Slim Pickens Jan 15 @ 11:16am
Early Access Games. A Worthwhile Trend Or A Ripoff?
There seems to be plenty of threads about this issue and I'm not going to answer this question.

What I am interested in is how many Early Access titles have you purchased, with the assumption that it would eventually become a fully functional title worth the asking price, and now wish you could get a refund for?

Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
< >
Slim Pickens Jan 15 @ 11:20am 
I have 5
Jade Jan 15 @ 11:22am 
Originally posted by Slim Pickens:
What I am interested in is how many Early Access titles have you purchased, with the assumption that it would eventually become a fully functional title worth the asking price, and now wish you could get a refund for?
None. I bought Don't Starve and Zomboid and I'm happy with both.

Don't Starve isn't technically an early access game but it basically started the whole thing.
Τhe Rolling Cheese Wheel Jan 15 @ 11:29am 
9/10 it's going to be a ripoff. Stick with the crowd, and choose to support only the most popular of early access games because those are more likely to hit completion. Before buying any early access, make sure to gauge the interest of the community via the gamehub, a game with negative community and/or unsupportive community will always flop long before completion.

In the end it's your money, if you feel it's worthwhile to throw money away towards a game that has a high likelihood to stall and never hit completion, more power to you.
Last edited by Τhe Rolling Cheese Wheel; Jan 15 @ 11:31am
enamel Jan 15 @ 11:32am 
Originally posted by Slim Pickens:
how many Early Access titles have you purchased, with the assumption that it would eventually become a fully functional title worth the asking price

Zero. Every early access title I bought was to play the game in the state it exists, with the knowledge that the studio could close tomorrow and development would stop.
Teiji Feb 28 @ 12:59am 
Originally posted by Τhe Rolling Ham Cheese:
9/10 it's going to be a ripoff. Stick with the crowd, and choose to support only the most popular of early access games because those are more likely to hit completion. Before buying any early access, make sure to gauge the interest of the community via the gamehub, a game with negative community and/or unsupportive community will always flop long before completion.

In the end it's your money, if you feel it's worthwhile to throw money away towards a game that has a high likelihood to stall and never hit completion, more power to you.

Best approach towards Early Access yet. If it is not popular do not buy it. I have a a few early access and none have been finished aside from Don't Starve. I found that games that are aimed at the masses while focusing on current trends tend to succeed, while games that look interesting and innovative flop. Take DayZ and Rust as examples, both games hit the sweet spot of what is popular right now, survival games, zombies or open world. These two are set for life and they will be reaching completion due to the great funding and their playable alpha/beta stages. Games like Space Engineers, Star Forge and Kingdoms Rise will either disappoint and flop or be stuck in an Alpha stage for a very, very long time.

I have stopped paying to be a beta tester, because of the great risk of losing money. A finished game, has concrete reviews and what you see is roughly what you'll get, if the game is buggy and unplayable, well in that case you are ♥♥♥♥ed lol it happens but often times you are granted a refund or compensation (BF4, Simcity, and i am struggling to think of a non EA game haha). With Early Access though, everything depends on your faith on the developers. What you see, is what you "could" get in a week, a month, a year, or never. That is a commitment that I am not willing to make just as I would not buy a parachute that "could" open and deploy as a parachute when i pull the cord. If the games decides to change it's mechanics they are in a grey area where they can, and you as a consumer have no rights to a refund because the game is in development. In a worst case scenario and this is just a ridiculous exaggeration a game could claim to have building mechanics with a wiring mechanic that allows you to create machinery (sort of like minecraft's redstone). If that proves to be complicated the developer could dismiss that idea and change it for something simpler or throw it away all together and there is nothing you can do about it other than post rage threads on forums, because the game is not yet finished and you "paid" to see ideas not a final product. Of course Devs don't shoot their toes off just for kicks, and this not likely to be abused. However there is a second risk and that is, you never know when the final product will be finished. Early Access is alpha/beta but could also be...gamma, delta and holy ♥♥♥♥ it could be the entire alphabet if it wanted. Some argue that by buying early you save money, but since Early Access games get discounts during sales as well, when the game releases all you have to do is wait for the next Saturday to see it at least 50% off.
Pewpewmoar Feb 28 @ 4:32am 
Batman: Arkham Origins. Although I think WB games forgot to flag it as Early Access.
I AM SHODAN! Feb 28 @ 4:39am 
Why is there any need to apply a blanket assumption to a broad category in the first place?

All "early access" games will not be the same.
Some will be good.
Some will be worked on diligently.
A few will be amazing.
Some will be average.
A good number will be awful.
A very very small number will be unplayable forever, or complete scams.

You can't simply paint all of the games in this category with one brush. Every developer is a different individual or group of individuals. Why not do a bit of research on a game you're interested in before committing, check the forums associated with it, maybe play a demo if one exists, talk to people who've played it?

Why all this need to place an unwarranted label on everything sold before it's entirely complete?

scornel34 Feb 28 @ 6:00am 
Zero. I don't buy Early Access games and that will never change. I have patience enough to wait for it to actually reach a releaseable state.

To me, EA just puts the title on my radar. I keep a little notepad file on my desktop of titles that spark my interest and write them down. I check on them every few months to see if they have been completed and released.

I pretty much understand that a good chunk of EA titles will never be completed or are many years away from being called an actual game.

I don't mind Steam offering the EA option. I think it could be a good way to encourage small developers to get into the business. However, as a consumer it is not something I would buy, just as I wouldn't buy any other retail product that hasn't been fully constructed. I do wish Steam would allow us a way to filter out the EA titles though when you are browsing a category in the marketplace.
Teiji Feb 28 @ 12:27pm 
Originally posted by scornel34:
I do wish Steam would allow us a way to filter out the EA titles though when you are browsing a category in the marketplace.
luckily there is now. Just go to a Early Access game and under category it shoudl say Early Access plus whatever other category it falls under. I haven't found a filter when using the search tab, I might have missed something.


Originally posted by I AM SHODAN!:
Why is there any need to apply a blanket assumption to a broad category in the first place?

All "early access" games will not be the same.
Some will be good.
Some will be worked on diligently.
A few will be amazing.
Some will be average.
A good number will be awful.
A very very small number will be unplayable forever, or complete scams.

You can't simply paint all of the games in this category with one brush. Every developer is a different individual or group of individuals. Why not do a bit of research on a game you're interested in before committing, check the forums associated with it, maybe play a demo if one exists, talk to people who've played it?

Why all this need to place an unwarranted label on everything sold before it's entirely complete?

One blanket that covers all of the Early Access games is that all of them dwell in uncertainty. Like you said, some will be amazing, and some will flop. Steam, as logic goes, is just the middleman and has no power to rush a developer if they are found slacking or stop a developer for being too frantic.
That is why Early Access are criticized so badly because you never know what you are getting yourself into other than is an alpha. There should be guidelines and estimates, as well as a better system of communicating with the developer/publisher of a game you have purchased under Early Access, affter all, in my opinion, when i buy a game, I am a consumer, but when I buy an Early Access I am an investor and I would like Steam to see the difference between the two.

Look at rust, frequent udpates, great communication, a hit on steam and is a clear example of Early Access being a good thing, then you look at Star Forge and you face, lack of communication, updates that are too far apart, and game mechanics that have been switched around, or wiped out. Seems to me that the open developing leash is too loose, and some developers have taken, or will take advantage of it, while others leave everything under the sun for you to see.
[NH] Rofii Feb 28 @ 1:09pm 
I feel ripped off after buying DayZ; on the other hand, Rust is the best game I've ever bought.
crunchyfrog Feb 28 @ 3:03pm 
Zero.

Simply because I read the "small print" long before thinking about buying an early access game, and decided it's not something that I want to get into.

Even in the best circumstances, I have no wish to play a game AS it develops. I'd be most likely bored with it before it reached fruition.
Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Jan 15 @ 11:16am
Posts: 11