I love Microsoft's Avowed, but it further cements how much I dislike the concept of paid 'Early Access' and a forced FOMO.

[Windows Central]

Avowed is one of many titles offering early access at a premium cost, and while it seems a necessary evil for the survival of Game Pass, I simply do not like it.

I love Microsoft's Avowed, but it further cements how much I dislike the concept of paid 'Early Access' and a forced FOMO. : Read more

 

[fjtorres5591]

FOMO is a self-inflicted wound.

It's all about self-control and value: STARFIELD I paid for the premium edition because I always get the DLCs for Bethesda RPGs. Not for the five days.

AVOWED was a no. The "bonuses" didn't strike my fancy and I can wait a few days. Even weeks or months, depending on the game. Waiting on VEILGUARD saved me $70.

I don't need to be the first kid on the block with the new toy.

OUTER WORLDS 2? TBD.

 

[1078mac]

Yeah I don't get the FOMO concern. I paid for the early access because I had the free time this weekend to play it and not so much going forward. I understand completely it is an unnecessary spend. I just don't have any negative feelings about something I can choose or not choose to do

 

[HeyCori]

The faux FOMO isn't for the gamers. It's for every YouTuber, influencer, or wannabe reviewer that didn't get a promo code. This is how they get their 5-day head start so they can have their review ready on launch day.

 

[darknight765]

It's an option you don't have to engage with. There is nothing evil about it. What is with people and hating options that don't affect them? This just like people hating game pass. You can still buy the game. Just like you can wait til Tuesday. Most games I don't pay for the early access cause I have a rather large backlog of games. But I was interested in this one and I'm glad there was an option to play early. And I don't mind giving some extra to support them.

Do you think early access for POE2 is a bad thing? Not a one to one but people are paying $30 to play a free game months in advance, is that evil too? Like I said at the top, its an option that doesn't negatively affect people. Especially since its a single player game. If it was an MMO you'd have more of a point cause head starts do matter there especially if there is PVP. That would negatively affect you and would make FOMO if you wanted to play that game.

I don't see the fomo here. Its a single player game lol. Yes I got the early access but not cause of fomo. Its a holiday weekend, I have time and I wanted to no life the game. It was a decision that made sense for me not because I was worried someone might play a single player game before me. You are entitled to your opinion tho but I think you are worried about the wrong things.

Dude above hit the nail on the head. What it really does is make sites like yours that do reviews irrelevant. By the time your reviews can hit I've already got the game in my hands. You don't get to influence people with your agenda. Which frankly is a good thing. Let the art speak for itself.

 

[Reid Fenton1]

FOMO is a self-inflicted wound.

It's all about self-control and value: STARFIELD I paid for the premium edition because I always get the DLCs for Bethesda RPGs. Not for the five days.

AVOWED was a no. The "bonuses" didn't strike my fancy and I can wait a few days. Even weeks or months, depending on the game. Waiting on VEILGUARD saved me $70.

I don't need to be the first kid on the block with the new toy.

OUTER WORLDS 2? TBD.

I agree completely. Starfield and Indiana Jones were easy buys for me because I knew I’d be buying the DLC and I was interested in the digital art book for both (something I’m usually not). I guessed at what the DLC was likely to cost, plus a few bucks for the art book and that equaled the price of the premium upgrade. The early access was a bonus.

Avowed, didn’t have DLC access for the premium upgrade, so that was a no go for me.

 

[Lurking_Lurker_Lurks]

I quite like the five days early access bonus and it's a nice balance for day one game pass. Early access doesn't lock any actual content behind a pay wall or the likes (I take more issue with the skins in the premium edition for Avowed than the early access). It's just a way for gamers to pay more for a temporary bonus (said benefit doesn't even last that long). I see it as no different than paying for a higher tier of Nvidia GFN for faster server access or paying for more expensive passes at Disney World to skip line queues. There's also the fact that the day one launch experience isn't diminished. Rather many games will take issues from that premium early access and apply fixes with the day one patch so everyone gets a better experience at launch. Additionally, the paid early access puts the game out in the wild ahead of its official release, so if you're on the fence about the game you don't have to rely on selective influencers who got review codes. Literally anyone among the people that upgraded to the premium edition can give their thoughts on the game, so ahead of full release the vast majority who don't pay extra for the premium edition get a much more clear and unbiased view of the game from multiple different sources.

Then there's also the more nuanced conversations surrounding games that launch in early access (like Hades 2) where everyone knowiningly pays for an unfinished product with the understanding that they will provide feedback to make said product better. Towerborne right now is a great example. You can pay money for its early access and help them build the game or you can wait for when the game is free. The situation is different as with five days early access Avowed is done development wise when you pay to play it early, but the idea of FOMO influencing early access is the same. I mean developers and publishers could make every early access game free and only charge for it when it fully launches (if it isn't also planned to be free then), but then early access is meant to help finance development. The cost of early access for any game also helps to scaffold its launch, so that everyone doesn't try playing at exactly the same (might matter for certain games especially the ones in very early early access). Then of course there are games who give early access (any length) as a reward on kickstarter for supporting development or the game.

My thoughts are that people should be able to spend more on games they wish to support more and they should be rewarded for doing so. This helps keep the finance side running smoothly and not just for publishers, but overall. A big issue with gaming and certain other industries is the standardized pricing. I'm not saying publishers should be charging whatever, but I am saying things are better when gamers can spend what they feel a game is worth. This can be less (when gamers wait for a game to go on sale) or more (when gamers buy extra editions) than retail. When it comes to "more" publishers tend to try and force it with "rewards" that feel like they should be in the base game. This can and HAS gotten really bad in the past. Though as weird as it sounds haggling, a lost art in the US at least, helps match price to value. Not everyone sees the same product as being worth the same amount but every producer wants to make as much from each customer as they can. Think stuff like beverages costing more at an amusement park in summer than in a grocery store any given time of the year. But we don't have that and instead get general price changes that try and capture what customers are willing to pay more for for XYZ additional benefit. For me I see "pay more and play this single player game five days early" as a very respectful reward to all gamers. Those that think the game is worth more than their GPU sub or $70 at launch can pay more and gain access to a perk that doesn't impede the experience of those who don't think the game is worth more. The pre order bonuses that make me angry are the ones that are like "here's an exclusive mission" as in "here's content we developed for the game which inherently includes writing that affects the game, but you can only access it if you pre-order the game before launch."

 

[DuckDodgers]

I don't like the practice, but it seems particularly icky on Microsoft first party game, where they market it as available one day one game pass, but then arbitrarily call the initial release date not day one (day minus 5?).
The day it comes out for purchase is day one, and you can't sell a service as day one releases, but 5 days after release.