Jim Sterling: Street Fighter V is Early AAAccess (like Battlefront and R6 Siege); Splatoon Did This Better

An excellent video by one of the few guys in the gaming media who has the balls to call game makers out on their shit. Jim Sterling discusses the trend of AAA Early Access releases, and why it is unacceptable. He also tackles the (flawed) comparisons with Splatoon head on, highlighting why Splatoon did this entire gig far better than Street Fighter V did.

And people still defend SFV. Capcom + Sony = Epic Fail!

@primorandomguy: Sony has nothing to do with this. This is on Capcom- they developed the game, they budgeted it, they decided what to prioritize, they decided to release it before it was finished, they decided to use their own online network that doesn't work. Capcom definitely deserves shit for how SF5 turned out- there are no questions about that. They f*cked up. But Sony has nothing to do with this, beyond the game actually being on their platform.

@charizard1605: Don't you think Sony should have had some oversight on this project since it is realising on their platform and they helped with the budget? They just wasted their money and didn't care what came of it obviously. Capcom is more at fault, absolutely, but I don't think Sony is innocent.

No, it would be fairly foolish to blame Sony for this. They paid Capcom money to jumpstart development of the game, and then to ensure the game would be exclusive. Capcom is not new to making Street Fighter- they have been making these games for 25 years. There is no reason for them to have f*cked up as badly as they did.

Sure, Sony could have maybe looked more into just what their money was being spent on, but this debacle doesn't make Sony 'epic fail!' it just highlights Capcom's incompetence further.

*shrugs*

Don't get me wrong, it's deplorable how Capcom blatantly released their game in an unfinished state. As a package, it is currently a monumental failure. But I'm having such a blast with the online that I'm giving less of a damn with each passing day.

Way I see it, that has to count for something.

@charizard1605: Well both company's did come out with an epic fail with this game, but I never said Sony was more at fault, I even said the opposite. But on the contrary I think it's foolish not to see Sony at fault here too, even if it's not even mostly their fault. I would blame Microsoft and Nintendo if RotTR and Bayonetta 2 came out half assed.

jg4xchamp > jim sterling.

It's not great, no. Need to get back to Battlefront, since that was cool. Shame the season pass costs money out the ass.

ehh, anymore on these MP games, I wait to see how it launches.

Garden Warfare did it before Splatoon.

Oh, and I appreciated how clear Nintendo was about the way Splatoon released, and was gonna get supported.

As soon as they fix their SFV, I will uninstall my "free" copy and give them cash. To pay 60 bucks for that would be insane.

weel, in the end, great job for them

Except Splatoon didn't do it better, and Rainbow Six Siege is a terrible example.

Splatoon launched with 5 maps, and missed basic features for MONTHS. The maps that they added in were areas that were part of the single player (the worst levels in the single player no less, as they were blatantly obvious that they were multiplayer maps). Street Fighter V to its credit as a mp game is only a month early, missing characters notwithstanding, but again fight money is a thing, and seems like a reasonable way to handle it. Losing costumes I guess stinks, but **** you it's not as big of a deal, and I can cheap it up to wait for stuff.

Rainbow Six has net code issues, but it didn't launch with a paltry list of maps, it's not missing basic communication features, it's not missing lobbying systems ala Splatoon and SFV while being multiplayer system, it wasn't missing anything you would associate with a multiplayer game. Ditto Titanfall.

Splatoon's post game shits on all of them, because it's all free, that's admirable, that's worthy of adulation, but how Splatoon launches was as shitty if not worse. "herpa derp i like thing" is not a good defense, That's showing your own inability to step back and look at some of this objectively, and the objectively launched with less than the average multiplayer shooter of its era which includes features that are genre standards. It launched with less to offer as a mp game than Rainbow Six, Battlefront, Evolve, and Titanfall.. And yes we had years of mp only games. So it having a single player doesn't overrule its multiplayer short comings.

Because speaking subjectively, you have some really low standards if the Splatoon single player is anything more than "aight" to you. It has one decent boss fight, and a string of middling levels to make up what is mostly a throw away single player.

You want to argue the gameplay per square inch part isn't there (raw content), yeah sure, but it's not apples to apples thing here. It's superficially similar, but it's not the same complaint. I'm not mad that SFV is missing single player, **** single player in a fighting game. But the fact that I can't lobby up with friends is bullshit, the fact that it's missing basic teaching tools which a fighting game needs these days, is bullshit. And yeah if we look at this objectively, and broaden up a bit, it is ridiculous that Capcom released a game that at launch has less things to offer than its predecessor at launch. We usually hold that against games. Because it wasn't like all that stuff weren't things SF4 actually did well while doing them (story not with standing).

These are things that things that impact the core of that game that I like, the multiplayer. Splatoon having only 5 maps, and not allowing me to team up with my friends, and only randomly in public matches is so incredibly stupid. Only the biggest Nintendo cum guzzler would defend that shit (which I await all of this forums cum guzzlers to apologize for that shit). Rainbow Six launching with no solo play, doesn't fucking bother me, it's a multiplayer game, it was up front about that part, there is nothing wrong with that. Whether or not I want to pay 60 bucks for a mp only game is on me, and whether or not they validate a 60 dollar mp only game, that's a different discussion as well. But it's not early access in any context.

SFV totally is, because they have an update path in advance telling you when they are going to finish that shit. Ditto Splatoon.

Sterling while usually solid, in this case is doing his Sterling blow hard routine to talk about a bunch of games he barely has a grasp of beyond whatever quick review routine he went through, while gassing up a game he liked that also happened to the same fucking thing. It's contradictory at best, it's laughable.

Truest thing ever posted on this forum.

Yeah so does Splatoon. Evolve didn't play poorly, there happen to be plenty of free 2 play games with shitty business models that have cool gameplay, Diablo 3 on a basic level wasn't a bad game that also happened to have the shitty auction house, Battlefront isn't exactly boring to a lot of people.

That's what makes it even more annoying, we're getting half finished products of games that would more than sell themselves on just how well made they are to begin with. Them playing well isn't necessarily an excuse for Capcom, EA, Nintendo, Ubisoft, or what have you trying to nickle and dime the consumer, release an unfinished game, or release a game in a stupid peace meal way (Splatoon seems more like the 3rd, than the other 2 in retrospect).

I agree it's weird that this forum always comes back to this type of subject, and especially on SFV, since lol most of them don't even play fighting games or really multiplayer games. They just want to bitch for the sake of it because their precious piece of shit has been shat on, but lets not get carried away this isn't an A or B thing.

SFV isn't it plays well or it's released unfinished. It's unfortunately both it plays exceptionally well AND it released unfinished. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

^ That Bunnyhop video is terrific and brings up an astonishing point. With Counter-Strike, Battlefield 2 and Tribes, these games were released with NO single-player mode, and nobody cared. These games were built from the ground up with multiplayer in mind, as was R6 Siege. But for some odd reason people wanted a campaign paired with Siege that would have felt like an afterthought in comparison, which is the kind of thing you'd think gamers would want to avoid.

We demand in aspects where it's not necessary, and because we're unable to properly gauge our expectations, we deem games unfinished because it didn't come with what we thought it was going to have.

This is not the case with SFV as it's clear it's unfinished, but this mentality seems to be growing.

@jg4xchamp: Sterling never said Splatoon launched better- he said it was handled better, because we already knew how and when content would come, he said it was handled better because new content started coming in the day after the game launched, and he said there were no micro transactions and DLC. He did end with saying he would still call it Early AAAccess, but that he would call it Early AAAccess done right, as compared to the other games on this list.

Btw, that's all I've ever said, too- I was with there with you in how Nintendo launched the game, you remember that, but I was pretty happy with how it was handled going forward. SF5 has already taken false steps, and it only just launched.

lol at spaltoon did it better. didn't it basically do the same thing?

there is no such thing as a full priced retail product being early access done right. thats just dumb.

@mems_1224: Preaching to the choir, dude. If you remember, I wasn't a fan of how splatoon launched either.

I didn't say it. Sterling did. I'm just pointing out WHAT he said.

Lets real talk: Mbirdy can back me up here, because while we have varying degrees of different opinions on mmos and loot games, I feel he will see my point of view on this when it comes to this forum, there is an absurd double standard against multiplayer.

This is the forum that will bitch that SP games don't need tacked on mp modes, but then when a mp game comes out, it needs a tacked on sp mode, because why? Never anything reasonable. Titanfall might have been a better proposition for more consumers (as in more sales), but it wouldn't have lived longer (which was the issue, it died out) with a sp for a lot of people. Halo 4 is a perfect example of a game with a sp, and the mp community died (that wasn't lack of content, but hey that speaks to quality of content as well).

Idiots: "well champ I'm a hardcore gamer, i don't play that casual trash" read that in nerd voice please - but let me get this straight, your doofy ass turn based rpg which any fucking moron can play where the gameplay depth is that of a puddle and its claim to fame is a really shitty anime story and a bloated run time is hardcore, but a gameplay driven experience focused on basic competition which will inherently be harder since a player will be more dynamic than an AI, is somehow more casual. Even though you'd get smoked in a game of madden by a die hard madden player, because it's "casual". Yeah okay bitch.

And my favorite: It's about the characters and story and creating a setting, yeah Tetris is timeless, most CoD players don't even touch the campaign, Battlefield was successful before it had a campaign it was a better game before it had a campaign. Dota 2? Yeah no story. I know plenty of people who play Halo who never finished a Halo campaign enough to know what the **** the flood is (bless their soul).

Just like a SP only game has a place on the market, so should a mp only game. If you wildly disagree, you're a hypocrite.

Well of course, and it makes SFV's case all the more frustrating, for if it didn't arrive at an undercooked state, it easily would be one of the best games of this generation.

However, I think it's important to underline that content and value are not mutually exclusive to each other as well. SFV may be severely lacking in essential features, but you can easily sink your teeth in the core gameplay alone for how it deftly balances depth and accessibility. I've put in so much time in the game already solely on this basis and I'm more or less hooked. So while I think Capcom are a bunch of assholes for not keeping the bun in the oven a little while longer, I can honestly say, entirely from a personal perspective, that I got my $70 worth. Then on the other hand you have something like MKX, which is filled with content that's honestly pretty lousy and seldom does anything to improve the game's core gameplay, which I found to be less than remarkable. In hindsight it wasn't even worth the rental.

But the SF series has had that benefit of having immaculate core gameplay. Had it been a lesser game, that hollow feeling would be much more apparent, and so as a result I'm becoming increasingly torn on this particular subject. One thing is for sure though: In no way do I want something like this to be commonplace.

And I straight up disagree.

Yeah they were up front about it, didn't make it not shitty. Early access makes sense as a way to sell/produce games for indie devs, given you know the lack of financial backing and going out of pocket. But for one of gamings most successful companies, hell can we argue that they are gamings most successful company? With how much money they have on the books, I don't think it's really close between them and anyone else? Either way, with the money they make, they didn't really have a leg to stand on.

"it would have died faster", sorry good multiplayer games have thrived before without that type of model, on platforms where the competition level for mp games was a lot higher than Splatoons, that game would have stayed strong regardless, because it's that well made. It releasing with the bare minimum for a multiplayer game and pring it as "free updates" is a load of horse shit, because it was really "we could just delay the game till it is finished and do our jobs correctly, but our fanbase will swallow our semen, so we'll release it now".

@jg4xchamp: Well, I do agree that Splatoon's launch was grade a bullshit, yeah. The entire early access nonsense was unnecessary. Did I appreciate how it was handled post launch, especially in comparison to how other similar games have done it? Sure, yeah, I did- but the game had no reason to be early access, especially since in Splatoon's case, the content was already finished and on the disc! Why not just have it unlocked straight up?

But whatever, they had the decency to start making it available right away, and the decency to not charge for money for any of it. It's the charging for money that these other games do that bugs me.

And ****, hopefully Ninte don't make Spla2n early access, they've got an established brand now, so no more fucking around, go all in.

In a month, or even 3 weeks, that game will be one of the best games of this generation. lol

But yeah i mean it always starts, this is annoying, but it's not that bad because x. It's the harbinger for when we get a string of releases when we all go "it's that bad". Funny enough I think SFV is a great example of how many ways modern Capcom is looking like a few years away from being completely done. Because the game design is superb, but some of those animation videos, egad, how are they worse than SF4? Where did the money go? On RE6?

I completely agree with this accessment and I'm upset at myself for buying this incomplete game from day one, my sense of excitement for the game override my logic this time. The game should not have been released in the state it's in period. With challenge mode and lobby system coming out next month then it's clear this game should have been released in March. Unfortunately this is a trend this gen with all multiplayer games, they release incomplete mess of a game and just patch it and add more content as time goes on.

If it did, then talk about a wasted investment. No wonder this company is in a financial crapper lol

That's a very disturbing notion. Honestly part of me wonders if SFV was released the way it was because they sincerely couldn't afford making it a full package. All signs have been pointing towards this company being in great financial trouble.

The thing is, how are they in trouble? They aren't exactly rolling in the cash, but their financials have shown them making some pretty reasonable profit, mostly on the back of Monster Hunter, but still.

Where is that money going?

Cocaine and hookers maybe. Also sake. Lots of sake.

@drinkerofjuice: Okay, I can't exactly call those bad investments.

I bought the game for $32 on PC so this doesn't bother me. Maybe I'd be upset if I spent full $60 on it. So far I'm having a blast with it, it's a way better game than Battlefront.

Biggest flop of 2016 so far,

The problem isnt even that games like SFV or Hitman go early access.

The problems lies with publishers being so stuck in the past thinking they can charge the same 60 dollars as they do for more complete games... Uhm, no, you cut stuff out, you better give something in return to us !

Bu-bu-but developers are so hard working! they do it for the gamers! welcome to 7th gen gaming, where developers want to rip off gamers from all directions and are praised for doing so as a template for modern industrial practice.

Sadly through mere repetition and next to no media taking issue, as with microtransactions it will seep in as standard.

@charizard1605: Wait a second. It's "on Capcom. The developed it. They budgeted it"?

Cow claimed it wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Sony funding this game. I had debates where I posted Spencer being quoted saying MS would help dev RotTR and I was told that's PR BS, but Sony are heroes for funding SF5. That's some double standard bullshyte. MS paid money to CD/SE and made sure the game was 9/10 worthy here. Sony got praised, the game launched weak so they take some of the hit.

it does seem to be becoming the new thing now to releasel unfinished games at full retail prices,

Driveclub
Final Fantasy 7 Remake
5hitman
Forza 5

Are some of the few I can think of so far, pretty sad state of affairs. Why is it suddenly OK for customers to give loans to publishers for them to finish games?

Im just going to sum up this whole situatuon.

For people that are huge fans of fighting games, SFV is a god tier game right now. For people that are more passive about the genre, this is a terrible release.

@primorandomguy:

Actually, you can argue Sony should get just as much blame here.

@PSP107: maybe, it's just hard to justify that when z Capcom did develop it. But yeah Sony is at blame as well, remember how much we heard, if it wasn't for Sony this game wouldn't exist!!d bless Sony!?!! if it was the other way around and it was a Microsoft console exclusive you bet your ass that all this board would be tearing them a new one, including cowizard. Lol

@PSP107: Of course they should. I put $500 into Cecutix Corp at 4.89/share which is now around $1.15/share. I accept that I didn't do my due diligence before investing in 100 shares of this dog.

Cows praised Sony for there being a SF5 at all. Well the SF5 consumers got is lackluster. Sony takes some blame on it just as they got praise for bloodborne. It was their money, make sure it's being utilized well. Phil Spencer said to kotaku that MS would help with dev of RotTR to ensure it was as good as possible. Well it looks like they did it right because the game was received a helluva better than sf5. Shit, KI season 2 is better than SF5 at this point on meta.

I've pretty much agreed with all your logic up until the bolded bit above, and the arguments that follow after.

Trying to equate SF with Titanfall and Halo, or even Tetris, just doesn't work.

Titanfall was a new IP with no fan-base expectations. It was being compared directly to COD before release because of the dev team, and that comparison shaped expectations. I think most people were looking forward to a SP mode, and those people were disappointed when there was none, thus it sold less.

Halo is a legacy title that gained both SP and MP fans all around due to the content there within. From the first Halo there was a SP mode that people could play, a story to dive into, and characters to love, and likewise there were people who dove into the lan parties and what not, that fostered a large MP base. Halo 4 NEEDED an SP campaign due to it being a legacy part of the package, and the same goes for the MP portion. Because Halo 4's MP community wasn't retained has more to do with the landscape of the industry today rather than the Halo itself (IMO that is).

Street Fighter is a legacy title like Halo in that since SF2 people have been playing the games for various reason. There are plenty of people who got in to SF for the competition and MP aspects of the series; the MP focus of the game is a legacy component of the Arcade really, but once the series came to console, the fan base grew exponentially due to people being able to play at home and have fun. From that many players grew to love playing the CPU and learning more about the characters through the lore. As more games were added to the series, and the FG genre continued to mature and change, SP content became a main focus / feature of many FG series, and SF specifically is no different.

Tetris on the other hand is game SOLELY based on mechanics, with no story, or legacy to speak of other than the shapes, and in many ways the music. People don't get attached to the "L" block like the would / have Ryu or Chun Li.

Bottom line, trying to argue that SF's SP content is just a "tact on" portion to a MP game, is a faulty premise. The FG genre is a genre that appeals to more than just the hardcore, head to head, competitor. Many different people come to FGs for many different reasons, all of which are equally important as each facet comes together to create / support this niche community.

Splatoon didnt do anything better...

Wow the lems are going insane, didn't they hate Sterling when he called the Xbox One a lying failure of a machine?

Console gamers has failed to make game great again

Stick to PC

This is the gen of releasing unfinished games for $60. It doesn't help when you have idiots like Jim Sterling trying to justify one (Splatoon in this case) over another.

Lets do this piece by piece.

The crux of my point is that if a SP only game is perfectly valid, than the inverse shouldn't be an issue. A mp only game if the goal is mp is perfectly fine, why in **** should a set of gameplay systems that were built with multiplayer in mind have a shoe horned campaign. Likewise nothing about Titanfall's initial showing, pr tour, or whatever focused on Call of Duty or modern warfare like games other than "this dev is the creator of Call of Duty", further more, it was known for over a year before the game even come out that it was a multiplayer game, that it would be multiplayer in spirit with some tacked on sole lor thing to the single player.

Either it yes it didn't sell as much as it could have without a campaign, that argument has merit, but it also doesn't hurt the product. A CoD styled campaign would still mean Titanfall is lacking content, because content issues were multiplayer. It's lack of a skill ceiling is what hurt that game, it's lack of modes is what hurt that game to a lot of people. It's lot of content to unlock is what hurt that game to a lot of people. It not having a campaign wasn't an actual problem for anyone other than "I'd like a campaign". It's the equivalent of asking for a horde mode, when not every game needs one of those.

You missed the point of the Halo comparison. Talkin strictly in the context of did Titanfall need a sp, because after all the narrative is that Titanfall's community died out quickly. The thing is plenty of multiplayer games before and after have gone by without a story/without a campaign. On the flip side even a prestigious series like Halo, with its 4th main entry; Halo's mp died out. IE it's pure conjecture to assume the SP would have made that much of a difference in helping Titanfall retain, because it wouldn't.

And it wasn't a landscape thing, it was a quality of Halo 4's multiplayer thing. The player base out rich bitches about sprint today (and it's fine in Halo 5), and just the sight of ADS, so they were naturally going to bitch, moan, and complain about CoD styled systems in a Halo game to begin with.

And here is where we get completely I mixed up, I never said SF's sp was a tacked on thing, that's your faulty premise. I merely said I don't care for it, but I get the backlash for it. I don't like the strawmen the "competitive" crowd is making for saying the people complaining only have sp complaints, because bitch, no, I have multiplayer related complaints to boot.

Likewise, I'd still stay at my central point: If a single player only game is valid to most people, than multiplayer only games should not be a problem. That's not talking for or strictly street fighter, i was broad context with that. Because I still feel to this day the campaign complaints against Titanfall and Rainbow Six barely hold merit, vs other short comings those games have that directly influence whether or not Titanfall would retain, or whether or not Rainbow Six is worth 60 bucks as a mp only game.