Stardock following Uber's example?

I disagree. Early Access at a higher price is simply paying more for the ability to watch a game improve through development and help provide feedback to the dev. That higher price serves a few important purposes:

1. Keeps the testers group small enough that the devs don't get as overloaded with suggestions.
2. Makes sure that those who are testers actually care about the game.
3. Feeds some extra funds to the devs to help improve the game even more.

If you don't like it then you can just pre-order at the release price and skip all that, but for those who love a game and want to be involved in it's development such an Early Access option is great. (Plus it gets more money to the devs so you end up with a better game on release.)

So to protect themself from a horde of early buying idiots they overcharge their most faithfull Fans ?
This is disgusting.

And it's exactly what i said : the fans are paying a compagny to do work for it.

Infamy ! Burn it to the ground !

No, you're missing the point. Fans aren't being overcharged, they're happy with that price because they're fans and want to help improve the game.

Sadly i am not.
It's just using the love of the Fans for the compagny own interest.
Of course Fans will be happy, they are Fans

Name one company that doesn't do that.

Big compagnies do that greatly, but in a different way. They use fans to promote the games for them (invite them to their offices, send gifts, promotionnal copies)(and pay their beta testers)(and translators)

Nothing close to this business model.

I would like that small compagnies does not fall into the easy money grabbing. They are supposed to be close to their Fans, to live with their support. Reward them for their love, do not press them like lemons.

Fans give their love in the form of money. Gives return the love with development and community interaction.

One thing to keep in mind about pricing, betas/alphas, and development.

EA, Activision and companies like that do not have a single game in development. On average, they have dozens, if not more, games in development, 1st and 3rd party, at any given moment. Their entire setup is built a different way, they take gambles on lots of different games, usually with a staple of games they know will sell (CoD, Madden, Gears, take your pick) to help guarantee ongoing revenue with which to make new games.

Independent development, whether it's 2 people working out of their apartment, or 30 or so veteran game developers making a hugely ambitious RTS game, do not have the revenue from dozens of games coming in throughout the year to fund their next project development.

People willing to support a project with more than the amount they would normally pay for a specific type of game is in a very real way helping to get games made that otherwise would never happen.

If you look at PA, the last title to get made of even close to this size and scale was 2007, when Sup Com, and then Forged Alliance, were released. And that was after one false start under EA, and then ultimately a successful launch under THQ. Seven years since the last genre title was released. That's a LONG time for what appears to be a popular sub-genre.

We are approaching things differently, partially because of how we structured our Kickstarter, but also in my opinion (and it's just my opinion, not necessarily the full "why), for full, veteran teams to make big new games without relying on huge amounts of publisher money, some new models of funding have to become viable. Including changing some expectations on what happens during an alpha or beta.

Otherwise, my fear is that you'll see lots of small, innovative games coming out from the teams who can manage that, but you'll see very few large scale games that are really trying to push the envelope on technology, scope and vision come out. Because none of the big guys are funding that sort of thing currently, and the small guys are small which limits the scope of the project they can take on.

Yes, exactly.

EA has the money to build an operating system, but aren't making new stuff because they are too busy collecting money from old stuff. Why invent a single thing, when you can redevelop textures for a working engine for a game that is guranteed to sell 2m off the starting line.

PA got the money to do some really cool things, like chronocam. Yet, most small developers have to make things with servere limitations because of resources. Even PA didn't get EA budget either, or from what I understand even a budget equivalent to any decent publisher, which is why it is best to consider the "cost of development" for an "idea" if you have one, compared to other ideas or ways to do things. If you get one such thing, it might cost the time or resources for another game feature of some type.

I perfectly understand the situation.
Budget limitation, funding...
And i am a Fan also, i believe in this project, that's why i backed it with a generous amout (i never put that much money to ANY game in my entire life, and i played/bought far more than a few hundred of them until now...)(wow, that's kind of scary when you think about it...).

The only thing i do not like is this Early Access business model : pay more at start, less at the end.
Altrough it allows Uber to get funds (and i'm sure you need them badly, i even bought 2 additional keys after the kickstarter to help a little bit more...), i find it screw the end-user who want to help.
Pay more earlier to help : unfinished product. You don't even get a bonus...
Pay less later : finished product.
Find it higly uncoherent.

The earlier you hop on the train the more influence you have on it's final trajectory.

Also, people who hop on early can play early.


The thing is that from a marketing perspective, it's the ideal division. only 10 people may want to give 10K, only 100 people may want to give 1K, only 10000 people will want to pay $100. By using this model, you efficiently "mine" the money from the target audience. People who want to pay more get to pay more.

But that's the second beauty of it: freedom of spending. people who want to spend $ 30 bucks can wait for a sale and get it. people who really want to see it made can spend $250 dollars. I paid for Beta because i felt $90 was too much for a probably very buggy alpha. Never was i ever forced to spend money.

You just reminded me EA's pet is making the new Star Wars Battlefront.
ohgodohgodohgodohgodohgodohgod WHAT IF THEY SCREW IT UP!? AAAAAHHHH *PANIC*.

Exactly this.

I never understood all of this rage about the pricing. Noone is forced to buy the game.

If someone wants to pay a "normal" price for the game, they can simply buy the game when they would buy any other game: On the day of its release.

People simply got the option to play it earlier..nothing forces them, to use it.

Personally, I have been following PA since the first day of its Kickstarter Campaign, but back then backing a Kickstarter project was a bit of a hassle for me (I don't own a credit card) and I wanted to see whether this actually takes off.
So i waited till I saw that PA was actually coming along nicely and then I waited some more because being a student, I can't justify spending a lot of money on computer games.

When the price seemed right, I bought it and I have been waiting for patches happily ever since

Oh..and sometimes I played, too !