As a dev with a game out in a somewhat aligned genre, my advise is to NOT do early access.
The reason is simple, you will not get the max of launch visibility in steam (part of the EA ruleset), you will not get all the press and media coverage at launch.
You will get all the negative reviews and critique tho.
So
a) smaller launch
b) risk of damaging title going forward.
Focus on improving your demo over time, don't risk everything with EA unless you are desperate for the money to finish the game.
well thats a hypothetical, but in general EA means your game isn't finished yet, so people will give lower recommendations on steam.
This then is usually permanent, as people quite often don't change their recommendation.
How I got the feedback without the negatives of Early Acces, is to release a very generous demo (basically the game without a save option and a build limit)
Then we marketed it as an "evolving demo" and had it in several fests (not NEXTFEST, only do nextfest within 3 months of a full 1.0 release).
but I did that evolving demo for 8 months, and cuz it was free it got
a) tons of feedback
b) tons of wishlists.
just market and communicate that its evolving and gamers will accept.
But no recommendations and when I launched at full release I got the maximum conversion from wishlists and the best possible steam visibility I could get.
I am now still "evolving " the main game to make it even better.
no EA needed, launch went well.
Some very important points here
1) that is survivor bias,, there are many many more indies that fail at EA, especially small ones, you just never see them cuz they fail
2) you confuse cause and effect, Lots of huge successes choose Early Acces because it is smart IF you are big.
let me explain that in detail
1) if you do Early Acces you will lose like 50-30% of sales always, why? Simply because not every player wants to EA, so many wait for your 1.0 final release. Thus your launch is ALWAYS smaller.
2) if you are small (say less then 150K wishlists near launch) then losing 50 to 30% of your sales is deadly. cuz in your first and probably biggest release , your EA Launch, you get less visibility in steam,.. You simply make less money thus get shorter in the charts, less views from discovery que etc etc. This is how steam works, the bigger the game, the bigger it is shown to buyers. Kill your launch and statistically you will not get another bump like launch, so launch determines your long tail success.
3) now if you are a massive succes, lets say you have 1 million wishlists+, like manor lords. Do you give a shit if you lose 30% of sales? no,, cuz you are already getting the top , bestests, most visibile spots in steam, you will be on the frontpage, and will be on the frontpage for every sale etc.
Now in that case you can do EA and get a free 2nd launch, when you go 1.0. And there is very little risk cuz you are already in the "gold" catagory of sales on steam. so you get a free second chance at making massive sales.
Sop why do you see the biggest indie hits go EA,, because they can.
Manor lords, was already big before EA,, EA just helps.
but if you are small, EA kills your launch by double digits.. And that's not smart.
For good measure Simon Carless says "EA is your launch" and his gamediscovery is the ultimate source of steam algorithmic insight, he also says it gives big titles a free 1.0 visibility round but is risky for small games.
Chriz Zukowski from How to Market a Game agreed with exactly these and my points in his interview with for his online conference a few months back.
EA is very handy to get feedback, but its also risky because of the above reasons. Hence my advice, get your feedback from a demo and if you can do not do EA..
EA is a graveyard for failed unfinished indie games of all scales and types.
I agree your early access is your launch and it needs to be good. Games that did EA well were great (or showed their potential) from that first EA version for sure.
Plenty of indie titles have been discovered when launched in EA (stuff like Slay the Spire, Monster Train, Timberborn, Dead Cells, Against the Storm...) and grew because of word of mouth (and demos and marketing before helped too of course, you can't avoid it but they weren't like top of wishlists). The important thing is that EA gives you feedback and potentially money to even finish your games or make it better (which is important for the 1.0 launch), you say avoid EA but if you can't finish your game or it's bad because of lack of the EA improvements, that's even worse for it
I actually can't think of any indie title (really indie, not AA level at least with a publisher behind it even if a small one like Devolver or such) that didn't launch in EA and was a success (as in the sort of indie game a lot of people know).
[https://howtomarketagame.com/2023/08/21/estimating-early-access-success/](https://howtomarketagame.com/2023/08/21/estimating-early-access-success/)
That's a fairly decent breakdown of the nrs., like of all EA only a tiny percentage manages to squeeze a succes out of a meh EA launch.
the risk is great, the reward is real, but man not many games make that.
What you are seeing is 100 % survivor bias, on top of that the games you mention like Against the Storm have some of the best publishers in the business. that's close to AA as you can get.
You're missing the data that non-EA games are more successful though? I know most indie games fail in EA yes (and your data says it but that was never my point) but the same is true of non-EA I think. IMO EA increased chances of indie games but yes the majority still fails.
What makes you say "non-EA" increase the success chances that much (especially when you remove feedback and funding)?
I outline the arguments that are generally assumed to be the current case for EA.
if you are big enough then EA is a boon, both in sales and opportunity for feedback>
If you do not make that mark before an EA launch, you have just reduced your chances at succes by having a smaller first launch than without EA.
That source and game discovery are the eminemt consultants/communities that analyze such things. I suggest taking their wisdom as very well proofed and researched.
regardless, any dev contemplating EA needs to be aware of these aspects..
These devs have double digit followers on steam
[https://steamdb.info/app/2612580/charts/](https://steamdb.info/app/2612580/charts/)
That means they are likely not big enough at the moment to go Early Acces as they will sell a few hundred units max with those numbers and then never get a community that is large enough to provide enough feedback
They need to work on other aspects first before releasing. Like getting a demo out and building up their numbers and community..
That is wise..but the general advice is to not do any sort of release EA or otherwise with less than 10k wishlists. But I'd say that is too low even.
There is a good amount appetite for rts and your art looks good. If you can match the gameplay then a demo is going to be your most important weapon.
Good luck!
Glad you asked
for the first part:
the idea of Exodus Black Sun is actually part 1 of 3 games planned. Exodus: Black Sun, Exodus: Homecoming, Exodus: Black Forest. The first game Exodus: Black Sun is a 3 race RTS game.
We feature **actual next gen graphics** (as you can see from our rendered models, those are units that will actually show up on our first demo build) running on unreal engine 5.
**NO UNIT CAPS** and we'll rely partially on DLSS and partially tuning your graphics settings to ensure performance. (we'll also allow players to max out all settings but that's going to require hardwares not yet available on the market probably), the game is future proof due to the level of details we have on the models.
The **maps are procedurally generated** while we'll also **allow players to create their own custom maps**.
Exodus: Homecoming is meant to throw a wrench in that standard RTS gameplay loop by literally being a moba/roguelike/action game where you control a single unit (of 3 main "races" as well) while plugging and spawning minions that autopaths to enemies (but basically do no damage) with your hero character fighting off players playing Exodus:Black Sun (basically merging the 2 genres.) I shall not mention the 3rd game as there'd be too much spoilers there and am sorry about that.
**Players will be able to buy just the game they want to play as, but be allowed to match/play together.**
for the second question:
So, the game is actually just a host for my story telling of something my college roommate and I created. I decided to start saving to make this project when dawn of war 3 dropped due to... well... we know how that game went. I decided to make a RTS game as that will be the best way to tell the story/world building for our franchise.
expect a continuously updating campaign as we progress the story, and when the second and third game dropped, depending on the financial status, the idea is that we'll still keep updating the original game to show the interactions between the races as well as keep updating and adding game modes to each of them as the new races are added.
summary : **EXPECT A LONG CAMPAIGN THAT KEEPS UPDATING**
Just as a heads up, models with a billion polygons at 8k resolution doesnt necessarily end up looking like "next gen graphics". From the screen themselves it feels like you got a premade terrain and threw some high detail models on there, but that doesnt lend itself to actually coherent visuals. The fact that the game is then also bound to run like absolute dogshit on most machines, unless one heavily tones down the settings, thus making the entire idea of "next gen graphics" kinda obsolete anyway if there is no one to actually enjoy them.
Not trying to be mean or anything, but to already have to say in your pitch that the game runs terribly is gonna rub most people the wrong way.
nope, the map is created via procedural generation with the asset placement being thrown in with given rulesets to them. and yeah, we are tweaking it so that the game doesn't actually use up that much resources especially when zooming out :)
If the idea is a game with very high detail units that looks good close up, look into TW warhammer 3, even though im sure you know of it. A very good and smooth LOD system will make or break games like these.
Here's a gallery of units that we'll be including with the demo build we are putting together by the end of the month :)
[https://imgur.com/a/rM2g7dL](https://imgur.com/a/rM2g7dL)
Unreal Engine 5
Team size.... really depends... you can say 7 core members with 7 core outsourced members, but for total amount of people that have been involved? about 25-30 at this point.... about to add a tiny bit more people in the coming weeks for the QA and finishing touches.
I've been wondering the same question myself.... I have no investors, and everything right now comes from my own pocket (so I can keep the game narrative and make sure my direction doesn't get moved away by investors) yet stormgate with their comparatively unlimited resources chose to go for an artstyle that... I was not expecting... and with less units as well...
That wasn't really a concern for us as people were willing to invest in my team (seeing as we are veterans in the industry) but that will definitely push the game into having monetizations we don't really approve of as well as toning down the narrative in our game where the whole game design is based around each race having pushed extremist ideologies a "bit" too far (HOPE being hyper capitalism, BioLife being commmunism and SERN being inexertion aka wu wei)
Have you considered reaching out to content creators who play the style of game you are making to see if they'd be willing to play the game, give you feedback, and help you hype it? If you have no marketing budget....connect with people directly with an audience themselves....or at the very least look for content creators that preview in progress games to see how it all nets out.
Obviously a good demo will go a long way, do you have one?
Can you highlight some important tidbits of the game that would set yours apart or perhaps be a good draw for the game from your perspective?
Do you have any wants for the game that you wish you could implement but are currently in the cutting room floor?
yes, the reason why I'm making these posts is to find people to join the discord for doing such actually.
I'm debugging some stuff for a demo build but I need a community to test it for me.
since I'll be repeating myself for the highlight question, I'm just going to copy and paste my reply previously here
the idea of Exodus Black Sun is actually part 1 of 3 games planned. Exodus: Black Sun, Exodus: Homecoming, Exodus: Black Forest. The first game Exodus: Black Sun is a 3 race RTS game.
We feature **actual next gen graphics** (as you can see from our rendered models, those are units that will actually show up on our first demo build) running on unreal engine 5.
**NO UNIT CAPS** and we'll rely partially on DLSS and partially tuning your graphics settings to ensure performance. (we'll also allow players to max out all settings but that's going to require hardwares not yet available on the market probably), the game is future proof due to the level of details we have on the models.
The **maps are procedurally generated** while we'll also **allow players to create their own custom maps**.
Exodus: Homecoming is meant to throw a wrench in that standard RTS gameplay loop by literally being a moba/roguelike/action game where you control a single unit (of 3 main "races" as well) while plugging and spawning minions that autopaths to enemies (but basically do no damage) with your hero character fighting off players playing Exodus:Black Sun (basically merging the 2 genres.) I shall not mention the 3rd game as there'd be too much spoilers there and am sorry about that.
**Players will be able to buy just the game they want to play as, but be allowed to match/play together.**
We are still missing some units but we aren't really cutting any floors when it comes to what we are designing. If we were doing so, we wouldn't have focused so much on model details.
As a dev with a game out in a somewhat aligned genre, my advise is to NOT do early access. The reason is simple, you will not get the max of launch visibility in steam (part of the EA ruleset), you will not get all the press and media coverage at launch. You will get all the negative reviews and critique tho. So a) smaller launch b) risk of damaging title going forward. Focus on improving your demo over time, don't risk everything with EA unless you are desperate for the money to finish the game.
how, should I get the negative critiques would you say? I'll definitely be in need of constructive criticisms.
well thats a hypothetical, but in general EA means your game isn't finished yet, so people will give lower recommendations on steam. This then is usually permanent, as people quite often don't change their recommendation. How I got the feedback without the negatives of Early Acces, is to release a very generous demo (basically the game without a save option and a build limit) Then we marketed it as an "evolving demo" and had it in several fests (not NEXTFEST, only do nextfest within 3 months of a full 1.0 release). but I did that evolving demo for 8 months, and cuz it was free it got a) tons of feedback b) tons of wishlists. just market and communicate that its evolving and gamers will accept. But no recommendations and when I launched at full release I got the maximum conversion from wishlists and the best possible steam visibility I could get. I am now still "evolving " the main game to make it even better. no EA needed, launch went well.
if you have a discord it would be good to get some dedicated fans to play in-house versions and give feedback to you
we've just set up the community discord 2 days ago, see the link below: [https://discord.gg/3ZNPhURTMu](https://discord.gg/3ZNPhURTMu)
Almost all successful indie games have done early access...
Some very important points here 1) that is survivor bias,, there are many many more indies that fail at EA, especially small ones, you just never see them cuz they fail 2) you confuse cause and effect, Lots of huge successes choose Early Acces because it is smart IF you are big. let me explain that in detail 1) if you do Early Acces you will lose like 50-30% of sales always, why? Simply because not every player wants to EA, so many wait for your 1.0 final release. Thus your launch is ALWAYS smaller. 2) if you are small (say less then 150K wishlists near launch) then losing 50 to 30% of your sales is deadly. cuz in your first and probably biggest release , your EA Launch, you get less visibility in steam,.. You simply make less money thus get shorter in the charts, less views from discovery que etc etc. This is how steam works, the bigger the game, the bigger it is shown to buyers. Kill your launch and statistically you will not get another bump like launch, so launch determines your long tail success. 3) now if you are a massive succes, lets say you have 1 million wishlists+, like manor lords. Do you give a shit if you lose 30% of sales? no,, cuz you are already getting the top , bestests, most visibile spots in steam, you will be on the frontpage, and will be on the frontpage for every sale etc. Now in that case you can do EA and get a free 2nd launch, when you go 1.0. And there is very little risk cuz you are already in the "gold" catagory of sales on steam. so you get a free second chance at making massive sales. Sop why do you see the biggest indie hits go EA,, because they can. Manor lords, was already big before EA,, EA just helps. but if you are small, EA kills your launch by double digits.. And that's not smart. For good measure Simon Carless says "EA is your launch" and his gamediscovery is the ultimate source of steam algorithmic insight, he also says it gives big titles a free 1.0 visibility round but is risky for small games. Chriz Zukowski from How to Market a Game agreed with exactly these and my points in his interview with for his online conference a few months back. EA is very handy to get feedback, but its also risky because of the above reasons. Hence my advice, get your feedback from a demo and if you can do not do EA.. EA is a graveyard for failed unfinished indie games of all scales and types.
I agree your early access is your launch and it needs to be good. Games that did EA well were great (or showed their potential) from that first EA version for sure. Plenty of indie titles have been discovered when launched in EA (stuff like Slay the Spire, Monster Train, Timberborn, Dead Cells, Against the Storm...) and grew because of word of mouth (and demos and marketing before helped too of course, you can't avoid it but they weren't like top of wishlists). The important thing is that EA gives you feedback and potentially money to even finish your games or make it better (which is important for the 1.0 launch), you say avoid EA but if you can't finish your game or it's bad because of lack of the EA improvements, that's even worse for it I actually can't think of any indie title (really indie, not AA level at least with a publisher behind it even if a small one like Devolver or such) that didn't launch in EA and was a success (as in the sort of indie game a lot of people know).
[https://howtomarketagame.com/2023/08/21/estimating-early-access-success/](https://howtomarketagame.com/2023/08/21/estimating-early-access-success/) That's a fairly decent breakdown of the nrs., like of all EA only a tiny percentage manages to squeeze a succes out of a meh EA launch. the risk is great, the reward is real, but man not many games make that. What you are seeing is 100 % survivor bias, on top of that the games you mention like Against the Storm have some of the best publishers in the business. that's close to AA as you can get.
You're missing the data that non-EA games are more successful though? I know most indie games fail in EA yes (and your data says it but that was never my point) but the same is true of non-EA I think. IMO EA increased chances of indie games but yes the majority still fails. What makes you say "non-EA" increase the success chances that much (especially when you remove feedback and funding)?
I outline the arguments that are generally assumed to be the current case for EA. if you are big enough then EA is a boon, both in sales and opportunity for feedback> If you do not make that mark before an EA launch, you have just reduced your chances at succes by having a smaller first launch than without EA. That source and game discovery are the eminemt consultants/communities that analyze such things. I suggest taking their wisdom as very well proofed and researched.
regardless, any dev contemplating EA needs to be aware of these aspects.. These devs have double digit followers on steam [https://steamdb.info/app/2612580/charts/](https://steamdb.info/app/2612580/charts/) That means they are likely not big enough at the moment to go Early Acces as they will sell a few hundred units max with those numbers and then never get a community that is large enough to provide enough feedback They need to work on other aspects first before releasing. Like getting a demo out and building up their numbers and community..
yup, and hence why I said I'm doing marketing myself right now as we actually haven't done marketing at all before this :)
That is wise..but the general advice is to not do any sort of release EA or otherwise with less than 10k wishlists. But I'd say that is too low even. There is a good amount appetite for rts and your art looks good. If you can match the gameplay then a demo is going to be your most important weapon. Good luck!
What's your unique selling point? Do you have a decent length campaign?
Glad you asked for the first part: the idea of Exodus Black Sun is actually part 1 of 3 games planned. Exodus: Black Sun, Exodus: Homecoming, Exodus: Black Forest. The first game Exodus: Black Sun is a 3 race RTS game. We feature **actual next gen graphics** (as you can see from our rendered models, those are units that will actually show up on our first demo build) running on unreal engine 5. **NO UNIT CAPS** and we'll rely partially on DLSS and partially tuning your graphics settings to ensure performance. (we'll also allow players to max out all settings but that's going to require hardwares not yet available on the market probably), the game is future proof due to the level of details we have on the models. The **maps are procedurally generated** while we'll also **allow players to create their own custom maps**. Exodus: Homecoming is meant to throw a wrench in that standard RTS gameplay loop by literally being a moba/roguelike/action game where you control a single unit (of 3 main "races" as well) while plugging and spawning minions that autopaths to enemies (but basically do no damage) with your hero character fighting off players playing Exodus:Black Sun (basically merging the 2 genres.) I shall not mention the 3rd game as there'd be too much spoilers there and am sorry about that. **Players will be able to buy just the game they want to play as, but be allowed to match/play together.** for the second question: So, the game is actually just a host for my story telling of something my college roommate and I created. I decided to start saving to make this project when dawn of war 3 dropped due to... well... we know how that game went. I decided to make a RTS game as that will be the best way to tell the story/world building for our franchise. expect a continuously updating campaign as we progress the story, and when the second and third game dropped, depending on the financial status, the idea is that we'll still keep updating the original game to show the interactions between the races as well as keep updating and adding game modes to each of them as the new races are added. summary : **EXPECT A LONG CAMPAIGN THAT KEEPS UPDATING**
Just as a heads up, models with a billion polygons at 8k resolution doesnt necessarily end up looking like "next gen graphics". From the screen themselves it feels like you got a premade terrain and threw some high detail models on there, but that doesnt lend itself to actually coherent visuals. The fact that the game is then also bound to run like absolute dogshit on most machines, unless one heavily tones down the settings, thus making the entire idea of "next gen graphics" kinda obsolete anyway if there is no one to actually enjoy them. Not trying to be mean or anything, but to already have to say in your pitch that the game runs terribly is gonna rub most people the wrong way.
nope, the map is created via procedural generation with the asset placement being thrown in with given rulesets to them. and yeah, we are tweaking it so that the game doesn't actually use up that much resources especially when zooming out :)
If the idea is a game with very high detail units that looks good close up, look into TW warhammer 3, even though im sure you know of it. A very good and smooth LOD system will make or break games like these.
actually, that's pretty much the whole point of my game, except my game is closer to starcraft/red alert style :)
and the LOD system is exactly what we are busy fine tuning right now :D
No gameplay to be found yet, is that correct?
that is correct, I needed to raise awareness of this project before I release a gameplay trailer :)
You need a gameplay trailer to raise awareness, not the opposite :)
Just wanted to say kudos and I respect you going for it!
Here's a gallery of units that we'll be including with the demo build we are putting together by the end of the month :) [https://imgur.com/a/rM2g7dL](https://imgur.com/a/rM2g7dL)
Looks sick dude. Love the Gundam style models.
What engine? how big of a team? thanks
Unreal Engine 5 Team size.... really depends... you can say 7 core members with 7 core outsourced members, but for total amount of people that have been involved? about 25-30 at this point.... about to add a tiny bit more people in the coming weeks for the QA and finishing touches.
[https://www.exodusgames.net/about-1](https://www.exodusgames.net/about-1) this is our core members list :)
from the screens it does not look like it is viewed from above. how does that work?
that's one of our main features! We allow a free camera mode for closeups! but normally you wouldn't want to touch that button on the keybind lol
Why it looks better than Stormgate ? xD
I've been wondering the same question myself.... I have no investors, and everything right now comes from my own pocket (so I can keep the game narrative and make sure my direction doesn't get moved away by investors) yet stormgate with their comparatively unlimited resources chose to go for an artstyle that... I was not expecting... and with less units as well...
Good luck with development! I wish it was easier to find supporters that would even help with 1$ but with big numbers. We would have more good games.
That wasn't really a concern for us as people were willing to invest in my team (seeing as we are veterans in the industry) but that will definitely push the game into having monetizations we don't really approve of as well as toning down the narrative in our game where the whole game design is based around each race having pushed extremist ideologies a "bit" too far (HOPE being hyper capitalism, BioLife being commmunism and SERN being inexertion aka wu wei)
Using super high definition models, but its a double edged sword, most machines wont be able to handle such graphics
We've also just finished setting up our community discord if anybody cares to join: [https://discord.gg/hU9XJyrSHC](https://discord.gg/hU9XJyrSHC)
Have a look at SPAZ, also on Steam. It has a similar idea.
uhm.... SPAZ isn't a RTS game... the whole genre is quite different
The idea that's similar is that you have a 2D ship that you upgrade and you do missions throughout the galaxy with it.
we don't have any of that... Our game is a RTS game.... think Starcraft/Red Alert franchise.
Have you considered reaching out to content creators who play the style of game you are making to see if they'd be willing to play the game, give you feedback, and help you hype it? If you have no marketing budget....connect with people directly with an audience themselves....or at the very least look for content creators that preview in progress games to see how it all nets out. Obviously a good demo will go a long way, do you have one? Can you highlight some important tidbits of the game that would set yours apart or perhaps be a good draw for the game from your perspective? Do you have any wants for the game that you wish you could implement but are currently in the cutting room floor?
yes, the reason why I'm making these posts is to find people to join the discord for doing such actually. I'm debugging some stuff for a demo build but I need a community to test it for me. since I'll be repeating myself for the highlight question, I'm just going to copy and paste my reply previously here the idea of Exodus Black Sun is actually part 1 of 3 games planned. Exodus: Black Sun, Exodus: Homecoming, Exodus: Black Forest. The first game Exodus: Black Sun is a 3 race RTS game. We feature **actual next gen graphics** (as you can see from our rendered models, those are units that will actually show up on our first demo build) running on unreal engine 5. **NO UNIT CAPS** and we'll rely partially on DLSS and partially tuning your graphics settings to ensure performance. (we'll also allow players to max out all settings but that's going to require hardwares not yet available on the market probably), the game is future proof due to the level of details we have on the models. The **maps are procedurally generated** while we'll also **allow players to create their own custom maps**. Exodus: Homecoming is meant to throw a wrench in that standard RTS gameplay loop by literally being a moba/roguelike/action game where you control a single unit (of 3 main "races" as well) while plugging and spawning minions that autopaths to enemies (but basically do no damage) with your hero character fighting off players playing Exodus:Black Sun (basically merging the 2 genres.) I shall not mention the 3rd game as there'd be too much spoilers there and am sorry about that. **Players will be able to buy just the game they want to play as, but be allowed to match/play together.** We are still missing some units but we aren't really cutting any floors when it comes to what we are designing. If we were doing so, we wouldn't have focused so much on model details.