devtrackers.gg
Discussion Topic - 2022/6 - Approaches to Game Launch and Beyond
The way in which games are developed and released has changed a lot over the years. Several distinct approaches to launching and supporting a game with post-release content have emerged over time. We’d like to discuss some of the more common models and get your perspective on them as a player.
The “Old-School” box model
Launching a game with a single primary content release is about as close to the old standard of physical boxes lining store shelves as it gets. Remember those? Some of us miss those boxes and the goodies inside, like art books, mouse pads, and cloth maps. Having a physical connection to the game feels great, and it’s easier to display a box on your bookshelf than a digital game key.
The main advantage of this approach, whether it’s physical or digital, is that a lot of content is released right away. From a player perspective this usually feels great, like binge-watching an entire season of a television show.
The drawback is the time and costs of developing the entirety of a game upfront–not accounting for any post-launch content plans. You also typically have longer gaps between future updates, with those usually coming in the form of expansion packs, DLC, and Season Passes.
The Game-as-a-Service approach
The game-as-a-service model, which you’ve seen in games like League of Legends, is a common choice for modern game development. This typically means an initially smaller scope of content at launch, with more content released at regular intervals afterwards. The advantage of this approach is that additional content releases can be continually improved and adapted to player feedback. Regular updates also keep things fresh, giving old players a reason to keep coming back and new players a reason to get started. With service-style releases, the smaller launch scope can enable a tighter focus for the development team, increasing the quality of the team’s work. These factors have the added benefit of making a free-to-play model possible.
Early Access
In either scenario, giving players early access to a game is an option many developers choose to pursue for different reasons. Some players love the idea of early access and being able to help shape a game’s future by providing meaningful feedback to its developers. Others strongly dislike playing an unfinished game.
By allowing access to a game early, developers are able to test and polish features still in development–incorporating feedback and data gathered from the players. This exposure to real players early on makes features stronger before a wider release. Early access also helps increase a game’s visibility and provides a glimpse of its overall direction to those who participate.
On the other hand, some early access games feel partially-finished, despite being sold at full price, which never feels good and damages the game’s reputation. Distinguishing between early access and a game’s actual “launch” has also become difficult, with some games remaining in a perpetual state of early access or beta for years.
So what is Frost Giant thinking?
Our approach to launch and future content updates must support our goals–first and foremost being to create the next great real-time strategy game. We also think part of making a great game means making sure the development team can enjoy a healthy work-life balance. The choices we make now must sustain ongoing development in a way that allows our game, team, and community to thrive for years to come.
Back when some of us were working on StarCraft II, we transitioned the game from a box model to a free-to-play game-as-a-service model. This had a strong net-positive impact on the health of the game and our player base–not only did new players join the game as a result, but many of them stuck around. We’re considering a similar approach with our upcoming game, which would include a defined early access period to help us polish features and set expectations before our “version 1.0” is completed. We’d then aim to release a consistent drumbeat of new story and gameplay updates to keep players excited and the game fresh. We think this could be the best approach for our game, team, and community, but we’re eager to get your feedback.
We want to hear from you
From the beginning, we’ve been invested in open communication with the community, and we think early access is a functional extension of that same decision. We believe our players will provide us the best-possible feedback so that we can refine the early versions of the game. We are aware of the pitfalls highlighted above, and we’re paying close attention to other early access games to learn what they’ve done right and where they could have done better. With that said, we’d love to hear your thoughts and hope the below questions help guide your feedback.
- How do you personally feel about the box model vs. service-style releases? What parts of these approaches feel good, and what parts miss the mark?
- What sorts of content updates do you enjoy in games that follow the service model? How frequently are updates exciting to you as a player, and at what point do they become overwhelming?
- Do you enjoy playing early access games, or do you prefer to wait until the game is officially launched? Why?
As always, we appreciate you joining us on this journey.
-The Frost Giant Team
Previous Discussion Topics:
Previous Responses:
- Our Thoughts on Heroes
- Our Thoughts on Asymmetry
- Our Thoughts on Onboarding
- Our Thoughts on Teams
- Our Thoughts on Win Conditions
- Our Thoughts on Social Features
- Our Thoughts on Competitive Map Design
- Our Thoughts on Esports
- Our Thoughts on UGC