When does Steam decide Early access has taken too long!

[Estraven]

I was looking up older games and noticed early access releases for games up to 6 years old. This is rubbish. Steam should do something about the plethora of early access releases that do not finish or take too long, it helps sell an inferior or incomplete product beyond what should be considered reasonable.

[MalikQayum]

or you could read the FAQ about early access and save yourself a lot of headache, as you clearly do not understand what EA is about.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Originally posted by Estraven:

I was looking up older games and noticed early access releases for games up to 6 years old. This is rubbish. Steam should do something about the plethora of early access releases that do not finish or take too long, it helps sell an inferior or incomplete product beyond what should be considered reasonable.

Don't Google Star Citizen.

[Bee🐝]

I prefer games keep their early access label if they're still in development. If Steam placed an arbitrary time limit on it, most devs would release 1.0 in an incomplete state or rush bug testing and final touches. Rushing, publishers deadlines and a lack of money are why so many AAA titles are released in such poor states.

Look, Project Zombiod has been EA for years, even though with 0.41 is totally stable and playable for thousands of hours. The developers do not consider it feature-complete and polished to their high standards. And I'm fine that, it warns potential buyers this is not quite ready yet and gameplay changes are possible while allowing others to take the plunge.

[Crazy Tiger]

Íf you feel they take up too long to finish, don't buy them and ignore them. Let people who are interested in them, purchase them.

[ShelLuser]

Originally posted by Estraven:

I was looking up older games and noticed early access releases for games up to 6 years old. This is rubbish.

No it's not, it's being honest about the (intended) state of the game.

Originally posted by Estraven:

Steam should do something about the plethora of early access releases that do not finish or take too long

Why? Because you said so? Yeah, not exactly a very compelling argument.

If you don't appreciate Early Access games then just ignore them, simple!

I'd rather buy a game which has been in EA for 6 years so that I can clearly know up front what to expect vs. a game which claims to be production ready; only to end up behaving like a beta. As I mentioned: not taking a game out of EA is being honest, because there's no way you can overlook this.

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by ShelLuser:

not taking a game out of EA is being honest, because there's no way you can overlook this.

Agreed, Shell. People tend to forget that developers can actually choose at any point to slap a "release version 1.0, finished" sticker on it and be done with it. And some actually do.

[Nx Machina]

Two simple points.

1) Read the store page as Early Access is clearly defined as to what it is and you not liking it does not equate to it not been supported by others.

2) Learn to program etc and see how long the game you are creating remains in Early Access.

And finally the quote below sums up EAG. Award given.

Originally posted by ShelLuser:

Originally posted by Estraven:

I was looking up older games and noticed early access releases for games up to 6 years old. This is rubbish.

No it's not, it's being honest about the (intended) state of the game.

Originally posted by Estraven:

Steam should do something about the plethora of early access releases that do not finish or take too long

Why? Because you said so? Yeah, not exactly a very compelling argument.

If you don't appreciate Early Access games then just ignore them, simple!

I'd rather buy a game which has been in EA for 6 years so that I can clearly know up front what to expect vs. a game which claims to be production ready; only to end up behaving like a beta. As I mentioned: not taking a game out of EA is being honest, because there's no way you can overlook this.

[Bee🐝]

Originally posted by ShelLuser:

Originally posted by Estraven:

I was looking up older games and noticed early access releases for games up to 6 years old. This is rubbish.

No it's not, it's being honest about the (intended) state of the game.

Originally posted by Estraven:

Steam should do something about the plethora of early access releases that do not finish or take too long

Why? Because you said so? Yeah, not exactly a very compelling argument.

If you don't appreciate Early Access games then just ignore them, simple!

I'd rather buy a game which has been in EA for 6 years so that I can clearly know up front what to expect vs. a game which claims to be production ready; only to end up behaving like a beta. As I mentioned: not taking a game out of EA is being honest, because there's no way you can overlook this.

Great answer to the EA debate!

[nullable]

"Too long" is subjective. Sometimes projects take a long time. Arbitrary time limits don't help. And nothing would stop a developer from just hitting Release when the time limit is up and then continuing on with development.

The only difference is the developers opinion about the state of the game is now concealed or overridden for the sake of some twisted uninformed optics.

Early Access isn't some kinda of game selling cash cow buff that we need to manage and prevent from being exploited. It's just the developer's opinion about the state of the game. There's no reason why Valve needs to manage the developers opinion.

I'm not sure where the idea comes form developers and customers are best served with arbitrary rules and deadlines. It almost never comes as informed opinion though. It's almost always an emotional appeal, "I don't like this, there ought to be a law!"

[ShelLuser]

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

And finally the quote below sums up EAG. Award given.

Thank you very much, I really appreciate that!

Originally posted by Bee:

Great answer to the EA debate!

Thank you as well

[Tito Shivan]

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Don't Google Star Citizen.

:qr:

It's kind of ironic how many people blame Steam for the 'Early Access craze' when it's just something that was already happening industry-wide.

[T9]

EA is when u play investor but only with risks, no benefits. Well ok, u can play the game in a desolate state.

[Brian9824]

Also a game's age has nothing to do with popularity. I mean look at 7 days to die. Very well received over 6 years in EA.

They could have called it quits but instead they keep adding to it and updating and people are happy with it despite it being in EA for so long.

[Lunacy]

Early access can end up getting a lot of want and ideas from the community that can end up delaying the game's actual release
They just have to keep their main goals in sight so they can release something in time, early access should generally be close to a 1.0 release.

[Tito Shivan]

Originally posted by Lunacy:

early access should generally be close to a 1.0 release.

That's a pre-release beta. And that equation is why so many people get Early Access 'wrong'

That's not Early Access because by that stage you're already done developing and have probably pre-selling you game for months (with a solid release date)

Early Access is meant to be way farther than that. It's about the travel. A travel thay may or may not have destination.

Originally posted by t9:

EA is when u play investor.

Another wrong conception of what Early Access means.