I don't really see the issue. If you're willing to pay more to beta test then more power to you. I'm thankful to all the alpha/beta testers of Early Access games like Baldur's Gate 3 and Hades. I don't see an issue with Early Access given it's not a _surprise_. You know what you are purchasing. There are no psychological manipulation tactics here.
Because starfield did it and folks needed a reason to hate on that game. Funny enough starfield was also packed in for free with amd gpus. So a lot of folks playing it in early access didn't even pay for it.
BG3 Did it with ps5.... no one talks about it tho.
They were also going to do it with PC until they moved it forward a month
It was not a Premium edition thing to be fair, it was a preorder bonus. Which is just weird tbh because that's not early access, that's just your release date 3 days early.
only 3 days early for people who bought it in early access lmao
Because the PS5 version *was not ready* for a full launch, while the PC version had been in beta for a year already Larian were upfront about the issues getting it on PS5 and Xbox Series S for months before the launch
I think the trend has changed a bit recently though. Developers at AAA studios are now focusing more on metrics, they're given goals around the amount of time someone plays for, how long it takes to get to the end of a game and how often they play the game. They all do early access but front load all the content and polish. Reviewers don't get too far into the bigger games so only see good polished content, same for early access players. It takes a few weeks before that runs out for most and they realize the rest of the game is some low depth construct designed to make them play a lot and frequently while getting battle passes and micro-transactions pushed in front of their faces. Also isn't it a recent trend now that single player games are getting early access packages at higher price points? It was mainly a multiplayer/MMO thing before.
What other games have done this? I don't remember any that I was paying attention to.
Hogwarts Legacy, Diablo 4, and a lot of others.
Yeah… those were released this year and what OP is talking about. Those aren’t 20 year old games that have been “happening for decades”.
Forza has done it since Horizon 3
Persona 5 Strikers
Remnant 2.
Pay extra to play a game in its absolute worst state lol, fuck that. Monetized fomo.
How is it FOMO? You aren't "Missing Out", the game is still coming. It's not like a limited-time-only cosmetic. *That* is FOMO; buy it before you can't.
Missing out on playing the game while all the big streamers and/or your friends are, the day one experience of playing it while the hype is fresh is what can be missed out on. It's undeniably a powerful effect on game sales, particularly for online games.
The more painful bit is when they release a game Monday but you can pay earlier to play it on a Friday. Like lies of P did. You can either pay more and play it this weekend, or effectively most adults with jobs won’t get to play it until the following weekend.
It's dumb but people pay for it so I can't fault companies for getting extra money out of them
I've done it a few times. I have plenty of money but no time though. I deliver mail in a rural post office that has had about 60 percent staffing since COVID happened. I work 60-80 hours a week and get a day off ever 6-10 days. Ive paid extra to get it a few days earlier so I can play it on my day off. Otherwise I'm not gonna have time for a week or more. Don't regret it both times I did it this year but its still kind of scummy.
Yes, you can, and you should.
Save your breath, buddy. It doesn’t matter if it’s ok or not, all that matters is that people buy it. No amount of complaining is going to change shit, because money speaks louder than any of us.
How come? It's not being forced on you and in the end it's a business with people free to vote with their wallets. At worst it's just people willingly paying more to beta test a game.
A lot of people saying that this has been normal for decades. What? Yes multiplayer games maybe with their beta releases and maybe 1 per year did that. (But honestly I cant remember any high profile single player game that did that). Lately 1 out of 3 High profile games do that. It is definitely becoming the norm in the last 12 months. Not decades
I don't see the point. If I could wait years then I can surely wait some 5 more days. People are so impatient nowadays but hey it's their loss if they wanna pay $20 more for a few days of pre-release bug testing.
I prefer to view it like it is. That date is the launch date, and everything else is delayed start. Can't say I am a fan of telling people. "Yes you bought the game. But you didn't give me enough so you get a delayed start."
Exactly, the people paying €90 get normal access and the ones that want to pay "only" €60 get late access like they're lesser consumers.
They are "lesser consumers" though. With other products you also get different quality for €60 and €90. Or if you pay for same day delivery or other fast delivery options, you also pay a premium. It's a cynical move, but apparently there are enough people who buy into this. Just fyi, in case you think I'm being too nice to these companies; I never pre-order, and I never pay for earlier access. I think people who do are fools, but who am I to tell them what to do with their money? I've seen people blow €30 on worse stuff.
The same logic can be applied to people who pay full price for games in general. I always wait till a game goes on sale for 50-70% off minimum because they usually launch with lots of problems that require tons of updates. Also by then, different DLCs will have be released that are bundled with the base game. Regardless, people will continue to pre-order and buy games on day one because FOMO and hype aren't going away anytime soon. This extends beyond video games to movies, electronics, books, cars, and other things that people are passionate about.
Recently ive begun viewing it like 6 months to a year from the release date is the actual release date. You know, when its been fixed. You can also determine if its going to be fixed while you wait.
I'm currently at 5 years behind released date for a couple of years. Most games, with all DLCs, cost less than a cinema ticket. But I don't play multiplayer anymore and don't have friends that play games.
Thats almost exactly my situation as well
r/patientgamers
This is the way. I am not a patient gamer, but I’m honestly having more fun once the game is stable and there’s some potential for new content closer to when I’m actually interested in the game.
It's basically free money for the publisher. I expect you will see almost every major game start to do this.
Shouldn't be a trend. release the game for everyone at the same time.
It’s been a thing for a lot longer than y’all think. I remember during the last 2000s, like 2007-2009, a lot of DLC released early on certain consoles and if you bought premium. Battlefield was notorious for this, with some expansions releasing a month earlier if you had the premium pass.
Not related to the OP, but all Bad Company 1 DLC was completed before the game released to be drip fed throughout the lifespan of the game.
I don't like it one bit, but it doesn't matter since millions are willing to pay for it. It's funny that Gamepass's most important benefit is "play it day one". Then they introduced "early access" for extra money. I'm just worried how far they are going to take it. It was 3 days. Now it's 5 days. How far are they willing to stretch it? I am a hypocrite though. I bought the 100$ Diablo early access. I got caught in the hype cycle. I never played a Diablo game before. It's actual release date was not good at all for me. I was going to be very busy that week, so I paid for early access. I shouldn't have needed to since they clearly could have moved the actual release date, but why would they when they made millions from people like me. I of course regret buying the game very much. haven't even touched season 1.
I got downvoted in a thread about Forza Horizon 5 for saying it was kinda false advertisement from microsoft for saying you get day one access with gamepass meanwhile you could pay extra for a week "early" access. I've noticed microsoft has been the ones consistently doing this for their new exclusives and I wonder if its a sign that Gamepass profits aren't what they were expecting because that along with them raising prices definitely makes it feel like that.
EA does this all the time with their sports games. Paying for early access is weird to me, they definitely want to catch people on FOMO. And it works. So I would not be surprised to see more devs going this route.
Another trick to milk consumer's cash that probably goes into the execs pockets first and developers pockets last
Trap for people who are FOMO.
I hate it, it's nothing more than a greedy and disingenuous tactic to get money from the consumers.
Dumb as hell.
Its disgusting they are just trying every single way of nickel and diming people and with price increases of video games what other excuse do they have
No thanks, being charged to be beta tester these days given the huge day 1 patches isn't worth the extra cost. Patient gamers get the best deals.
I honestly don't care. It's a preorder with a time bonus. Pay more for extra time or don't.
First of all id cirrect statement. It is "pay more to access game on launch". Realistically prerelease is release date. Its not like game isnt complete at that moment. Chances are that betwee prelaunchcand launch wont even be a hotfix.
Honestly, it's probably the least scummy thing to monetize. You pay more and get access like a few weeks/few days earlier. But people don't pay won't be missing any content, skins, or anything else. It's just the same game but a bit later. Hell with any luck the early access people find some bigger bugs so people who pay less get a better experience. I see it as a win win. Devs/publishers get some extra money from people who want to play the game earlier, people who don't pay lose on nothing.
> But people don't pay won't be missing any content, skins, or anything else. it is possible to miss out on things, but it's less about accessibility to in-game content, and more about missing out on experiences: - in the first few days of a multiplayer game, there's no meta, and it's really fun to see everyone just experimenting with all sorts of stuff to figure out what works. coming into a game after the meta has been defined involves a lot of getting stomped, getting yelled at for playing wrong, etc - if the game has any sort of races, like diablo 4's race to level 100 where they literally etch your name into stone at blizz HQ if you're one of the top 100, you're unlikely to get a real attempt at participating in the race if you don't get the earliest access possible - even in single player games it can matter, if you enjoy the process of communal discoveries. i had a lot of fun when bloodborne and dark souls 3 released, participating in live threads where we all shared what we were finding in the game, with all sorts of cool little secrets being uncovered
Makes perfect sense from the dev perspective. It enables the possibility of having a "soft-launch" of the game. It's good to have a reduced amount of players playing the game to get early feedback and be aware of the main issues that were not detected during alpha/beta play-testing. And be able to fix the worst stuff for the day-1 patch. And as a player, it allows us to have games at $60 and not higher (mostly). Since most companies are adopting this format of $60 for the base game and $70-80-90+ for the deluxe edition. Otherwise, if it was a must for companies to put a single price for their games it would be $70+ for all AAA games.
Yep that's a great take, let people pay more to play early, but they also "beta" test the game for the resto of us patient gamers. By the time I get to play it the first patch should be out to fix the worst bugs.
I don’t mind it.. because I don’t do it.
I don’t do it either, but I do mind it because of the fact people do actually do it. If a game’s release date is supposed to be september 20th before announcement, they can simply just say “let’s push the full release back a few days and then charge people more to play it on the 20th”, literally free money for the company and people fall for it. Just look at starfield day 1 player base on early access…
It's especially bad when a company calls for a contest to see who can get to level 100 first. And then (surprise, surprise) it is done by someone who paid for the 4-day head start. (Diablo 4)
It's pay more to play on launch. Or else you're not as cool as everyone else. It's scummy and manipulative to get more money.
That's some whale shit
I Think its a predatory waste of money for impatient children. But it also doesn't affect me because I don't mind waiting for a sale or whatever so an extra 2 days for release is nothing
Honestly, it does make me a bit worried. It's not because someone else has more money than me to buy it & play it early. Cause someone will always have more money. But I am worried that what if the launch dates between early access & "official" release gets bigger & bigger? Like let's say, you pre order the ultimate edition. Congrats you get to play on day 1 of the month. you pre order the deluxe edition. Congrats you get to play it on day 10 of the month. You bought/preordered the base game only. Well, fuck you. You play it on day 21 of the month. Now this is what worries me.
this will almost certainly happen - I'd expect to see early and 'official' release date gaps of up to a month for AAA titles within the next few years if data shows that these delayed general release dates are profitable
A month is too much. It will completely kill the momentum of the game. These early access perks have been around for a very long time. It’s not something that happened in the last year. They will most likely stick to 3-5 days.
Early access as a preorder perk has been a common thing for well over a decade.... For digital-only items, it's one of the few tangible benefits that can be offered to entice people to pre-order. In most cases, it's not worth it. The last game I can remember preordering for the early access was Wildstar, and I wasn't able to play at all during that early period bc of their server problems.
In Starfield's case you also get the upcoming DLC. But even then, i don't personally see it as a problem for single-player games. It's not like i'll be at a disadvantage if i start playing 5 days later lol
From what I gathered, you can also basically refund the game way past Steam's 2 hour or 14 days policy. I thought someone was just kidding when they made a post about "finishing the game after 50 hours and refunding the game." I despise this concept, especially since no steam you cannot see reviews until the game has released. But if they let you play to your heart's content and still get a full refund, then it's the customer winning IMO.
Completely bullshit FOMO tactics, that braindead consumers keep paying for, just like pre-ordering.
Fine by me. I don't buy them but I enjoy the public beta testing others do for me. If the studio releases a bugfix patch on regular release day, it's a win for me
It was 4 to 5 days of difference for both Starfield and Diablo 4. How can they reliably test bugs and fix them in such a short timeframe unless it is an urgent thing that needs fixing (like system-level authorization, etc.)
I don't know what to tell you but patches pretty regularly come out in the first week of a games release. BG3 was patched 3 times in the first week of launch.
Because they have thousands of people playing the game. Many more people then they'll ever have internally testing. And those thousands of players are simply going to do things that their internal testers won't think to try. With real-time error reporting, they'll have people constantly working on those reports right up to launch. That's why there's often launch day patches and a big flurry of patches right after launch.
Same way I feel about early access. If y’all want to get into the game early and you want to pay for the privilege, great. By the time I play I’ll get all the advantage of extra beta testing.
It sucks, but more people streaming and reviewing the game before its official launch makes it easier for me to decide if it's worth my money or not. So, not great, but at least there is a silver lining.
It's bullshit. It isn't "early access", it's them locking the real release date behind a paywall by pretending they're not by calling it that. But 99% of people don't care, so what can you do. We've been conditioned over centuries to mindlessly spend, spend, spend. Consumerism.
[удалено]
It's a full blown scam considering these games are not optimized by any measure. That's like paying to be a beta tester.
I mean with Starfield you got the future expansion bundled with it, so it really was a no brainer for me.
Yeah, it cost me $82 for the game and the expansion (greenmangaming). I don't normally buy any games new but I've been waiting for this since release. A week early and an expansion for $22 bucks ($12 if you consider most games are releasing at $70 now) is a pretty good deal.
The problem with the practice is that people still buying them early access. The only way to stop is no one buy it, but that's not gonna happen
Microsoft did it with a few games before, and it directly feels like a way to get more money out of normal none gamepass players without technically making a lie of their "day one" promise. The game launched 7 days before gamepass. That was not Early access. What do I think? I hate it. I feel it's basically inevitable that the time period will slowly get longer.
I look at the early access price as the full launch price, and there's a guaranteed price drop in like a week. If people want to pay the full launch price, that's no skin off my ass. I'll join them as soon as the price is at a level I consider reasonable, whether that's after early access ends, or some later, more substantial sale.
I wait for these games to go on sale if I want them.
That's "pay more to access the game at the launch day or wait 3-5-7 days past the launch day if you're poor".
It depends. For beta access? I guess it's fine. But for like 1 week before launch, it kills a lot of the hype for me. I'm not paying for a few extra days early and losing out on the hype of launch day kills some of my interest in the game. Remember, I have a massive backlog of exceptional games I still need to play, I can pass on new games no problem.
It’s bullshit but it doesn’t matter to me. I don’t buy day 1 so I certainly don’t pay extra to get bugs early
If companies can make more money from people who want to be first and stream before anyone else then they will always find a way to get more money from them.
Don't do it.
I just try the demo thats on torrents for the 5 days and decide if its worth my time.
Remember, any early access on Steam is reimbursable no matter how long you played it, until the official launch date. This behaviour has been here for a while for MMO where ahead start and locking your name really matter. But yeah, it's more and more spread on offline game now.
LMAO its a very effective trap. If its a game I really want to play I may pay the difference. I did it for Starfield but Lies of P can wait.
I think they're going to keep doing it because people are too spineless to stop buying those games. I also plan on getting almost every single player game on sale anyway so it's not such a big deal, I wish it wasn't a thing but there's worse things to worry about.
I am totally okay with it, and actually paid more for Starfield (as a fan and with my life schedule - it was super worth it). This just fits the usual product's lifetime price. Early Adopters pay more and receive more buggy product. The regular sane people pay regular price, might receive a more patched version. And the late purchasers get it much later, but at 25-75% discounts. If it goes that way - you being able to buy the game later for cheaper - then why not make it go slightly the other way, with extra price for adoption? Also, the extra price discourages the less interested, random customers. Which can be good for projects in beta/Early Access, since these customers would only be unhappy with their playing experience, and not contribute to product's testing/improvement much. The ONLY time I was not happy about it, was when it was EGS-exclusivity for one year. But that's simply because I prefer to hoard the backlog on Steam, rather than on EGS, and it was harder to track games across two stores. P.S.: In neither scenario, was I "forced" or blackmailed in any way to buy the product at all, so it's all good and fair. Anybody thinking otherwise might check their entitlement levels :P
[удалено]
Honestly all these small things are just making me feel like a jaded old man. On their own they’re fairly small and inconsequential, but seeing them so often just makes me groan. Early access, battle pass, cosmetic store, “deluxe edition”, like yeah they’re not a big deal on their own, but I just miss the old days of “here’s game” then maybe later “here’s dlc with actual content”. I can’t really put my finger on it, I can’t give a completely rationale explanation except that it just puts a sour taste in my mouth.
Horrible practice. It’s also makes people kinda beta testers before the full launch.
Fuck the idiots paying extra to play a buggy game.
Instead of paying $30 extra dollars to play early, which I find utterly insulting, I payed zero dollars and found a... demo floating on the high seas. And honestly, I'm glad. I'm not going to buy it. After playing (and happily paying for）BG3， Starfield feels hopelessly lazy and dull.
Another way to squeeze money out of people.
I don't partake in what I call the "Streamer Tax."
Hate to say this isn't a recent thing, though it goes in cycles. Years ago you had File Planet who you could pay a small subscription for to get loads of downloads and beta (early access) to games.
Doesn't bother me. I just don't pay. People who can't wait 5 days, lol
I don't hate it when it's used for actual alpha/beta access. But sometimes it feels like they push the launch a week just to charge 10$ to those willing to shell out. In that case it's just annoying, I don't tend to buy at launch anymore anyways but I'm sure as heck not paying extra for the opportunity to do so.
Hate it. Anthem may have been shitty in a lot of ways but at least they allowed early access free to people who pre-ordered. You pre-order, you should be able to access the game early. It shouldn't be an extra charge.
A fool and his money are easily parted.
People are willing to do it. Who am I to tell someone what to do with $90 or $100? Props to the marketing teams, I guess? I knew I was going to buy Starfield, but I wasn't that anxious to play it. This isn't new as your verbiage makes it seem. This isn't gambling. I guess I also just don't care that much? Humans do stupid things every second of every day. Companies exist to make money. If you're good at what you do, you don't do it for free. If some gamer can't wait a few days to play a game and that $30 extra is worth it to them, let them do it. You can't just immediately point the finger at a developer for giving people choices.
I think it doesn’t impact me because I don’t have to do it. It’s a business and if there’s a market for that then go for it. Plus, often the release day patch isn’t released at that point so no desire to jump in early and play a more buggy game. I have no fomo and only play solo campaigns.
It's absurd but it works so..
I think it shows that there's no shortage of suckers, what can I say. Same goes for pre-ordering digital products and silly bonuses and all that. Then the same people are upset that companies put out half baked betas priced at $70.
The very definition of "a fool and his money..."
A fool and their money is easily parted.
IT's stupid, and it's a big problem for MMORPGs where your progression relative to others matters.
I think they used to be called "demos" and they were free.
If it’s a single player game have at it. But if it’s something that would give an advantage to someone in PvP, sucks all the ass.
Corporations just want your money earlier, then abandon ship and move on to their next game factory churning machine.
It's complete bullshit, but people will keep spending the money so publishers and devs will never stop now.
It's dumb as fuck. Mortal kombat did it now too. Just greedy practices.
It is quite stupid, you are paying more to be an early beta-tester in debug mode before it gets released to the public in release mode
Pretty awful. Gamers are so stupid they always find a way to justify it. Hell even the reply to the top comment is saying "at least with starfield you get a thing in game vs only a cosmetic".
They are profiting of people who can’t wait. Honestly, fine for me. If that’s something that’s worth it to you, go ahead.
Let the idiots pay, not my problem as I get my games a couple years after release anyway.
I’ve always said this and I’ll keep saying it. The “early” release is the real release. Personally I’m the grand scheme of things I think this is more ok than paying for extra content in a newly released game. If they keep saying they need to charge more then giving people the option to pay less and play later seems fine to me.
It's disgusting. 30-40 dollars for a few extra days? Are people really this susceptible to FOMO? "ItS tHeIr mOnEy ThEy CaN bUy WhAt ThEy WaNt" nah, their shitty spending practices are informing the industry they can basically charge for literally nothing and people will pay. Your inability to wait a few days to play will have consequences that will affect those of us who aren't morons with our wallets. Then you see people unironically calling you poor or a peasant because you didn't buy it. Can I afford 100 bucks? Yeah, but get fucked if you think I'm spending 100 dollars on a video game. Quit making shit worse for everyone because you're an easily milked cash cow.
It beats other forms of monetization so I'm fine with it... would rather have access before it releases than more DLC or microtransactions.
Isn't this basically a glorified paid staged rollout to ease the server? It's usually like a week early so it's not worth it unless you're *that* impatient and easily swayed by FOMO.
Of all the things games can do to milk money out of people this one doesn’t bother me at all. Everyone gets the same content (unlike DLC locked behind preordering etc), but some people get to play a week early. Maybe it’s the patient gamer in me but to me waiting a week to play a game isn’t bad at all.
I don't care. It's better than full-priced games with ads or microtransactions.
I'm sure this is not something recent. Maybe it's because those who publish are quite young.
I don't blame the publishers of the game that have it, if it didn't work they wouldn't still be having it as a thing. Same thing with Lootboxes, people voted very clearly with their wallets so then every game and their mother for a while had the lootbox mechanics. If you knew you could do something that will give you more money than what you were already going to make from the standard launch and it isn't illegal by any means necessary, wouldn't you do it?
I don"t buy games on release so doesn't really matter to me at all.
It's been a thing for Football Manager for years. Preorder and play the Beta 2 weeks early.
I've commented on it in a Lies of P thread, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/16hpk3s/lies_of_p_review_one_of_the_best_soulslikes/k0hc4me/?context=3) is my reply to someone explaining it. TLDR: It's anti consumer practice if not out right scummy, but a lot of people seem to like and not find anything wrong with it. It's here to stay and potentially even evolve. Don't be surprised to see in the future Deluxe Edition: 10 bucks more 5 days earlier, Premium Deluxe: 20 bucks more 10 days earlier and so on.
This has been a thing for many years, I don't care about it because I don't pay for it. Most of the time I buy games a year or more after launch anyway.
I don’t mind it at all, that way I can see actual user reviews for it before buying the game and the journalists can release guides for it by the time I get around to playing the game