Sections

Planetary Annihilation alpha access costs more than the full game

Thursday, 13th June 2013 23:58 GMT By Brenna Hillier

As promised, Planetary Annihilation has opened itself to Steam Early Access – but at what cost? Actually, I’ll just tell you what cost: $90.

According to a post on Steam, the game will drop to $60 when it goes into beta in September.

Although the idea of paying extra to help test an unfinished game may rankle, if you think about the game in a crowd-funding context it makes more sense. Backers forked out extra for the privelege of trying the game ahead of everyone else, and if developer Uber Entertainment let general punters in at no additional cost it wouldn’t be very fair to those who helped pay for the game’s development.

Additionally, buying into the alpha nets you the Galactic Edition with all add-ons, whereas the beta price will include just the standard edition.

The full game is due to launch in December.

Thanks, ThatVideoGameBlog.

Latest

10 Comments

  1. Sylrissa

    I backed at the Early bird $15 level since I just wanted the game, but looking at the KS the earliest level for alpha was 90, and it would be quite a kick in the teeth if it was cheaper to people that didn’t KS it.

    #1 1 year ago
  2. Yoshi

    Too be honest, it shouldn’t be on Steam or anything like this until it comes back down to the normal price that it’ll be at launch.
    Remove it now and make it come back in September.

    #2 1 year ago
  3. Sylrissa

    @2 It’s clearly in the early access program of steam so I don’t see the problem.

    However if it was being called a full release build then yes I’d agree with you but it’s clearly labeled an alpha.

    #3 1 year ago
  4. DSB

    I think it’s pretty stupid too.

    I don’t pledge just so I can feel like I own part of it (that’s what publishers do) and I certainly don’t back anything to keep anyone else away from it.

    The only thing this does is hurt the developers (who could be helped even further by the profits) while rejecting anyone who might take an interest in the game. I don’t see how it benefits me as a backer in any way.

    #4 1 year ago
  5. Sylrissa

    @4 I agree, but then I only backed at the early bird $15 amount for the game, so I can’t comment form the feelings of someone that payed $90+.

    However IMO I think the more gamers that pick this game up the better, so can see why the high price point is a turn off for many.

    #5 1 year ago
  6. Seyvern

    wrong.

    This game’s pricing is wrong. Kickstarter supporters are fools, and this, just like the preorder phenomenon, is bad for the game industry. This is not due to my financial situation (I do quite well) – this is purely an economic argument.

    I support games on kickstarter in order to provide developers an alternative to using a direct production method (ie. EA). However, supporting games using crowdsourcing is a risk. If I buy a game that has been developed and exists, I – presumeably, assuming I do my homework – know what I’m buying . There is little to no Risk on my part. (preorders, by definition ,circumvent this and thats why game company’s love them and why you – the gaming consumer should not encourage them – but hey, you idiots need a free TF skin right? So you buy SimCity preorder and EA makes money on a piece of ♥♥♥♥ that should never have been released, but I digress).

    Crowdsourcing, by definition, carries significant risk. I am supporting a game development that I believe MIGHT produce a good game, but there is no requirement for the company to produce anything. Because I am not INVESTING – i do not get potential profits based upon a good game, there is no potential upside to balance my risk. THe only reward I receive is the satisfaction that I might get from a good game being produced assuming the devs can pull it off.

    Consequently, the earlier a crowdsourced game is in its development, the cheaper it should be. I’m getting the game at a cheaper price by getting in early and supporting the developer when the risk is highest. The person who purchases the completed game, at the end of development, is assuming no risk and thus should pay the full market price.

    However, these evil devs have turned this situation on its head. You pay a premium to get in early, and pay the least when all is said and done. The only reason this model works is because, you the audience, are too stupid and lack patience – you are willing to pay insane prices to get a game early (Seriously, people donating upwards of $10,000 on games such as Elite or starcitizen – not as investors, just as people who get a game at the end of 2 years, MAYBE). This is a good way to turn a wealthy person into a poor person, but thats a personal choice. More importantly, this is a good way to ruin the industry AGAIN. If you want crappy games, keep going down this route – this is where this road ends. There will only be incentive to hype games early, little incentive to produce good games at the end. As a result, crowdsourcing will become marginalized, due to spectacular failures of over-hyped games at the beginning of their development. Sound familiar?

    I love cars. No matter how much I love cars, I will not pay Nissan $100K for the next generation GT that they might develop over the next 2 years which, if developed, I will get, as is. Most of you would not either. But that’s what we idiot gamers do, every single day, when we pre-order games, or buy into stupid pricing schemes such as the one promulgated here.

    Do not support this game until release, and make a judgement then. Do not support or preorder any product in which you pay full price and take full risk without any guarantee of satisfaction. Learn from your fing mistakes.

    #6 1 year ago
  7. DSB

    I think someone needs a hug. Or a cookie. Or both.

    I don’t think very many people harbor any illusions about what they’re doing when they back something, and it is essentially charity, but spending 15 dollars on an idea you believe in is arguably more rewarding in itself, than paying 60 dollars for a game that has already been done five times before.

    And there really is a big difference between spending 50 dollars making a developers dream come true, and handing EA the same amount to fuck up some franchise you used to love.

    #7 1 year ago
  8. Yoshi

    @3 But right now it’s getting so much hate from people. It’s just bad press for them.

    #8 1 year ago
  9. The_Red

    No, even the KS and other stuff DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. I don’t care what their explanation is. This is pure greed and it IS on the same level as EA (Probably even worse because 90 freaking dollars for an UNFINISHED indie game? FUCK OFF).

    #9 1 year ago
  10. AnRK

    Hey guys, I’ve got rights to drill for oil off the coast of an uninhabited Caribbean island, if you pitch in $100 then you’ll get your own barrel of oil, $150 you can get a barrel with whatever design you want sprayed on it, give me $100,000 dollars and I’ll name one of my drilling rigs after you, and for $200,000 we’ll fly you over here and you can check out my oil rigs in person and see what a fucking mess we’re making of the local marine ecology. I of course won’t be making millions of dollars after all your risky investment as obviously I’m running a not for profit organisation where all our excess funds go toward looking after sick abandoned puppies…

    Seriously, kickstarter and all other associated form of investment are awesome, but you should be getting alot out of your investment because they’re gonna be making money from it at the end of the day. As much as I wanna see as much competition against scumbags like EA, I’d like to not see people competing by being scummy themselves. I quite happily paid into the Double Fine kick starter cos I know that what I paid for the game is well well below any sort of retail price, as with most of these kinda startups. So therefore the fact me giving them money is a risk, and one they potentially make money off, is offset by me getting a much cheaper game when they’re finished with it.

    What’s happened with this game however is you’re paying a premium to do their fucking testing for them, sure it’s still an indie game, they need the money to make what looks like it’ll be an awesome game (if you’re into macro heavy RTS games, which I might actually be for once with a game like this), and after all this shit they’re still nowhere near as bad as EA. But if the community are gonna do so much testing of your shitty buggy alpha and write up all the crashes and glitches for you, then you shouldn’t be paying out your arse for it and it shouldn’t have been the case on the kickstarter to start with. I paid 10 dollars for an alpha of King Arthurs Gold; I’ve already played a good 200 hours of it, the whole game has been re-written into a new engine that’s gonna have massive amounts of mod support to keep it going when the full release comes out, and before the alpha of the new engine has come out you’ve been able to play the the vast majority of the game for free – with some features only available on premium servers so no f2p pay to win scumbaggery there by the way. In that situation I’ll happily bust my balls to help out the development team because they’ve worked to give me alot back for my small amount of money I’ve given them.

    You shouldn’t feel a sense of charity for indie devs just cos the industry is fucked at the moment. At the end of the day if you fund their game they’ll make a wage while they’re making it, and when they finish it they’ll make money off the money you game them, and you won’t in cases like this.

    #10 1 year ago

Comments are now closed on this article.