Can you see why he is saying this?

I have not seen any confirmation that you get a physical upgrade to the game. In my opinion this would be very unlikely since in oder for this practice Uber would have to pay double in regards to shipping and storing costs.

It would also mean that they have to produce and reserve the same amount of sales during early access up until launch again in order to guarantee that everyone is getting the upgrade when it is needed / wanted.

If all this was the case Uber would probably lose money selling Early Access boxes.

I dont know the target audience for the boxed early access copies, but it is fair to assume that a considerable part of those buying boxed games do so because they have limited access to the internet.

Sure people will also buy the game in a boxed version because they cant purchase it through an otherwise trusted service, but that does not mean that they all are informed customers.

When shopping on the internet you have the tools to research the product you are buying literally right in front of you. This means that in my opinion if you buy something on the internet you are at fault if you did not inform yourself.

When shopping in a store you can ask someone or try to get the information you want through your smartphone or something else, wich is a pretty timeconsuming act. This means that if you buy in a store the product has to inform you. So the product is to blame if you did not get access to all the informations you needed to make an informed purchase.

All I have seen up until now is the early access label, wich can be misinterpreted easily in my opinion. It could help to see the back of the box to see if there is some more information as to what early access actually is and what I as an consumer can expect from the product.

The reason I agree with TB on this one is that this is a really bad precedent if nothing else.

How long before the likes of EA, etc decide it's worth doing the same thing if this plays out well? Next thing you know GAME et al is just a storefront for half baked kickstarter projects.

That may be a tad drastic, but not impossible.

In reality it's an unfinished game, people who are the type to buy only in store are nowhere near the same sort of people who fund kickstarters, buy early access, that sort of thing. This incident may go down fine, but it's a really shady move by Uberent. Seems like a huge money grubbing operation and just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Finish the game before releasing a physical copy you cheeky buggers.

*sighs* No one gets the context of this situation. Do you know why they released an early access edition?

They had a deal with Nordic games, the publishers for the game. They gave them a date to which they thought the game would be finished, and they just didn't make it. If they didn't release a game to be sold then they'd risk losing Nordic and the deal altogether, and so they released it. They didn't want to devalue their deal.

I'm ok with this.

I understand that we don't want to encourage bad behavior from other game devs/publishers, but just because something would be bad in someone else's hands doesn't mean it shouldn't be done or at least tried.

This increases visibility to the crowd who does not constantly surf the internet or hasn't jumped on the Steam wagon. For the younger generations, parents need a way of purchasing this game for them. This allows them to tell family and friends, "Hey I'd like Planetary Annihilation for my Birthday/Christmas/Holiday/Gift."

I don't like preorder exclusives though, but sadly that seems to be a common thing. The ingame microtransactions are 100% fine so long as they are visual content only, in a game like this at least.

EDIT:

Also, this. This is a great way to salvage the deal and introduce something new into the gaming world for better or worse.

That's even more reason not to release it in store! If Uber can't make business-critical deadlines they can't really be trusted to ever fulfill the "Free upgrade to full game" promise for the lowly consumer. That pushes the whole thing closer to the line between early access and false advertising

Erm.. the "Free upgrade to full game" is completely set in stone, again- why? Because you have all the information on the disk, but then you need to connect to the internet (At the moment, until release) to download the patches, this means your code is now in the system. You buy the full game basically, you just preordered it and got it early as well if you think about it. Updates are free as well, and always will be.

What I mean is when you connect to Uberent by making an account, if you can play now, you can play forever. It is the exact same package as the online version, only with a box, and a custom commander, and early access, if anything you get more bang for your buck. (as you get more than the person who bought it online)

You must be new to this whole computer games thing.
Games and software in general gets delayed all the time. Everywhere. Even in the most elite software companies with the most experienced developers on the planet. And delay is a very good thing in this case, as they are still working on improving the game rather than throwing something half-baked to the marked like Electronic Arts do all the time.

This right here!

I don't really get your issue with the exact definition of necessity. No matter how you define it, buying computer games usually is not necessary at all and the risk involved in doing so is maybe 40$ and a few hours of playtime.
I am not trying to define a general rule about what kinda of goods should have rules on them about information that has to be presented to the buyer before buying, I am just talking about the "video game 40$ case"
Why is it so hard to see the difference between buying a game and buying food or shares?

The whole point isn't about the definition of necessity really. "Food" just has a completely different status in life than "video games". Shares also are a quite different thing, cause they CAN involve a lot more than 40$ and I'd wager they usually do. Shares also promise you that you get money back, hopefully even more than you put in, while buying a game simply means that you'll lose the 40$.

Yes society tries to protect people from malicious companies, but trying to protect people from wasting 40$ on some computer games is horribly overprotective imho. Shares and food just do not compare at all to that.

Technically, Uber could have done what most development studios do and adhered to the date they had given Nordic, slapped a 'released' sticker on the product we have in front of us now and called it a day. In fact had they done so, they probably wouldn't have had any of this frankly ridiculous backlash they now face.

Instead, they chose to stick to their guns and maintained that 'no, we want the game to be better before we call it released'. The positives from this decision:

• They have maintained their positive relationship with Nordic
• They have made the game accessible earlier to a wider market of people, including those who are unwilling or unable to put credit/debit card details online. Also, think things like birthday presents
• They have clearly labelled the box with a big shiny yellow sticker saying 'early access', and mentioned on it that the game is not released so those buying it are aware of what they're buying.
• "There is no such thing as bad publicity" - that TotalBiscuit gave his own opinion on the practice is less material than the fact that his Twitter followers and thousands of subscribers to /r/gaming and various tech sites have just had Planetary Annihilation slapped on their screens. They'll form their own opinions on business practice but ultimately they're all gamers and this may inspire more to pick up a copy of PA.

There is nothing unethical about selling a product like this that is clearly labelled and where every effort has been made to inform consumers exactly what they are buying. The exclusive commander debate is a separate discussion.

I'll be interested to see if TB does decide to elaborate further on this and whether his reaction was based on something more than the anti-early-access circlejerk that seems to be the vogue on gaming websites and forums these days.

It's a fair point, that was a bit over dramatic.

In the case of a delayed release you're still getting a full release, it's marketed as the full release. If it's not a full release and there are major bugs that make the game unplayable you have rights and protections in place to get your money back (at least in the UK)

In this case it is being sold as early access, if it all goes pear shaped you're out £40. Early Access means nothing to grandma who's buying this as a gift, the parent who's been pestered into buying this for a kid, or whoever else only purchases from brick and mortar storefronts these days

True. It is risky to kids who pester their parent to get it from the store, which is a viable target audience. However, the game has come past "scam" size and is realistically looking like a functional product. I can argue any negative this game currently has, as a result of it's current running system. In a local singleplayer setting, this game probably runs better than credit is given, and in most RTS games the units are about as they are now, you have overpowered overused rocketeer spam or something like RA2.

Actually Aevs told you everything that is wrong with your point of view, but well I just add this:

Let us imagine we are in your world: Why shouldn't I found a company that sells empty boxes in stores? I get a postal code in a country that doesn't require my information and the money goes to some tax haven. No one will track me down. And if word spreads out that this company lies to people, I will have my money and be gone. Or I just found a new company and do it again. Let the market decide if this is the right thing, right? If the customers don't want this to happen, well what do they do? Nothing. Such scams (not with empty boxes but with false promises) already exist and are hard to track down. Your system makes them a valid strategy and even legal.

There I see TBs fear (and I fully agree on his videos about pre-ordering and early access; I bought PA because I knew the risk and I wanted to support some of the guys, who gave me TA in the past). If some company starts, even if they don't rip off their customers, they open a field for others to do it. They expose a weak spot in the regulation and people with bad intentions may come in and rip off people until this kind of advertisement is forbidden. Now you will say again that people can inform themselves.

So let us come back to the car. If you are not a car engineer or work for a car manufacturer or have some other involvement with cars, you don't know how everything in the car works. How can you find out that the car is any good? Maybe the airbags don't work? Well you will know that when you crash but then it is too late. Because in your free market there is no need to test a product, it will fail on the market if it isn't as advertised, right? Point is: There are so many, so complex products out there, you can't possibly inform yourself about every detail of everything you buy.

You show it. You say aluminium cars (light built cars) are not safe. As a matter of fact, the huge majority of car frames are still made of steel (I did not find one mass produced car with an aluminium frame). If a producer uses aluminium (like Ford will do with a new model) or less steel to save weight, the car will still be safe, because there is crash tests and specifications the product has to meet before you can sell it. An unsafe car won't enter the market. And if it enters and fails, like the case with GM and their ignition switch, the company is liable and has to pay for the failure and explain how it happened and how they will prevent it in the future. Laws ensure that your product is safe, not the market. The free market did not make coal plants and steel mills use - very expensive - filtering (which had positive effects on the matter of forest dieback through acid rain; just ask someone who lived near a steel mill in 1960 and who lives there now), it was regulation. The ozone hole is decreasing. Why? Because companies decided to get rid of chlorofluorocarbon? No because it was forbidden after scientists pointed out the hazards and then the companies had to use more expensive chemicals. There are so many examples where your system doesn't work, I wonder how you can still say it is the solution to everything. By the way, the crumpling up of modern cars saves your life, because it converts crash energy into deformation energy, reducing the energy that will affect you. If you don't believe me, run against a wall and then run against a mattress that stands on a wall.

------

Back to PA:
The PA sale on Amazon in my country has a button to choose the Early Access edition. It then says in the description that you need to activate the game and that you need a free account on a website to do so. Then there is a link to: http://uberent.com. In the end it says that updates are done through the internet, so you need a connection. However, the website mentioned is in English and it doesn't say that I need internet connection to play the game now. I can see how people will be disappointed or angry if they buy the game and find out about this.

By the way, I continued a private discussion with him about climate change after my posts (since it got pretty off topic), and mered doesn't believe humans had any effect on the hole in the ozone layer either. So he probably won't take this point seriously.

It's nothing against this specific game, in fact PA is one of if not the best example of an early access game working out well. The issue comes in when other companies see this business model working and decide to get on the bandwagon. Look at DRM, in-app purchases and DLC for examples. All things that are arguably pretty bad for the people playing the game but things that are now accepted as the norm

If this sort of thing works out and never gets challenged the more shady game studios would jump at the chance of blocking refunds for shoddy games. I imagine the latest Sim City for example would have had a higher income had they slapped an early access sticker on it, because you can't get a refund when it turns out to be rubbish - they could just say "we'll get round to it, it's early access. No refund." long enough that you're out of the refund window and then they just drop it, rinse and repeat

That's literally like saying 'Putting a Caveat emptor sticker on it is making every effort to give customers full information and perfectly ethical'.

Early Access does not say anything about the nature of a product. And i doubt there is a warning like 'this game isn't even close to being finished, might never be finished, but will develope into a direction you can't control'. You know, something honest, which would scare off a lot of potential buyers.

One that should not be overlooked. The " exclusivity ", apart from being not labeled as temporary anywhere on the box and also has no official recognition apart from on the forums, is being used as a pretty blatant draw for people to buy into an unfinished product.

Now maybe you'll argue that offering KS backers an exclusive Commander is the same deal, but it's not. A retail box that sits on a shelf is not the same as funding an idea that a developer wants to make, but can't secure funding from a publisher.

Buyer beware applies to everything you buy, ever. Consumers have some legal rights in first world countries to protect them from deliberate malice and malpractice, but by far the best way to protect yourself from shoddy products is not to buy them.

This is going beyond that and informing consumers that the thing they are buying is incomplete. They could have just hidden the 'early access' label in the corner of the box to try and trick people into buying it (mwahaha) but Uber opted to make it the most prominent thing on the whole box. That is far above caveat emptor.

Also, there is no need for Uber to warn people that the game might never be finished, because it will be. If they weren't so picky about quality, they could call what we have now 'finished'. They have chosen to polish the game more before release, and more power to them for doing so.

Oh of course it shouldn't be overlooked, but it shouldn't be discussed in the same vein as whether an early access boxed edition is a good idea or not. That discussion could apply to any edition of the game, released or not.

However, it is directly linked to this physical release... it is inextricably tied together. Separating the issues only diminishes both, when the whole is more than just the sum of its parts.