Is Steam becoming a Rip-Off?

[vyshka]

I don't see any issues with the offering of Alpha and Beta games.  It does seem to be more of a trend, paying for "early access" to incomplete games.  However, this is clearly advertised and I don't have any problem in principle of offering folks the opportunity to pay to play early, eg. ARMA 3.  As a consumer, it pays to do your due diligence before you buy to determine if a game is worth an early pay-to-play and there is so much information out there that there's no reason to feel misled into buying a clunker.  For example, there is almost no game on Steam's forums that doesn't have a "Is this game worth it?" thread on the first page, and since the Steam forums almost always attract folks with an axe to grind, getting access to negative opinions has never been easier.

I don't have any opinion as to Greenlight or how it works.

Try reading the Steam Forums for some of these early releases, some thought they were buying a playable game and not some unfinished unplayable mess of a failed kickstarter. There is also no guarantee that the per-released (unfinished) game you just bought will ever be released, finished, or even become playable. There are even some developer comments like "Wow we got more money on Steam, then we got from our kickstarter". I would hate to think Steam is becoming the place to fund developer's failed kickstarter!

Steam needs to offer something if a so called early release is never finished or not released in a playable state!

They all have a banner on the store page that says it is an early access game, and it has a link to a page describing Early Access if they can't figure it out from the banner. What should they do, make them watch a video describing early access every time they try to purchase an early access game?

[Greybriar]

Want to pay full price for an unfinished game? Check out this video about Dark Matter:

GamersGate, GOG.com, and Steam (and probably many other digital distributors) offered Dark Matter for sale, although Steam has apparently taken down its buy link.

It was not stated in the game's description that it was an unfinished game, and that sounds like false advertising to me. Buyer beware it might be, but I think it's very unscrupulous for a developer to try to pass off an unfinished product as a finished one. Perhaps we need more releases like this and Sword of the Stars II to get enough gamers riled up to put an end to such foolishness.

[SgtRock]

They all have a banner on the store page that says it is an early access game, and it has a link to a page describing Early Access if they can't figure it out from the banner. What should they do, make them watch a video describing early access every time they try to purchase an early access game?

And where does it say the game may not be playable? There's a big difference between Early Release and Not playable or maybe never finished!

Selling unfinished software is like selling snake oil!


Just send me $685,000,000.00 USD and I'll give the last game you'll ever desire and/or a health care system that's works every 3rd Thursday of the month! ;D

[Windigo]

Buyer beware.

beware-ing what?

[Grim.Reaper]

I have no issue whatsoever as long as sold with an early access/beta warning....if it is known that sometimes they are not fully playable or will never get complete that is a risk the buyer can assume if they want.  Simple answer is don't buy Into any of them if your not comfortable with it and wait to official release.

There are also titles being officially released that are full of bugs or barely playable and I would worry more about those.

[ComradeP]

I see the limited installs for games as a much bigger problem than the availability of alpha/beta releases, provided those are accurately described as such on their store page.

All kinds of unfinished, broken releases made it to the stores when internet access was still slow and not very common. Today, you can at least check various forums before buying a game. Sure, there might be all kind of angry teenagers in many of them, but their lack of nuance does give you a clear idea of whether the game is worth something. "Th!s game is br0ken!" is a more direct and less literate way to say that the game includes some (serious) bugs. "Some features are not fully developed" would be the euphemistic way to put it, but it's also less honest.

There are truckloads of indie games and various early releases, and I haven't bought any of those titles through Steam recently.

Paying to be beta testers is in my opinion not an excellent business practice, but I'd say you're not literally ripping anyone off as long as you make it clear they're paying for a beta with no guarantee of the project ever being released in good shape.

[Huw the Poo]

Paying to be beta testers is in my opinion not an excellent business practice, but I'd say you're not literally ripping anyone off as long as you make it clear they're paying for a beta with no guarantee of the project ever being released in good shape.

Agreed.  I think the current trend of charging for beta access is insane.  If it's a proper beta the developer should be paying the testers, not charging them!

That said, SgtRock does kind of have a point.  There have been a few controversies on Steam this year, leading to two or three titles (that I know of) being pulled due to their broken state, and I can't say I'm 100% comfortable with that.  I never buy a game without checking the forums any more.  That never used to happen.  I wish the early access games were segregated in a completely different part of the store, just like Greenlight titles.

[ComradeP]

Well, Greenlight seems to be mostly based on what the people want, so if enough people want rubbish, it will be released. It's democracy in motion: sometimes elections have really bad results, most of the time they're about average and in some cases they are good. The people running Steam can't play every game, and I'm willing to bet they are influenced significantly by what might make money or what at the least can be offered for a low price (still with a decent margin for Steam). Before Unity of Command arrived on Steam, the team leader had to jump through a lot of hoops. Some obscure indie game will be released almost immediately after the application is received.

To me, 2-3 games being sold through Steam even though they were really buggy is a drop in a pond compared to how many games there are on Steam. As long as I'm not forced in some way to buy those games, I can accept that it will happen. It's inevitable in a way. Something like the Colonial Marines fiasco bothers me a lot more than an obscure indie game not being worth the money. However, some of the early access games (or their equally popular variant for more well-known titles: "pre-purchase to take part in the beta") cost quite a bit. That's also a recent trend: some indie developers must be making some pretty serious money with their small team/low development cost games, riding the retro wave where graphics are seen as being less important for some titles.

It would be a different story if Steam would be like a TV channel where you'd get an X amount of content for a certain monthly fee, and if a big chunk of that content would be rubbish. Steam isn't forcing me to buy any of the Greenlit or early access games that might never even make it to beta stage, and it makes it perfectly clear if I'm buying for a full game or a part of it in the shape of an alpha/beta release.

[Nefaro]

Well, Greenlight seems to be mostly based on what the people want, so if enough people want rubbish, it will be released.

Hence the glut of shitty 'indie' platformer games coming out lately. 

There seems to be one released every other day.  ::)

Where the hell did all these 8-bit platformer addicts come from? 

[undercovergeek]

the one thing i think a lot of early access purchasers need to learn is early access doesnt mean 'get game early'

i think an awful lot of people get in thinking they can play the full/nearly completed game without any issues and go to the forum to complain when it doesnt work - its not supposed to work, youre testing it

[MengJiao]

Paying to be beta testers is in my opinion not an excellent business practice, but I'd say you're not literally ripping anyone off as long as you make it clear they're paying for a beta with no guarantee of the project ever being released in good shape.

Agreed.  I think the current trend of charging for beta access is insane. 

  I don't think there is much of a problem on Steam.  Having all kinds of games available (even if most of them are crappy for one reason or another) is a good thing.

  So far I've been very satisfied with my alpha-level game purchases:  I got ARMAIII for very cheap and it might have been more fun as an Alpha on the little Island anyway -- I got Sir, You are being Hunted -- a very well-built alpha and I got Take on Mars -- which is a really weird game whether it is in Alpha or not.

[bayonetbrant]

I will say that from a purely commercial standpoint it's hard to argue with the notion that people will give you money for an incomplete product, and perhaps even brag about how much more incomplete theirs was than yours when they got it, just so they can be "first!"

[SgtRock]

Want to pay full price for an unfinished game? Check out this video about Dark Matter:

GamersGate, GOG.com, and Steam (and probably many other digital distributors) offered Dark Matter for sale, although Steam has apparently taken down its buy link.

It was not stated in the game's description that it was an unfinished game, and that sounds like false advertising to me. Buyer beware it might be, but I think it's very unscrupulous for a developer to try to pass off an unfinished product as a finished one. Perhaps we need more releases like this and Sword of the Stars II to get enough gamers riled up to put an end to such foolishness.

GOG steps upto the plate! - offers Dark Matter Refunds

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/release_dark_matter/post121

If you bought Dark Matter before 21 October 2013 at 15:00 GMT (when we updated the description to where we feel it adequately reflects the game) and you feel that the game wasn't as promised to you, please contact Support and they'll be happy to offer you full refund to your card or, if you''d prefer, games of equal or lesser value to the sale price of Dark Matter (which is $13.49).
   
I'd like to see Steam do the same for players who bought early releases that won't even work on their system!

[sandman2575]

As someone who Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Steam, even I scratch my head a bit at some of the Alpha releases.  I don't think they're a 'rip off,' but it does seem a little ill considered to me.  I've come around on Beta offerings:  if you're interested enough in a game to pay for the Beta, why not give customers the opportunity to do that?  Anyone who's thinking clearly should know the risks that come with a Beta, and if you're buying a Beta and expecting it to be 'mostly' flawless, you're deluding yourself. 

But the case for releasing Alphas seems a little more tenuous to me -- it does seem a bit like a money-grab.  But when push comes to shove, hey, if you want to buy the Alpha, that's your call.  As a business model, it must have some pay off -- didn't Steam release Planetary Annihlation as an Alpha at the $90 price point?  That almost seemed like a sociological experiment:  let's see if there's a customer population who will pay *this* much even at *this* early a stage in game development?  I guess it worked.

[Father Ted]

I will say that from a purely commercial standpoint it's hard to argue with the notion that people will give you money for an incomplete product, and perhaps even brag about how much more incomplete theirs was than yours when they got it, just so they can be "first!"

This.

I guess it also evens out the cash flow of game development.  The downside could be that enough vocal, non-understanding buyers shouting about a buggy, incomplete game could generate a dangerous amount of bad publicity when you get to full release time.