Microsoft’s Avowed: Paid Early Access Sucks FOMO and Community Spirit

by

Discussing video games frequently grants me the advantage of getting early access to certain titles, which makes me conscious of my privileged position while writing. Yet, when evaluating a new Xbox controller or similar items, I always strive to assess it as an average consumer would, pondering over “is it worth the investment?

During my teenage years, I didn’t have the means to buy full-priced games outright. Instead, I resorted to questionable copies from my local market on a chipped PlayStation 1 or repeatedly playing demo discs from PC Mag on my stepdad’s old work computer.

As for the concept of paying a premium for early access to a game by up to a week, it’s hard for me to endorse this practice for most gamers. For instance, consider Avowed, which launches on Xbox Game Pass on February 18th, but is available for $25 extra if you want early access as a subscriber. Those without a subscription must purchase the Premium Edition for $89.99 to gain early entry. I understand that this is a profitable strategy for the gaming industry, but I can’t help feeling that it diminishes the gaming community’s experience.

Creating a division and monetizing FOMO

In my case, getting engrossed in a favorite game is like it consumes me entirely. I find myself perusing game-related discussions on Reddit while in bed, catching YouTube videos about it as I work in the background, and chuckling at the humorous memes created by the community from recurring lines or questionable game sequences. The introduction of a paid early access system seems to disrupt this immersive experience by creating a divide among players, with those who can afford the higher price tag and those who cannot.

In this context, the anxiety of not being able to experience something (FOMO) is quite prominent. For Xbox Game Pass subscribers who can essentially play these games at no additional cost, shelling out extra money for early access seems like a sneaky attempt to accumulate more money. Essentially, early access has transformed into a larger version of microtransactions, with subscribers expected to pay an extra $25 or non-subscribers having to spend $90.

This strategy exploits the human inclination to join a discussion as soon as it starts, frequently causing discomfort among those who cannot or choose not to participate financially, making them feel left out. The release of Avowed seems especially heartless.

In simpler terms, those who purchase the Premium Edition can start playing on Thursdays, giving them a full weekend to delve into the game before it becomes available to everyone else on Tuesday. However, considering many players tend to wait until the weekend again to fully immerse themselves, and with spoilers already widespread online by then, the initial thrill of firsthand exploration is likely to be diminished.

Gamers are the only ones who miss out

In this discussion, I’ll refer to Elden Ring’s open world as an illustration because it left a lasting impression on me in the gaming realm. Upon its release, the game brought players from different platforms together in a shared experience. We collaboratively deciphered its notoriously complex questlines and connected through humor about the struggle of defeating the first Tree Sentinel as a level 1 character, which was a common topic among us.

Experiencing Elden Ring together from the get-go fosters an unmatched camaraderie among gamers. If From Software had opted for a premium early access launch, the shared joy and struggle would have been diminished as those who paid extra would have surged ahead, leaving others behind. This creates a widening gap, making the game less of a communal experience, and more about transactions.

Early Access premiums can serve a purpose

It’s important to note that I’m not oblivious to why these high-tier prices are becoming standard; just look at the ongoing discussions about the $70 cap in gaming, even with increasing production costs. The upcoming Grand Theft Auto 6 has already stirred up talks about a potential $100 starting price, showing how problematic the current pricing structure might be. For publishers, Early Access provides an opportunity to earn extra income without immediately raising game prices.

On the other hand, Xbox Game Pass offers terrific value for players, providing access to a vast collection of games for a single monthly fee. I’d like to emphasize that there are many other impressive projects Microsoft is working on, such as Play Anywhere and the introduction of Xbox Cloud Saves to Steam. However, maintaining this affordability does put pressure on publishers to find alternative income sources to ensure the model remains feasible.

Obtaining Early Access payments can aid in covering expenses, thereby allowing Xbox to consistently provide a thriving Game Pass collection. To illustrate with an example, I’m focusing on Avowed due to its current popularity, but remember that Microsoft isn’t the only company adopting this strategy. Games like Baldur’s Gate 3, WWE2K25 (scheduled for Early Access launch on March 7), and Assassin’s Creed Shadows (which abandoned its early access promise due to a challenging development phase) also follow this pattern.

From a business standpoint, it’s a balancing act: players who opt for early access help finance the services and games that benefit everyone. If this strategy prevents widespread price increases, it might be considered as an unfortunate yet necessary compromise. However, my personal feelings about it don’t change.

Balancing ‘making money’ and ‘happy players’

It’s clear that Early Access has an undeniable influence within the gaming community. Although it may contribute to sustaining subscription services, it unintentionally fosters inequality among gamers. Ideally, gaming should unite individuals across socioeconomic lines. However, the introduction of paid Early Access serves to further divide players, based on their financial means or readiness to pay.

For individuals unfazed by spoilers or internet debate, Early Access might not raise concerns. However, for gamers such as myself who find excitement in the communal spirit of a game’s debut, it feels like a letdown, even a betrayal. The proliferation of Early Access games risks dividing the gaming community, and its growing acceptance is a concerning development.

This is the future (whether we like it or not)

The concept of Early Access isn’t fading away, leaving us as players with a decision on our hands: Are we prepared to shell out additional funds for the opportunity to play ahead of time, or should we voice our opposition to this trend in an effort to maintain fairer game launches? Although it seems we don’t have much control over industry movements, I believe expressing dissatisfaction when witnessing practices we dislike is crucial.

Publishers need to strike a balance between making a profit and fostering communities, but I’m not an expert in business matters. It seems unfair that high prices are attached to both cosmetics and early access to certain products or services.

Currently, I find myself torn between two passions – fostering a green gaming realm while ensuring equal access for all, irrespective of wealth. Truth be told, I’m something of an optimistic visionary, aspiring to create a world where everyone can enjoy the benefits of advanced technology without compromising our planet.

Although Early Access assists in maintaining the industry and has its merits, I think it carries a price for the gaming community. As long as publishers don’t find a balance between their business requirements and the player’s experiences, I will persistently view paid Early Access as a contentious practice – one that I am not fond of.

Read More

2025-02-17 15:45