Funny, we were just talking about the wisdom of pushing back dates...
scifiwriterguy
Sector ZZ-9-Plural Z-α Join Date: 2017-02-14 Member: 227901Members
Sector ZZ-9-Plural Z-α Join Date: 2017-02-14 Member: 227901Members
This is almost like when, in a movie, the TV or radio starts talking about something directly relevant to the story. (You're tuned to K-PLOT!) With the recent pushback of the release date and subsequent re-addition of some tasks that were looking to be relegated to post-1.0, we had a pretty interesting discussion on the value of doing so. Then ExtraCredits releases this.
It's a fascinating watch, and one which I'd recommend to everybody so that you understand purchasing mechanics better (particularly how your own brain can be duped by shrewd tactics), but the short version goes like this:
I'm sure we all at least know a couple folks who don't do early access. It's not done; I don't want to be their playtester; I don't want to pay for bugs...yadda yadda that reasons go on and on and, for most of us who have gone with EA titles, are pretty poorly informed. So they wait for the Official Release. When the "early access" tabs come off the reviews and they can see "honest" reviews of the game as it stands when released.
In Early Access, there's (generally) a lot of forgiveness for broken stuff, missing stuff, and general weirdness that comes from being in an unfinished world. Once you go 1.0, though, the EA shields are down and you're open to taking hits. Release a game that's not finished, polished, and bug-fixed, and the reviews will show it - but without the magical talisman of "early access." Initial reviews sag, the game's sales suffer, the developers end up living in refrigerator boxes because they couldn't recoup their production costs. Okay, maybe not the last one, but it's still not pretty.
Those first reviews post-1.0 release are critical. They set the tone or, as EC put it, create the anchoring effect. Which means that first impressions are as important here as pretty much everywhere else. And if a game is released that isn't ready for prime time yet, then that anchor is going to feel pretty literal.
UWE is doing it right. Get the game into a state where those initial post-1.0 reviews are going to be favorable. Favorable reviews means greater likelihood that more people will pick up the game. Yeah, most of us that've been with Subnautica for a long time will probably repost good reviews, but once the EA label is torn off, all the Never-EA people will be in the market and, frankly, they outnumber us. So the game has to be good to get those reviews. By pushing the date back, UWE is taking a proactive step (several, actually) in making sure that initial anchoring point is strong.
(As to the last point, UWE did another smart thing: they priced Subnautica wisely. It's a good pricepoint, particularly given the scope and quality of the game, but it also allows enough wiggle room to run a sale every now and again, which helps bring in the folks who are on the fence. Other titles, such as Production Line, screwed up by setting a price and repeatedly (and somewhat rudely) saying there will never be a sale. As a result, people on the fence - like me - have it on a wishlist but aren't very likely to bite.)
Bottom line: UWE's decision is rooted in good business and sales principles, meaning there's a solid business case for delaying the launch. In the end, it should produce a benefit for sales and reception.
TL;DR - C5H5N5 matches C5H6N2O2 and C4H5N3O matches C5H5N5O - no substitutions, exchanges, or refunds.
It's a fascinating watch, and one which I'd recommend to everybody so that you understand purchasing mechanics better (particularly how your own brain can be duped by shrewd tactics), but the short version goes like this:
- If we're told something's good, we're more likely to think it's good ourselves; if we're told it's not good, we're more likely to agree with that. (The "anchoring effect.")
- Early reviews are critical as they set the tone.
- Developer/reviewer relationships are key at producing this anchoring effect.
- Pricing games are not fun, but are commonplace.
I'm sure we all at least know a couple folks who don't do early access. It's not done; I don't want to be their playtester; I don't want to pay for bugs...yadda yadda that reasons go on and on and, for most of us who have gone with EA titles, are pretty poorly informed. So they wait for the Official Release. When the "early access" tabs come off the reviews and they can see "honest" reviews of the game as it stands when released.
In Early Access, there's (generally) a lot of forgiveness for broken stuff, missing stuff, and general weirdness that comes from being in an unfinished world. Once you go 1.0, though, the EA shields are down and you're open to taking hits. Release a game that's not finished, polished, and bug-fixed, and the reviews will show it - but without the magical talisman of "early access." Initial reviews sag, the game's sales suffer, the developers end up living in refrigerator boxes because they couldn't recoup their production costs. Okay, maybe not the last one, but it's still not pretty.
Those first reviews post-1.0 release are critical. They set the tone or, as EC put it, create the anchoring effect. Which means that first impressions are as important here as pretty much everywhere else. And if a game is released that isn't ready for prime time yet, then that anchor is going to feel pretty literal.
UWE is doing it right. Get the game into a state where those initial post-1.0 reviews are going to be favorable. Favorable reviews means greater likelihood that more people will pick up the game. Yeah, most of us that've been with Subnautica for a long time will probably repost good reviews, but once the EA label is torn off, all the Never-EA people will be in the market and, frankly, they outnumber us. So the game has to be good to get those reviews. By pushing the date back, UWE is taking a proactive step (several, actually) in making sure that initial anchoring point is strong.
(As to the last point, UWE did another smart thing: they priced Subnautica wisely. It's a good pricepoint, particularly given the scope and quality of the game, but it also allows enough wiggle room to run a sale every now and again, which helps bring in the folks who are on the fence. Other titles, such as Production Line, screwed up by setting a price and repeatedly (and somewhat rudely) saying there will never be a sale. As a result, people on the fence - like me - have it on a wishlist but aren't very likely to bite.)
Bottom line: UWE's decision is rooted in good business and sales principles, meaning there's a solid business case for delaying the launch. In the end, it should produce a benefit for sales and reception.
TL;DR - C5H5N5 matches C5H6N2O2 and C4H5N3O matches C5H5N5O - no substitutions, exchanges, or refunds.
Comments
How dare you make me drag my college chemistry book out from the mothballs I put it in.
@scifiwriterguy
I agree on this one. They are almost certainly focusing on reception.
Subnautica belongs to a genre which, despite growing in popularity, engages a narrower audience compared to the traditional ones.
It already has a large player base, so I don't know how many more copies they're expecting to sell.
One thing is clear. Subnautica is already on tier with NS2 (or surpassed it in sales) and upon launch will become their flagship title. Everyone will link the company name to it for years to come.
That alone justifies the highest level of polish possible.
(Same reason in the end, we will have Subnautica "anchored" as a benchmark whenever they launch another game).
10/10 buddy that's all I can say
"Because the errors take a while to find,
we might not be able ot release the final version on time
It'd be nice if we could get some feedback
from the people who are... still alive." - The devs, probably.
This is going in my sig.