A discussion about Early Access games.

[ZeeAyeSeeKay]

I'm torn when it comes to Early Access games. On one hand they can be a nice way for good indie games to find a foothold and funding so they can be developed and supported, even tho the process may take months, years, forever?(cough Star Citizen).
On the other hand when "AAA" Developers try to do Early Access or worst yet they just release an incomplete game and "claim it's done (except the 99% of the game they locked behind a paywall) Many time the Major Studios will just abandon it. I feel like this hurts both the consumer, because they didn't get what they were promised. This also hurts the company/studios because why should we trust them when it comes to the next game they shove out? I use to like many of these major companies, but it seems to me they don't care about how damaging it is to take money for a game that isn't ready to be sold, or that just sucks because of over-reaching greed. Cyberpunk2077, Battlefield 2042, Call of duty, Mobile Diablo.

That said there have been games that I bought into the Early Access and to my surprise the devs kept improving them and making the game better: Examples: Super Animal Royale, Subnautica, Insurgency Sandstorm

So I don't know if there is an easy answer to if early access is bad or not...maybe it just depends on the Developer in the end.

What do ya'll think?

[Crazy Tiger]

I think it's a great program. It's also not that hard for me to make decisions on it. I check how frequent a developer updates and how communicative they are. When the game is significantly into development and gets closer to release, there comes a point I might purchase it.
I usually do so when development is in the last stages, for example I got Slay the Spire when the last act got added, I got Streets of Rogue when the release date was announced and I got Griftlands just after the second character was added.

Though I don't purchase them often. But when I do, I have no issue accepting that development might stop the very next day. Only purchase them when you are happy with what you get, not with what you hope it will be.

I always feel people put too much emphasis on the label. Often enough there get games released that are in a "finished" state but in a worse condition than plenty of Early Access games. To me Early Access games at least have the honesty to state that they're unfinished, unlike the Cyberpunks and Battlefields of this world.

[ShelLuser]

It's very simple... All you need to do is check the game play as it is at that moment. If you enjoy it then it might be safe to buy, otherwise it's probably best to ignore.

I really don't understand the big deal with all this, common sense if you ask me.

[Brian9824]

Those games you listed aren't even EA titles..... Developers releasing unfinished games like Cyberpunk have absolutely nothing at all to do with Early Access in any way.

[nullable]

The expectation that Early Access isn't for AAA developers, that it's only suitable for no-name indies is some baseless nonsense. Developers releasing incomplete games has nothing to do with Early Access and has been a feature of gaming for decades.

Having mismanaged expectations for Early Access is a common problem for users. As is their need to try and "fix" things that aren't really in their realm of control to fix or manage. IE Developers are allowed to make bad games, and they're allowed to count the lint in their pockets when their bad games fail.

Early Access lets you see the game before it's done. There's no criteria when a game is done, that's the developers sole opinion. Games get canceled all the time, Early Access or not. Being able to see how the sausage is made isn't a problem, unless you have a weak stomach. You take Early Access away and you lose the visibility. If you try to manage it to get the outcomes you want, you just ruin the utility.

All Early Access really is, is a public statement of the developers opinion. You can feel however you want about their opinions, but end of the day it's their game. And nothing is forcing you to buy Early Access games. Nothing is forcing you to buy games with mediocre reviews either.

[Capo Rip]

I do the same sort of "research" before buying EA games as I do for complete games--look at reviews, look at game videos, read the forums, etc. I don't buy an EA game that I don't think is currently worth the current asking price to me. And generally that works for me. I mostly get my money's worth out of these games. But once I buy them my patience factor goes way up for EA games. I play them till I've tired of them. Casually (or obsessively) check on updates and don't get too worked up over slow or tanked projects because generally expectations and costs are low. The only EA I really feel I was burned on was Clockwork Empires and only because I thought the game had so much potential. Every other EA game, and I've probably bought over 20 of them has at least delivered fair value because I know what I'm getting into. Just Kerbal Space Program, Oxygen Not included, Rim World and Stationeers have pretty much made the EA value proposition for me and there are a bunch of other good ones.

[Zefar]

ZeeAyeSeeKay eredeti hozzászólása:

On the other hand when "AAA" Developers try to do Early Access or worst yet they just release an incomplete game and "claim it's done (except the 99% of the game they locked behind a paywall) Many time the Major Studios will just abandon it. I feel like this hurts both the consumer, because they didn't get what they were promised. This also hurts the company/studios because why should we trust them when it comes to the next game they shove out? I use to like many of these major companies, but it seems to me they don't care about how damaging it is to take money for a game that isn't ready to be sold, or that just sucks because of over-reaching greed. Cyberpunk2077, Battlefield 2042, Call of duty, Mobile Diablo.

Except those games where not in Early Access.

Cyberpunk2077 was quite playable and you had the whole story on launch. Yes it was quite buggy but overworld games often have bugs. I enjoyed it a lot though.

Battlefield 2042 was rushed though.

Haven't touched Call of Duty games in several years.

Mobile Diablo was a complete game and gameplay wise there is nothing wrong with it. It's just the massive pay2win aspect to the game that is so greedy and evil.


Personally I have no problem with Early Access titles. It's a big blue box with warning before buying it. Let it stay there until the game is complete.

[loppantorkel]

I think it's overall very good too. Not perfect but a good compromise. It's up to the consumers to research and risk their money or not.

[Tito Shivan]

There's what I do for Early Access games, which has given me very few dissapointments in my choices.

1-See a Early Access game I'd like.
2-Follow the game
3-Look how the development of the game goes (By following it you'll get news on updates in your user feed)
4-Wait (Sometimes I've waited 1-2 years before buying)
5-Check if I'm ok with playing the game as it is, right now before buying
6-If I am Buy it (Else goto 4)
7-Play it as it is, right now.

I've gotten burned very few times (And half of them I already knew I'd likely get burned, but the price tag made it worth the risk, so no hard feelings)

[BJWyler]

What Tito said should be the SOP for users looking at Early Access titles.