What do you think about paying more to play games earlier before release?

[Marc]

I recently learned that Persona 5 Strikers Deluxe Edition lets you play the game earlier than its initial release in North America. Now, you're getting more than just the ability to play the game early, but it had me thinking..

What do you think about the idea of paying to play games a little earlier before their release dates?

I guess Steam has Early Access but this isn't something that's usually common with Nintendo.

In this case, I'm looking at full games that the developers and publishers would call a "stable game release". What do you think about this and would you pay to play a game earlier than its initial release date? Or would you rather pay a bit more and get additional goodies, including early play?

 

[phofufury]

So, I somewhat did this with Rogue Company and Vigor. I got an early access code to Rogue Company from a friend, but it was only early access. Since I ddnt pay, i ddnt get the founder's pack. But with Vigor, I paid the full $20 and got the founder's pack and enough money for a few of their battle passes. This was actually a good deal imo, got to play it early on Switch and some goodies. However, it was in beta mode, so I guess it isn't considered as "stable game release". Imo, paying to play a game earlier than everyone else may be fine, if it comes with exclusives. Otherwise, you're just paying for bragging rights that you played it early. I wouldn't pay to play a game just to play it early, I'd pay for early access for extra rewards, like in game items or even irl rewards.

 

[Deepak]

Well early access isnt worth it unless it has extra goodies. I can just wait for a couple more days and not pay extra. Sephiroth for smash sort of had an early access where you could unlock him before the official release date if you finish the challenge. Thats perfectly ok. It just got people more hyped tbh.

Some free games have early access too. Those are definitely a no from me. If its gonna be free anyway, i’ll wait. I dont care if i have to wait a month or more.

 

[phofufury]

Some free games have early access too. Those are definitely a no from me. If its gonna be free anyway, i’ll wait. I dont care if i have to wait a month or more.

if it's free-to-play, i won't mind paying for early access, IF it comes with exclusives, otherwise, yeah it's a no for me to. Most of them however come with exclusives, like Vigor. It came with the Founder's Pack, and enough money for 3 of their battle passes. That was epic imo, although i totally ddnt finish the battle passes and it ended up being a waste....

 

[Deepak]

if it's free-to-play, i won't mind paying for early access, IF it comes with exclusives, otherwise, yeah it's a no for me to. Most of them however come with exclusives, like Vigor. It came with the Founder's Pack, and enough money for 3 of their battle passes. That was epic imo, although i totally ddnt finish the battle passes and it ended up being a waste....

I dont like paying for free games cuz there’s always the possibility of me not liking the game. And once it becomes free to play, I would regret my decision a lot.

 

[phofufury]

I dont like paying for free games cuz there’s always the possibility of me not liking the game. And once it becomes free to play, I would regret my decision a lot.

I do agree with that. Luckily, I had Vigor on the Xbox, and loved it. So I ended up paying for early access on the Switch. Other games like Spellbreak, I was kinda hyped for. After it was free to play, I ddnt quite like it much.

 

[Artisan]

I don't mind the option but if that's the case there should be an equal or greater opposite decrease in price by waiting longer to play a game. Sales do exist but not every game gets the same treatment. It would be funny though if a game got that treatment of early access and higher price but at the same time it was buggy or flawed because that is becoming more apparent now. Then again it's classist to even think of doing that.

 

[Duffy]

Ugh I hate this idea/feature. Let the game release at some time and don't try to squeeze people for more to play it early.

Some people use a pun of "free-to-play" games for a new genre, called "fee-to-pay," usually games that already have a full price tag, that also try to squeeze more out of the player, usually through microtransactions, or through the famous multi tiered collector's editions. This feels like another "fee-to-pay."

If the game is ready to be played early, release it early.

 

[Gram]

I don’t agree with it in any way. It’s an impatience tax designed to prey on a certain type of person. Especially when it’s a difference of only a few days. In the case of early access, it’s like paying the developer to be a beta tester. You’re paying for an incomplete game, but that’s a different topic.

The other issue has to do with spoilers. When media outlets are given codes to play a game early, they are often forbidden to talk about the game in-depth until after release. There is no such restriction on the masses when they’re given games early. So social media is a wasteland for several days because some people paid extra to seemingly be able to be the first to spoil key plot points or the ending. The experience of others shouldn’t be affected because someone couldn’t wait a few days.