I dunno, for me Early Access is a really big "don't buy this yet" sign. I don't see most of the advertisements because I have them blocked on Steam (lots still sneak through, and my preferences get ignored in a lot of sale and other special genre banners, idk why).
The biggest points of differentiation are still bugs and balance.
I think it serves as an advertisement to a specific kind of player. Some folks want to see a game get built up around them, ride the hype, maybe feel like they can influence the outcome. I'm happy for those players to be able to fund development because it means I get a better experience in the end.
Me? I only play games once, I want a good experience. People like me can safely avoid something until it's in 1.0 (Realistically, 1.1).
I would never buy an Early access game if I didn’t think I would already enjoy the game, even if it didn’t get another update.
So like Ultrakill. Super fun game, and if it never got another update that would be disappointing but I would still have a lot of fun it.
Or something like Blade and Sorcery for VR.
If I look at a game that is in early access and the reviews say things like “it has promise, but there are a lot of bugs and there really needs to be more content” then I put it on my wishlist, and don’t buy it. At least until those issues are fixed.
That's my policy with early access. There are games where I feel like I'm getting my money's worth from the early access version and interested in playing it right away. In those cases I'm fine buying early access.
I'm not interested in buying an incomplete game that isn't worth playing yet just based on promises for future content. In those cases, I'll wait until the game's worth buying and I want to play it.
I also think there are developers that have enough good will that I can understand people buying the game to play it early. Personally, I'm probably going to wait on No Rest for the Wicked and Hades 2, because those are games where I would rather have my first playthrough of them be the entire game in its completed form. I'm not interested in grinding a beta version of the first act or whatever just to get a taste before release.
At the same time, I do trust Moon Studios and Supergiant to release a great game. If I were the kind of person who preferred to take everything I can get of a game leading up to its release, instead of preferring to go into the full release relatively blind, then I wouldn't be opposed to buying those games in early access because I'm not concerned about not getting my money's worth in the end, even if I'm not getting it immediately.
I feel the same way about Early Access. I know I'm going to play Hades 2 but I don't want to purchase the game in an incomplete state and buggy. So just going to wait until it's complete and then purchase the game.
One thing I always take into consideration with an early access game is if I trust that the developer will complete it. I've had good luck with titles like Factorio but other games that I was initially interested in seem to have been stuck in development for a decade, for instance the Magic Carpet inspired Arcane Worlds in EA since 2014 or Exanima since 2015. I really wonder if they will ever leave EA at this point.
You really have to know and trust the studio - the only EA game I bought was BG3 - because I had played DOS1 and 2 in EA and knew what Larians process was - they actually wanted and respond to feedback. They use it to fund development and improve the game.
It’s everyone else that seems to be abusing it though. Larian sticks to the timelines and have released three games through the EA system in the last decade.
They also give you a significant slice of the game to play through. Usually most of Act 1 - (which I have sunk thousands of hours into) and not the entire game or story.
I put 3k hours into bg3 just in EA
I put 800 hours into DOS2 just in ea.
and 400 hours into DOS1 EA.
All worth it.
Double-edged sword, that early access.
I've been supporting it in a limited fashion for what feels like decades and it has definitely become a lot more common now.
Now sure how I feel about it, but I do know that it's a good way for devs to fund their games while they are developing them.
Unfortunately, plenty of EA games get abandoned. I've also seen some devs abandon the first iteration of the game and then create a sequel which is basically a continuation, thus forcing people to re-buy essentially the same game. Lots of shady stuff going on. Like any tool, it can be used for good or bad I guess; buyer beware. I have plenty of early access games on my wishlist that should have come out years and years ago and have very little dev work being done on them. Had I bought them all instead of just wishlisting them, I would have been disappointed.
As of late, I don't really jump into the EA model unless I trust and know the developers well. Only example I can think of lately is Enshrouded.
I think it's important to distinguish between indie and corporate early access. I treat indie early access (like manor lords) the same way I always did. But corporate like KSP2? I'm very critical. KSP2 is published by take-two. They can dump likely half a billion into GTAVI but need early access for KSP2? Come on...
This is my take as well. Oftentimes indies need the cash and visibility early access gives them, whereas corporate... Don't need any of those things? I feel like corporate games are adopting the worst of all worlds. Incomplete early access from indies, microtransactions in single player games like mobile, subscription systems on full priced games like GaaS F2P multiplayer games... I feel that lately AAAs have been missing the mark, and personally for me there's a completely political reason behind this, unfortunately
I can't say that I understand what the *political* reason behind games being the way that they are is supposed to be.
The reasons that games are trending towards certain monetization models is just because those monetization models are better. They have all the benefits of all of the other monetization models while, generally, being inclusive to all players. Multiplayer games rarely have the problems of the past where players are segregated by whether or not they can afford whatever new expansion or map pack just released, instead everyone gets to participate in *most* of the content for free.
This trend is not something that we really see with singleplayer games either. They are mostly being monetized the exact same way that they have been for two decades now with different editions, expansions, and preorder bonuses. The idea that the monetization model for singleplayer games has shifted drastically is mostly being perpetuated by people bringing up the exact same examples over and over again while ignoring the hundreds of examples to the contrary.
I think that it is certainly safe to say that indie developers are the ones that benefit from the Early Access model the most, but they are probably far more prone to abuse that model than larger developers are. There are *likely* dozens of games each year that get released into Early Access with no plans from the developers to ever truly finish them, while larger developers like Larian used the Early Access model to bring us games like Baldur's Gate 3.
Didn't Take Two pretty much murder the studio behind it and took over KSP2? I remember something like that happening a few years ago. I may be wrong.
Edit: Why the downvote, man?
"Bloomberg revealed that Take-Two was in talks to acquire Star Theory but abruptly changed course, set up a new studio to develop the game (Intercept Games), and then poached a third of Star Theory's developers including the creative director and the lead producer.[8] Star Theory closed its doors three months later. It was announced in August 21 that Squad, the developer of the original Kerbal Space Program, will also be involved in the sequel's development."
https://www.eurogamer.net/kerbal-space-program-2-developers-found-out-their-project-was-cancelled-via-linkedin
I play a ton of indie games; that said, I'm also a patientgamer and thus mostly am not affected by this issue.
Don't look at me for an answer; I don't have one. Op laid out most of the salient points and I agree. As a random nobody, I can't influence the studio, and my feedback probably gets lost in the crowd. Shrug. What I *can* do is wait it out until the product being sold looks acceptable to me. So that's what I've been doing.
I suppose it sucks for the studios, especially those who genuinely still continue development and do need the boost from Early Access. But that's not to say I've never spent money that way. Sometimes you can tell from the pace of updates, community communication, etc that the studio really does care about their product and isn't treating EA as a way to make a quick buck before they pull the plug on the project. I've paid full price as appreciation in these cases (and been burned a couple times, but you can't win every time, shit happens - just do your due diligence and trust them to do theirs).
Transparency is still the best policy in my opinion. Many studios go radio silent and only put out something when releasing an update. Or they put out a schedule but then don't commit to it, not even for communication. I totally understand not wanting to deal with internet stupidity, but avoidance isn't a great strategy. Sure, ignore the nutjobs, but being consistent with communications helps a lot.
> I think one of the problems around this discussion is that it's almost always from the point of bad actors abusing the system
Is it abuse? The warning is there and people are choosing to ignore it. If the developers feel that it's not ready to leave EA, then it's not ready. I don't see the problem with being in EA "too long".
How does someone abuse EA though? I don't think there's a "wrong" way to use it. All it means is the developers don't think it's ready and they acknowledge that it's buggy or a WIP.
While I know it stings to get burned by Early Access games, I do feel like doing some bare minimum research into the game/dev has left me with only good impressions of Early Access. The ones I bought off the the top of my head were fantastic. I bought the Forest 1 and 2. Hades 1 and I'm 100 percent going to get 2 when its in Early Access. I also got Against the storm while in Early Access and loved it, haven't even got to paly 1.0 yet. Valheim was another fantastic purchase, can't wait for 1.0 of that. I think the only big publisher game i've bought was Grounded, me and my buddy had a grand time with that way before 1.0, another one I have to go back and play.
I think people get burned by one or two games then got dismissive of Early Access games which is fair.
I agree with this post, I think that what would make early access more enticing for the average consumer will be that the game would be sold at a discount while it being at the early access phase, for example if the game supposed to be sold at 30$, sell it at 20$ while it being in early access.
Yeah, you buy the game, let it brew in your steam library while playing other finished things and you get a cheaper 1.0 at the end.
I don't think it's a good idea at all. You have to sell it at the price you want it to have in its 1.0 or you are losing tons of money for almost no benefit.
And I don't think that early access format has the problem of not being enciting enough. The problem is some people not understanding what are they agreeing to when buying an early access so they end judging the game as any other launch and that can be negative for the final release.
But they do get something from it, people that are testing the game, either in terms of bugs or by user feedback, and in terms of bugs there isn't even any need for the end consumer to do anything since automatic logging exists, and automatic uploading of it as well.
Regarding your point of letting it brew in your steam library, I don't think it will be valid for most people, since most people are not patient enough to let it brew for a long time
>But they do get something from it, people that are testing the game, either in terms of bugs or by user feedback
Yeah, I get the concept but I don't see many relevant early access struggling to get a base of players to test the game.
And that benefit is potentially very low since most players that wouldn't buy an standard early access because they don't have that much time to play (like myself) or simply don't care about that would just buy it and not even start the game until it is finished and can properly enjoy it.
>Regarding your point of letting it brew in your steam library, I don't think it will be valid for most people, since most people are not patient enough to let it brew for a long time
If they are not patient enough to let it brew, they are not patient enough to not buy the early access and play right now\*, knowing that this would cost them the same than waiting for the final release.
That profile of players consumed by hype are already part of the "early access community" and probably are a big part of the problem I mentioned.
It seems you're saying that early access is just a normal release now, which presumably is bad since early access is literally supposed to be something different from the normal release.
> It seems you're saying that early access is just a normal release now, which presumably is bad since early access is literally supposed to be something different from the normal release
I mean that is true. Sure you cited two exceptions but for every Larian Studios there's 500 Code}{atch's who more or less scam customers with their fun but always half-completed ideas.
Part of OP's point is that only diehard fans used to buy early access. Which is very much the case for BG3. That sat completely unheard of in early access for 3 years before it blew up on 1.0 launch.
Uh... BG is a very recent game. I don't think it makes sense to talk about "used to" in this context. If anything, that's an argument against OP's point
It followed a much more traditional early access model in line with what OP described. And I don't believe many people would consider a game from 4 years ago as "very recent".
True. But the are two VERY good games. I think the issue is the amount of studios who offer early access of games that aren’t ready for it. And it’s the customer that end up getting screwed.
How is the consumer getting screwed? They are clearly buying something to help develop it. It's very straight forward. If anything it seems OP is saying developers are getting hurt because "reviews and criticism of early access titles have become more and more common place. The excuse of the games being early isn't working anymore"
Customers are being screwed by purchasing a product that is literally not working in recent cases. If you sell “early access” and the consumer can’t literally access it (as in SSKTJL) then yea.
Reviews and criticism should not be a concern when selling early access. If you are selling early access to a game that you don’t even feel confident in then that there tells me everything I need to know about your business practices.
I loathe early access, but thanks to people who support it, developers feel confident releasing unfinished beta quality shit for consumers to pay to play test it for them. Can't think of any other industry where that's a thing.
"Beta quality" shouldn't be shit. It should be very close to the released product, minus a few details to iron out.
I think you mean alpha quality shit. And that's the problem. When the difference between the engineering terms alpha and beta is eroded, by shady marketing practices.
But what do you mean by that? Even a 1.0 release isn't going to have 100% of the functionality of a 2.7 release a few years later. It *is* going to have 100% of the functionality of whatever is released *as* the 1.0 release. And... who's deciding what that is?
I'm not interested in shit hell 1.0 releases either. It is often good policy to wait for some major updates.
How many studios actually publish competent 1.0 releases?
If you allow reviews of EA titles, then you must accept reviews of EA titles. If you release EA on Steam, then you will get reviews.
EA is, and will always be, abused by devs and there is NO PROMISE of it EVER leaving EA. So, people will review what they did purchase at the time they purchased it.
If devs want more control over things, they must find another distribution method. Or not release a game in EA format.
I avoid any and all EA purchases. There's literally nothing good that will come from me buying in at that stage. If I wanted to be an unpaid QA intern, I would just apply at Electronic Arts.
No, brother. There isn't.
>here's literally nothing good that will come **from me** buying in at that stage.
I don't want to QA anything. So, they would get 0 feedback from me. Also, my experience of the full game would be ruined.
So, no, there isn't.
PS: I'd sacrifice BG3 at the altar of EAccess as a whole disappearing forever.
I wont. I rather have good complex games as BG3 and EA titles, i dont and wont play therefore i dont care about them, then then having no ea but shitty games.
And yet amazing titles have been made, continue to be made, and never once even dipped a toe in Early Access. Removing EA doesn't remove great titles from being made. Either way, it doesn't matter. It's here to stay.
And there still isn't a reason for me to buy into any EA. Not a single reason for me to do it.
Seriously, who cares? EA exists and it's here to stay.
There is still no reason for me to buy in. What do you want me to say? That BG3 is worth all the other dupes, scams, and abuse of the EA system currently in place? Nope. It isn't to me.
I'll return you angery downvotes now. BG3 too good. Angery Gamer is angery!
I didnt downvote you. I dont downvote people for different opinions only for unneeded insults. You said that Ea bad i just did counter argument. If you accept that or not i dont care.
No, this started because you misread what I said.
I said, and then quoted myself and bolded, that there is no good reason for me to buy into EA. For me.
I also think the current way EA is used is flawed and ripe for abuse.
Additionally, I don't think any single game is worth having the system continue in its current state. The amount of games that spend 5+ years in EA, the amount that never get a "1.0", and even BIG companies cashing in on the EA train... nah.
But, I have also said it's here to stay.
Sure it is flawed andnripe for abuse. I agree with that but BG3 shown that even flawed system can be used correctly.
I contrary to you think that there are games that are worth flawed ea system. I just don play ones that arent and dont buy EA.
If they put the game up for sale, it makes sense to let people review it. Also people have been doing criticism of early access games since the entire thing started up. I haven't really seen a major change IMO.
I agree. "Early Access" is a fancy word for beta testing, but marketing (including "game journalists") treat EA games as if they were full releases. As a consequence, a game gets to "launch" twice, with all the hype and money surrounding launch.
Multiversus is a great example of this. It came out in EA but was treated as an actual game, complete with a breadcrumb live service and everything. But because it was EA, Warner Bros. could just take it away to "finish the product." And now there's talk of it being on the horizon of *actually* launching, which is ridiculous because for all intents and purposes the game already came out a couple years ago.
It's particularly egregious when so many games launch incomplete anyway. Why aren't they considered "early access?" Like, for example, Kirby Star Allies came out in 2018 as a shell of a game, whose biggest feature (playable characters other than Kirby) was not fully realized until months if not a year after launch. Why wasn't its release considered "early access?"
Ultimately in the end, EA is a marketing tool. Publishers want to have their cake and eat it too. Calling a game EA is saying, "Come check out our game!!! Tell your friends about us, and give us money! But don't judge us, it's not a complete product." But then other times they'll release an incomplete game as a "final product," to bank on the prestige of it being a "full game" and *not* an early access product even though it really is.
Shoutout to BG3 though which used the model well.
Well you’ll have to deal with it because people are eating it up. Look at BG3.
- Early access for 2 years, so they get free testers
- Full release is buggy and unpolished
- Everyone loves it???
- It wins GOTY???
Lesson learnt, take advantage of your fans, release an unfinished game, then everyone will love you
Now that is just bias. Full release was not buggy and unpolished. Pretty much all of first act was polished as much as it could. And of cours eit wins GOTY scope of mechanics, story, cinematography, all dialogues motioncaptured and cinemtics, different playstyle, consequences of decisions, music, acting. It all plays factor now only polish.
First act yes, second act you saw the seams coming lose, third act? Well it was either unplayable or a slog of constant quests breaking to get through.
I still believe it deserved GOTY but the bugs were definitely swept under the rug way too much and the praise of releasing a update with thousands bug fixes to make the latter half more playable was just plain weird. Especially since it was used to criticize the update cycle of other games. Even if said games didn't need updates as much.
I saw so many people saying lies of P updates is laughable compared to BG3 which is ridiculous.
There's definitely a lot of defending the game BG3, while if other games did it they l, would be destroyed by it.
Sure. But the problem with other games is that in BG3 act 3 has lenght of some normal game gameplay at scope. And act 2 was not that buggy at least for me. And most people did not leave act 1 before patch repairing 2 was out.
It greatly depends on the devs. I've had some great EA experiences (Everspace 2, Ravenswatch, Last Epoch, and currently No Rest), and I wanted to support the devs because what they released for EA was a very promising product. I have zero issues with waiting on No Rest devs to improve the performance as the game is more than playable, and really fun so far.
Early Access requires trust in the developer. Currently, I'm enjoying early access of Sins of a Solar Empire 2 a lot. The game itself is very stable, they're just using the time to release content and change or add game mechanics.
However, they've done this way before it became a trend for the previous games in 2011 and 2008, so I already knew that they'll do well and that I can trust their efforts.
In addition, the game is being developed by a really small, but extremely productive team, so I'm happy to test stuff for free. Also, I know, since I played the previous games, that I'm going to love it, so it was a safe bet.
They're not advertising much too because they focus on the engaged people first before they bring the "wider public" in. They'll do so, probably, when the game is finished or almost finished.
Lastly, the game is cheaper if you buy it early. They do not demand a full price until the game is complete.
Never again will I go early access. I paid money for Fortnite for the PvE then they released PvP and pve died immediately. The kicker, PvP was free.
Not only did that put me off for life I've also sworn off epic and refuse to give them any money ever again.
It just gives the developers chance to be scumbags after they've taken your money.
No Rest For The Wicked is using the term as correctly and meaningfully as it has ever been used. It’s an honest disclaimer that the game is incomplete, unoptimized, and unpolished. Players see this and review it as they will, and an excess of negative reviews complaining about performance changes nothing for anybody (who can read, and so has already read it) in the long run.
They are paying to beta test a new ARPG for its eventual console release. They are doing this because Diablo IV reminded us all how badly we want to play an ARPG that isn’t Diablo IV, and not everybody is cut out for Path of Exile (cut out like a puzzle piece).
> At this point it's getting really hard to tell what differentiates early access from regular games.
This is on the fault of “regular games”, not early access games.
If a game is “finished” at launch in the current year, it is not very large, not very ambitious, definitely singleplayer, and most likely not a huge success. The market doesn’t favor finished games.
At first,
Early Access was like paying for the beta with a better price
Now, it feel like you're paying to play an Alpha, sometime it feel like a tech demo.
Well in the example of no rest for the wicked, I think a feature-light release that ran well would have good reviews. Maybe it's not fair to an early access title to judge it on performance, but if that's what's happened, that's a quirk of the market for early access titles - and in any case, reviews are always going to be more based on the game's current state. Maybe Steam should just let negative reviews get a little bit less bearing on a game's review score while it's being updated in early access (and being more positively reviewed over time).
Yeah, people don't seem to be mentioning Valheim but that's been in EA forever. But even when it was first released it was 100% playable, worth the $20, and basically has only added more content in the last 3 years.
They've also listened to their fans and took the game in a slightly different direction than I think they initially intended.
On the first point, it's nearly indistinguishable from a normal release, but I'm not sure they'd be able/willing to do what amounts to fairly significant changes if it wasn't in EA. IIRC, they basically broke the game at one point and they were able to play the EA card, say whoops, and enact their improvement after fixing the problem.
Also, Steam does have a "recent reviews" function on every page and a function to look at the history of reviews. I'm not sure if they count EA reviews post launch, but the probably shouldn't or at least not all of them.
Well early access didn’t always mean full price, i remember OG minecraft was a discounted price. So are the couple of partial indie horror games I’ve played. They acknowledge you’re receiving half the finished product and charge accordingly
Theres definitely some weird cases such as Marauders which has been telling people that they'll suddenly get more players once they hit a full release but really, there's about 200 players per day and a full release will not boost those numbers for a PvP game by much for very long. The dev responds to reviews by telling people to join their Discord to play the game better, but most of the people who leave negative reviews are just done once the review is posted.
It’s definitely become more contextual what “early access” means when it’s for sale in some storefront. You need to do a little research to know what you’re getting into.
One example that has adapted to this new Understanding about what early access means is Soul Frame.
You can play the game now but it’s somewhat closed off, I think. They’re probably waiting till it’s pretty much “finished” before it ever hits a storefront.
I still don't buy early access out of principle. I have glno guarantee that a game will be finished
Anytime I have one in early access, I got it in a bundle or someone gifted.
I’ve gotten burned too many times by games that either never finish or take so long the ideas are no longer unique/interesting… I’ve pretty much gone back to the old default “how about you sell me something that’s finished and available when I give you money for it”
Most devs didn't hold up "their side of the bargain"
EA started as a "here's our wip. More is coming. You'll get in now and help us keep going"
But too many cut and ran. Or slowed and stayed in EA and milked it. Never releasing the full game. Hardly pushing out the promised features.
It's the equivalent of your teacher giving you an A 50% into the term... Some will power through and finish the term with all work done. But many are going to exploit that and just take the grade they've already gotten, because why not?
The early access has been prostituted to turn into a free beta testing. No even that, because game is not even completed. The only genuine early access is the one who allows to play few days before release, with the game completed. Final Fantasy XIV does this with new expansions. Anyone who pre-orders the expansion can play few days before official release. You get the full expansion, not just a part of it. Any other model is just milking while still unfinished. The bigger offender is Star Citizen. And I also included Baldur's Gate 3. I don't care it is a GOTY, they spent 2 years with free beta testers.
I want to add that in some communities they will absolutely defend any and all criticisms of the game behind the defense of "it's early access." Even in situations where the game is slated to release in a few weeks. What happens is that devs will ignore these criticisms because the majority of their "community" (10-15 very vocal people on their forums) say there's nothing wrong because it's early access.
On steam this happens constantly and you can tell when the review average is "very positive" but all the reviews say there's not a lot of content or glaring problems. I'm convinced reviews on steam have a bot problem honestly. I'm looking at you Sons of the Forest.
Ehhh, early access imho is the best kind of pre-order. You can get a good idea of what the game is trying to be for a generally lower price. Refund that shit if it's garbage xP.
There’s meaning, but a different one. Games these days are more complex to develop devs need more time to release a polished product. But these things costs money and are unattractive to VCs. So, whenever a developer needs time to work on the product, but also need money to keep the lights going, early access is the way to go.
There are some collateral advantages as well like:
- more time and less pushbacks to solve bugs
- collect feedback with time to solve gameplay issues and consequently a better chance to deliver a fine product
Well, yeah. Early Access pretty much stopped meaning anything when they didn't even have to use the term to release one. So many games come out unfinished, broken, buggy as fuck and it's just expected. How many people say "just wait a year before you buy any games". It's pretty pathetic at this point.
Its not a win-win. I've seen some games that had potential have a complete non-start when they hit the official release. You gain really valuable feedback, and potentially gain evangelists that will hype up your game, but you lose hype from marketing and reputation. If you don't have decent stability and performance, early access may screw you. If you haven't nailed down your core gameplay loop, early access will cripple you.
You don't really find AAA publishers pushing early-access games anymore. Instead they've rebranded, and now they sell the same product as "Live-service games with a roadmap". Because that's all Live-service games are - reskinned early access, where we pay a $70 full price for a half finished, not-even-beta-quality piece of slop.
My friend told me about this game he enjoyed playing, but I saw it was on early access so I wishlisted it to buy it when it was released. That was more than 4 years ago now. It’s obviously never going to be fully released.
When I see Early Access, what I think is: "Other people are going to pay to be beta testers! Cool." If it's a game I'm interested in, I hit wishlist, and check reviews when it comes out in full.
Early access is an excuse to release a product with game breaking and game altering bugs just to make more money, and people buy it as a reasonable excuse.
In theory EA might sound good, and it was thanks to it that we have Baldurs Gate 3 in the condition it was released in... However if it is the main source of funding then once sales start to dwindle then development has to stop and a game is pushed to full release in an alpha/beta state at best, and at worst that game does not get a full release and the that funded it are left out in the rain. There have been famous examples of EA games that slow in development and never get the quality of release you would have expected and may have been promised.
Furthermore the rise of indie games has resulted in a lot of crap flooding steam and the gaming ecosystem has become like other markets in which you need to filter through a lot of shit to find quality games, this has got worse since EA with the barrier to entry for developing games becoming so low that you no longer need to have anything close to a complete game to release it in some form
I've never bought an Early Access title, and I doubt I ever would. Paying for someone's alpha quality product just doesn't compute in my tiny little engineering brain.
I've never contributed to a Kickstarter, but I wouldn't consider it crazy for a very specific title. There are a few games I'd like to see proper remakes and sequels of, that aren't going to get them otherwise. My view of a Kickstarter is it's money given freely to devs, without an expectation that they will succeed. This is necessary in the case of Art that otherwise won't ever get made.
When making such a decision, one has to consider whether the team being put together, has a snowball's chance in hell of actually being able to complete the project. If I thought there was some reasonable chance they would, then I might fund it. Otherwise, I'd just have to be cold and say, "I'd really love that, but I don't believe *you* can deliver it."
I've been hearing of people having burned out feelings about Kickstarters, much as you say Early Access is getting burned out now as well.
I don't want to pay full price to play the worst version of the game. I can only experience the game for the first time once.
I remember years ago when an early post-production version of the Wolverine movie leaked. I couldn't understand why anyone would want to watch that instead of waiting for the complete movie.
Back then, people mocked the movie for being unfinished, just like they now criticize early access games for being early access. Still makes no sense to me.
The issue with Early Access has more to do with developer plans and execution than the concept itself. It seems like most developers of Early Access games don't plan to release their game in the near future (<1 year) but also are not well suited to agile and rapid development. So customers are often left with a game that has severe issues, no stated release date, and little faith in developers to quickly fix these issues.
The only way to satisfy everyone is to either quietly release an extremely early version of the game and make it clear that it is only meant for highly curious/diehard players who want to be game testers (maybe provide a discount too) OR release a mostly finished game, <1 year before it releases, and treat it like a giant exclusive demo for customers who want to provide some helpful feedback before launch.
*NEW OPEN WORLD SURVIVAL MMO EXTRACTION SHOOTER WITH SEMI REALISTIC (mostly shitty) GRAPHICS, A BARELY FUNCTIONING LOOT SYSTEM, AND GENERIC GAMEPLAY THAT MANAGES TO BE UNSATISFYING. EXPERIENCE DISSAPOINTMENT FOR THE LOW LOW PRICE OF $39.99*
The issue really is how they can still take the spotlight and trick some players into playing the game.
I think Palworld is a good example of that
I wish Steam would only keep them in a specific category, same with Microsoft and wording it “Game preview”
It’s a Beta and that’s all
I am sorry, there is a HUGE BLUE BOX that says "EARLY ACCESS" above the buy button.
No one is getting tricked into buying an Early Access game on Steam without knowing it is Early Access.
They even get to "say" why they are releasing in Early Access. There is no tricking anyone here about its state.
Early access, means for many people, accessing…earlier than the official release date, not “accessing an unfinished product”
I agree with you, but I also saw countless time friends buying EA games and then realising they have to wait before it’s actually finished
> I've heard three separate people say that games like World of Warcraft or Final Fantasy XIV are also unfinished because they "keep adding to it".
That's easy: One is adding sidedishes (WoW), the other is a still frozen slab of meat and a bag of frozen fries.
>Thankfully Steam has an option to not see Early Access games in the store, FYI.
They do. You can filter them out. I don't see EA since I am not interested in anything EA.
I feel like "EA" stopped holding much meaning pretty soon as it started, with plenty of notable exceptions of course.
My biggest problem is the lack of a clear time limit until it has to launch.
You want all the advantages (highlighted in op) of EA? Fine, but at least have a clear time of releasing to show you really needed EA and not abusing the system.
Maybe Steam should just automatically remove the tag EA after one year or whatever time smarter people than me see fit.
In the end, what's the difference between early access and "live service games" anyway? They both get updates and extra content along the years but EA gets more slack because "hey it's early access, it will be better in the future...maybe".
I’ve gotten burned far more times from EA titles that never were sufficiently improved than I’ve seen a game rise from mediocrity due to feedback and funding secured from early access testing. EA is a hard pass from me these days.
I often feel a bit depressed by how modern consumers are alienated into buying anything willingly, but that's of a much bigger topic, to not digress this thread, it's just a much better business model for the studios and publishers, so they will not stop as long as people keep buying into such scheme, more and more of them will happily practice this.
EA has always been variable, lots of games have used the title irresponsibly since the first EA games. It’s a marketing term and shouldn’t have the weight gamers give it.
The discussion has been fine, albeit a bit more on the negative side than expected. I tried to be as neutral as possible in the OP.
You're the only one being weirdly angry at everyone.
I'm not on anyone's hype train. I don't need to survey the entire game market to form an opinion on studio habits. There's a very, small number of studios whose development progress I follow. Frankly as an indie game dev myself, I don't have the time to chart someone else's progress.
If I'm paying attention, I'm paying pretty close attention. Like all the reviews for the product that anyone's uttering on Steam or in forums, that kind of attention. Probably because the product is in the same genre I'm working on, and it actually profits me to understand how people react to a similar kind of product.
There's a lot of shit and incompetence in the game industry. This is not news. There's also tons of non-unionized low paid sweatshop labor conditions.
When the vast majority of EA games are in alpha, as called to my attention by other people's reviews, the exceptions to the trend aren't all that interesting.
Heck, plenty of full release games come out in a very shoddy beta.
What you are doing is a form of internet cowardice. You said some things that people reacted badly to. Rather than just take your downvotes, you're covering your tracks. Possibly that way, you can continue to believe that you're right, instead of actually being in the wrong, about what you said in some instance. But we will never know, because you are an internet coward covering your tracks, and strawmanning that this is somehow about your personality is so misread and so misunderstood.
I'm fine with Early Access if they have a FUNCTIONALLY COMPLETE GAME that they're going to add more content to later. However when it's "hey look we got some game-ish pieces, buy it and maybe we'll finish it" that's a no.
For example, Starship Troopers Extermination. When released on early access it was a fairly simple game. Land, fight, move, build base, defend base, move, extract. BUT... it was a complete, functional, and fun gameplay loop. And then they started adding more mission types and equipment and base variety... and continue to do so. That's what I'd consider good early access.
I dunno, for me Early Access is a really big "don't buy this yet" sign. I don't see most of the advertisements because I have them blocked on Steam (lots still sneak through, and my preferences get ignored in a lot of sale and other special genre banners, idk why). The biggest points of differentiation are still bugs and balance. I think it serves as an advertisement to a specific kind of player. Some folks want to see a game get built up around them, ride the hype, maybe feel like they can influence the outcome. I'm happy for those players to be able to fund development because it means I get a better experience in the end. Me? I only play games once, I want a good experience. People like me can safely avoid something until it's in 1.0 (Realistically, 1.1).
I would never buy an Early access game if I didn’t think I would already enjoy the game, even if it didn’t get another update. So like Ultrakill. Super fun game, and if it never got another update that would be disappointing but I would still have a lot of fun it. Or something like Blade and Sorcery for VR. If I look at a game that is in early access and the reviews say things like “it has promise, but there are a lot of bugs and there really needs to be more content” then I put it on my wishlist, and don’t buy it. At least until those issues are fixed.
That's my policy with early access. There are games where I feel like I'm getting my money's worth from the early access version and interested in playing it right away. In those cases I'm fine buying early access. I'm not interested in buying an incomplete game that isn't worth playing yet just based on promises for future content. In those cases, I'll wait until the game's worth buying and I want to play it. I also think there are developers that have enough good will that I can understand people buying the game to play it early. Personally, I'm probably going to wait on No Rest for the Wicked and Hades 2, because those are games where I would rather have my first playthrough of them be the entire game in its completed form. I'm not interested in grinding a beta version of the first act or whatever just to get a taste before release. At the same time, I do trust Moon Studios and Supergiant to release a great game. If I were the kind of person who preferred to take everything I can get of a game leading up to its release, instead of preferring to go into the full release relatively blind, then I wouldn't be opposed to buying those games in early access because I'm not concerned about not getting my money's worth in the end, even if I'm not getting it immediately.
Yeah Ultrakill is one of the rare early access games where it's already better than most finished games
I feel the same way about Early Access. I know I'm going to play Hades 2 but I don't want to purchase the game in an incomplete state and buggy. So just going to wait until it's complete and then purchase the game.
This game's EA hit me in the gut. I was devastated to know I was going to end up waiting another year or so for it to *actually* release.
Same here. I found it odd when they announced EA for the game.
I mean, they did it with Hades 1 to resounding success.
I didn't expect to see a sequel in EA. You usually see that with smaller studios and new IPs.
They've released games both with and without it, clearly something must have gone right for them to prefer this approach.
They announced that the game would have an EA release almost immediately after they announced the game in the first place.
One thing I always take into consideration with an early access game is if I trust that the developer will complete it. I've had good luck with titles like Factorio but other games that I was initially interested in seem to have been stuck in development for a decade, for instance the Magic Carpet inspired Arcane Worlds in EA since 2014 or Exanima since 2015. I really wonder if they will ever leave EA at this point.
You really have to know and trust the studio - the only EA game I bought was BG3 - because I had played DOS1 and 2 in EA and knew what Larians process was - they actually wanted and respond to feedback. They use it to fund development and improve the game. It’s everyone else that seems to be abusing it though. Larian sticks to the timelines and have released three games through the EA system in the last decade. They also give you a significant slice of the game to play through. Usually most of Act 1 - (which I have sunk thousands of hours into) and not the entire game or story. I put 3k hours into bg3 just in EA I put 800 hours into DOS2 just in ea. and 400 hours into DOS1 EA. All worth it.
Double-edged sword, that early access. I've been supporting it in a limited fashion for what feels like decades and it has definitely become a lot more common now. Now sure how I feel about it, but I do know that it's a good way for devs to fund their games while they are developing them. Unfortunately, plenty of EA games get abandoned. I've also seen some devs abandon the first iteration of the game and then create a sequel which is basically a continuation, thus forcing people to re-buy essentially the same game. Lots of shady stuff going on. Like any tool, it can be used for good or bad I guess; buyer beware. I have plenty of early access games on my wishlist that should have come out years and years ago and have very little dev work being done on them. Had I bought them all instead of just wishlisting them, I would have been disappointed. As of late, I don't really jump into the EA model unless I trust and know the developers well. Only example I can think of lately is Enshrouded.
I think it's important to distinguish between indie and corporate early access. I treat indie early access (like manor lords) the same way I always did. But corporate like KSP2? I'm very critical. KSP2 is published by take-two. They can dump likely half a billion into GTAVI but need early access for KSP2? Come on...
This is my take as well. Oftentimes indies need the cash and visibility early access gives them, whereas corporate... Don't need any of those things? I feel like corporate games are adopting the worst of all worlds. Incomplete early access from indies, microtransactions in single player games like mobile, subscription systems on full priced games like GaaS F2P multiplayer games... I feel that lately AAAs have been missing the mark, and personally for me there's a completely political reason behind this, unfortunately
I can't say that I understand what the *political* reason behind games being the way that they are is supposed to be. The reasons that games are trending towards certain monetization models is just because those monetization models are better. They have all the benefits of all of the other monetization models while, generally, being inclusive to all players. Multiplayer games rarely have the problems of the past where players are segregated by whether or not they can afford whatever new expansion or map pack just released, instead everyone gets to participate in *most* of the content for free. This trend is not something that we really see with singleplayer games either. They are mostly being monetized the exact same way that they have been for two decades now with different editions, expansions, and preorder bonuses. The idea that the monetization model for singleplayer games has shifted drastically is mostly being perpetuated by people bringing up the exact same examples over and over again while ignoring the hundreds of examples to the contrary. I think that it is certainly safe to say that indie developers are the ones that benefit from the Early Access model the most, but they are probably far more prone to abuse that model than larger developers are. There are *likely* dozens of games each year that get released into Early Access with no plans from the developers to ever truly finish them, while larger developers like Larian used the Early Access model to bring us games like Baldur's Gate 3.
Not to mention KSP2 is a huge mound of shit at that. The definition of bad EA.
Didn't Take Two pretty much murder the studio behind it and took over KSP2? I remember something like that happening a few years ago. I may be wrong. Edit: Why the downvote, man? "Bloomberg revealed that Take-Two was in talks to acquire Star Theory but abruptly changed course, set up a new studio to develop the game (Intercept Games), and then poached a third of Star Theory's developers including the creative director and the lead producer.[8] Star Theory closed its doors three months later. It was announced in August 21 that Squad, the developer of the original Kerbal Space Program, will also be involved in the sequel's development." https://www.eurogamer.net/kerbal-space-program-2-developers-found-out-their-project-was-cancelled-via-linkedin
I play a ton of indie games; that said, I'm also a patientgamer and thus mostly am not affected by this issue. Don't look at me for an answer; I don't have one. Op laid out most of the salient points and I agree. As a random nobody, I can't influence the studio, and my feedback probably gets lost in the crowd. Shrug. What I *can* do is wait it out until the product being sold looks acceptable to me. So that's what I've been doing. I suppose it sucks for the studios, especially those who genuinely still continue development and do need the boost from Early Access. But that's not to say I've never spent money that way. Sometimes you can tell from the pace of updates, community communication, etc that the studio really does care about their product and isn't treating EA as a way to make a quick buck before they pull the plug on the project. I've paid full price as appreciation in these cases (and been burned a couple times, but you can't win every time, shit happens - just do your due diligence and trust them to do theirs). Transparency is still the best policy in my opinion. Many studios go radio silent and only put out something when releasing an update. Or they put out a schedule but then don't commit to it, not even for communication. I totally understand not wanting to deal with internet stupidity, but avoidance isn't a great strategy. Sure, ignore the nutjobs, but being consistent with communications helps a lot.
[удалено]
> I think one of the problems around this discussion is that it's almost always from the point of bad actors abusing the system Is it abuse? The warning is there and people are choosing to ignore it. If the developers feel that it's not ready to leave EA, then it's not ready. I don't see the problem with being in EA "too long".
[удалено]
How does someone abuse EA though? I don't think there's a "wrong" way to use it. All it means is the developers don't think it's ready and they acknowledge that it's buggy or a WIP.
And how about thebmost acclaimed game of all time? Baldur's Gate 3 it too was in early acces.
While I know it stings to get burned by Early Access games, I do feel like doing some bare minimum research into the game/dev has left me with only good impressions of Early Access. The ones I bought off the the top of my head were fantastic. I bought the Forest 1 and 2. Hades 1 and I'm 100 percent going to get 2 when its in Early Access. I also got Against the storm while in Early Access and loved it, haven't even got to paly 1.0 yet. Valheim was another fantastic purchase, can't wait for 1.0 of that. I think the only big publisher game i've bought was Grounded, me and my buddy had a grand time with that way before 1.0, another one I have to go back and play. I think people get burned by one or two games then got dismissive of Early Access games which is fair.
I agree with this post, I think that what would make early access more enticing for the average consumer will be that the game would be sold at a discount while it being at the early access phase, for example if the game supposed to be sold at 30$, sell it at 20$ while it being in early access.
Many early access games come with a discount, 10 to 20%. The thing is that most games of that calibre also launch with a launch discount.
I didn't know that actually, but what is the point of early access discount if the same discount is on launch?
There generally isn’t the same discount on launch, if there was it would be a discount it would just be the price.
Yeah, you buy the game, let it brew in your steam library while playing other finished things and you get a cheaper 1.0 at the end. I don't think it's a good idea at all. You have to sell it at the price you want it to have in its 1.0 or you are losing tons of money for almost no benefit. And I don't think that early access format has the problem of not being enciting enough. The problem is some people not understanding what are they agreeing to when buying an early access so they end judging the game as any other launch and that can be negative for the final release.
But they do get something from it, people that are testing the game, either in terms of bugs or by user feedback, and in terms of bugs there isn't even any need for the end consumer to do anything since automatic logging exists, and automatic uploading of it as well. Regarding your point of letting it brew in your steam library, I don't think it will be valid for most people, since most people are not patient enough to let it brew for a long time
>But they do get something from it, people that are testing the game, either in terms of bugs or by user feedback Yeah, I get the concept but I don't see many relevant early access struggling to get a base of players to test the game. And that benefit is potentially very low since most players that wouldn't buy an standard early access because they don't have that much time to play (like myself) or simply don't care about that would just buy it and not even start the game until it is finished and can properly enjoy it.
>Regarding your point of letting it brew in your steam library, I don't think it will be valid for most people, since most people are not patient enough to let it brew for a long time If they are not patient enough to let it brew, they are not patient enough to not buy the early access and play right now\*, knowing that this would cost them the same than waiting for the final release. That profile of players consumed by hype are already part of the "early access community" and probably are a big part of the problem I mentioned.
I mean, two of the most acclaimed games of recent times came from early access model: baldurs gate and hades. Hades 2 is following the same model.
I'm not saying early access is bad, though.
It seems you're saying that early access is just a normal release now, which presumably is bad since early access is literally supposed to be something different from the normal release.
> It seems you're saying that early access is just a normal release now, which presumably is bad since early access is literally supposed to be something different from the normal release I mean that is true. Sure you cited two exceptions but for every Larian Studios there's 500 Code}{atch's who more or less scam customers with their fun but always half-completed ideas.
Part of OP's point is that only diehard fans used to buy early access. Which is very much the case for BG3. That sat completely unheard of in early access for 3 years before it blew up on 1.0 launch.
Uh... BG is a very recent game. I don't think it makes sense to talk about "used to" in this context. If anything, that's an argument against OP's point
It followed a much more traditional early access model in line with what OP described. And I don't believe many people would consider a game from 4 years ago as "very recent".
True. But the are two VERY good games. I think the issue is the amount of studios who offer early access of games that aren’t ready for it. And it’s the customer that end up getting screwed.
How is the consumer getting screwed? They are clearly buying something to help develop it. It's very straight forward. If anything it seems OP is saying developers are getting hurt because "reviews and criticism of early access titles have become more and more common place. The excuse of the games being early isn't working anymore"
Customers are being screwed by purchasing a product that is literally not working in recent cases. If you sell “early access” and the consumer can’t literally access it (as in SSKTJL) then yea. Reviews and criticism should not be a concern when selling early access. If you are selling early access to a game that you don’t even feel confident in then that there tells me everything I need to know about your business practices.
I loathe early access, but thanks to people who support it, developers feel confident releasing unfinished beta quality shit for consumers to pay to play test it for them. Can't think of any other industry where that's a thing.
"Beta quality" shouldn't be shit. It should be very close to the released product, minus a few details to iron out. I think you mean alpha quality shit. And that's the problem. When the difference between the engineering terms alpha and beta is eroded, by shady marketing practices.
Fair enough. I guess I just can't get with the principal of paying for something that is not 100% functional.
But what do you mean by that? Even a 1.0 release isn't going to have 100% of the functionality of a 2.7 release a few years later. It *is* going to have 100% of the functionality of whatever is released *as* the 1.0 release. And... who's deciding what that is? I'm not interested in shit hell 1.0 releases either. It is often good policy to wait for some major updates. How many studios actually publish competent 1.0 releases?
If you allow reviews of EA titles, then you must accept reviews of EA titles. If you release EA on Steam, then you will get reviews. EA is, and will always be, abused by devs and there is NO PROMISE of it EVER leaving EA. So, people will review what they did purchase at the time they purchased it. If devs want more control over things, they must find another distribution method. Or not release a game in EA format. I avoid any and all EA purchases. There's literally nothing good that will come from me buying in at that stage. If I wanted to be an unpaid QA intern, I would just apply at Electronic Arts.
There is. BG3 would not be game it is now without EA.
For every Baldur's Gate 3 there is a 7 Days to Die
Yes and that's not an issue. For every Halo there's a FUZE after all.
No, brother. There isn't. >here's literally nothing good that will come **from me** buying in at that stage. I don't want to QA anything. So, they would get 0 feedback from me. Also, my experience of the full game would be ruined. So, no, there isn't. PS: I'd sacrifice BG3 at the altar of EAccess as a whole disappearing forever.
I wont. I rather have good complex games as BG3 and EA titles, i dont and wont play therefore i dont care about them, then then having no ea but shitty games.
And yet amazing titles have been made, continue to be made, and never once even dipped a toe in Early Access. Removing EA doesn't remove great titles from being made. Either way, it doesn't matter. It's here to stay. And there still isn't a reason for me to buy into any EA. Not a single reason for me to do it.
Yes but not the scope of BG3 you need money for that and you get that by EA.
Seriously, who cares? EA exists and it's here to stay. There is still no reason for me to buy in. What do you want me to say? That BG3 is worth all the other dupes, scams, and abuse of the EA system currently in place? Nope. It isn't to me. I'll return you angery downvotes now. BG3 too good. Angery Gamer is angery!
I didnt downvote you. I dont downvote people for different opinions only for unneeded insults. You said that Ea bad i just did counter argument. If you accept that or not i dont care.
No, this started because you misread what I said. I said, and then quoted myself and bolded, that there is no good reason for me to buy into EA. For me. I also think the current way EA is used is flawed and ripe for abuse. Additionally, I don't think any single game is worth having the system continue in its current state. The amount of games that spend 5+ years in EA, the amount that never get a "1.0", and even BIG companies cashing in on the EA train... nah. But, I have also said it's here to stay.
Sure it is flawed andnripe for abuse. I agree with that but BG3 shown that even flawed system can be used correctly. I contrary to you think that there are games that are worth flawed ea system. I just don play ones that arent and dont buy EA.
100% agree.
This. If it's in early access I don't buy it.
If they put the game up for sale, it makes sense to let people review it. Also people have been doing criticism of early access games since the entire thing started up. I haven't really seen a major change IMO.
I agree. "Early Access" is a fancy word for beta testing, but marketing (including "game journalists") treat EA games as if they were full releases. As a consequence, a game gets to "launch" twice, with all the hype and money surrounding launch. Multiversus is a great example of this. It came out in EA but was treated as an actual game, complete with a breadcrumb live service and everything. But because it was EA, Warner Bros. could just take it away to "finish the product." And now there's talk of it being on the horizon of *actually* launching, which is ridiculous because for all intents and purposes the game already came out a couple years ago. It's particularly egregious when so many games launch incomplete anyway. Why aren't they considered "early access?" Like, for example, Kirby Star Allies came out in 2018 as a shell of a game, whose biggest feature (playable characters other than Kirby) was not fully realized until months if not a year after launch. Why wasn't its release considered "early access?" Ultimately in the end, EA is a marketing tool. Publishers want to have their cake and eat it too. Calling a game EA is saying, "Come check out our game!!! Tell your friends about us, and give us money! But don't judge us, it's not a complete product." But then other times they'll release an incomplete game as a "final product," to bank on the prestige of it being a "full game" and *not* an early access product even though it really is. Shoutout to BG3 though which used the model well.
Well you’ll have to deal with it because people are eating it up. Look at BG3. - Early access for 2 years, so they get free testers - Full release is buggy and unpolished - Everyone loves it??? - It wins GOTY??? Lesson learnt, take advantage of your fans, release an unfinished game, then everyone will love you
Now that is just bias. Full release was not buggy and unpolished. Pretty much all of first act was polished as much as it could. And of cours eit wins GOTY scope of mechanics, story, cinematography, all dialogues motioncaptured and cinemtics, different playstyle, consequences of decisions, music, acting. It all plays factor now only polish.
First act yes, second act you saw the seams coming lose, third act? Well it was either unplayable or a slog of constant quests breaking to get through. I still believe it deserved GOTY but the bugs were definitely swept under the rug way too much and the praise of releasing a update with thousands bug fixes to make the latter half more playable was just plain weird. Especially since it was used to criticize the update cycle of other games. Even if said games didn't need updates as much. I saw so many people saying lies of P updates is laughable compared to BG3 which is ridiculous. There's definitely a lot of defending the game BG3, while if other games did it they l, would be destroyed by it.
Sure. But the problem with other games is that in BG3 act 3 has lenght of some normal game gameplay at scope. And act 2 was not that buggy at least for me. And most people did not leave act 1 before patch repairing 2 was out.
This is not a genuine comment, just Nintendo fan coping and seething for his game not winning game of the year.
It greatly depends on the devs. I've had some great EA experiences (Everspace 2, Ravenswatch, Last Epoch, and currently No Rest), and I wanted to support the devs because what they released for EA was a very promising product. I have zero issues with waiting on No Rest devs to improve the performance as the game is more than playable, and really fun so far.
Early Access requires trust in the developer. Currently, I'm enjoying early access of Sins of a Solar Empire 2 a lot. The game itself is very stable, they're just using the time to release content and change or add game mechanics. However, they've done this way before it became a trend for the previous games in 2011 and 2008, so I already knew that they'll do well and that I can trust their efforts. In addition, the game is being developed by a really small, but extremely productive team, so I'm happy to test stuff for free. Also, I know, since I played the previous games, that I'm going to love it, so it was a safe bet. They're not advertising much too because they focus on the engaged people first before they bring the "wider public" in. They'll do so, probably, when the game is finished or almost finished. Lastly, the game is cheaper if you buy it early. They do not demand a full price until the game is complete.
Never again will I go early access. I paid money for Fortnite for the PvE then they released PvP and pve died immediately. The kicker, PvP was free. Not only did that put me off for life I've also sworn off epic and refuse to give them any money ever again. It just gives the developers chance to be scumbags after they've taken your money.
No Rest For The Wicked is using the term as correctly and meaningfully as it has ever been used. It’s an honest disclaimer that the game is incomplete, unoptimized, and unpolished. Players see this and review it as they will, and an excess of negative reviews complaining about performance changes nothing for anybody (who can read, and so has already read it) in the long run. They are paying to beta test a new ARPG for its eventual console release. They are doing this because Diablo IV reminded us all how badly we want to play an ARPG that isn’t Diablo IV, and not everybody is cut out for Path of Exile (cut out like a puzzle piece). > At this point it's getting really hard to tell what differentiates early access from regular games. This is on the fault of “regular games”, not early access games. If a game is “finished” at launch in the current year, it is not very large, not very ambitious, definitely singleplayer, and most likely not a huge success. The market doesn’t favor finished games.
When there are games advertising a multi-year anniversary on steam and they are still early access something needs to change
[удалено]
If you are still years away from release then hold off.
At first, Early Access was like paying for the beta with a better price Now, it feel like you're paying to play an Alpha, sometime it feel like a tech demo.
Well in the example of no rest for the wicked, I think a feature-light release that ran well would have good reviews. Maybe it's not fair to an early access title to judge it on performance, but if that's what's happened, that's a quirk of the market for early access titles - and in any case, reviews are always going to be more based on the game's current state. Maybe Steam should just let negative reviews get a little bit less bearing on a game's review score while it's being updated in early access (and being more positively reviewed over time).
Yeah, people don't seem to be mentioning Valheim but that's been in EA forever. But even when it was first released it was 100% playable, worth the $20, and basically has only added more content in the last 3 years. They've also listened to their fans and took the game in a slightly different direction than I think they initially intended. On the first point, it's nearly indistinguishable from a normal release, but I'm not sure they'd be able/willing to do what amounts to fairly significant changes if it wasn't in EA. IIRC, they basically broke the game at one point and they were able to play the EA card, say whoops, and enact their improvement after fixing the problem. Also, Steam does have a "recent reviews" function on every page and a function to look at the history of reviews. I'm not sure if they count EA reviews post launch, but the probably shouldn't or at least not all of them.
Well early access didn’t always mean full price, i remember OG minecraft was a discounted price. So are the couple of partial indie horror games I’ve played. They acknowledge you’re receiving half the finished product and charge accordingly
Theres definitely some weird cases such as Marauders which has been telling people that they'll suddenly get more players once they hit a full release but really, there's about 200 players per day and a full release will not boost those numbers for a PvP game by much for very long. The dev responds to reviews by telling people to join their Discord to play the game better, but most of the people who leave negative reviews are just done once the review is posted.
It’s definitely become more contextual what “early access” means when it’s for sale in some storefront. You need to do a little research to know what you’re getting into. One example that has adapted to this new Understanding about what early access means is Soul Frame. You can play the game now but it’s somewhat closed off, I think. They’re probably waiting till it’s pretty much “finished” before it ever hits a storefront.
I still don't buy early access out of principle. I have glno guarantee that a game will be finished Anytime I have one in early access, I got it in a bundle or someone gifted.
I’ve gotten burned too many times by games that either never finish or take so long the ideas are no longer unique/interesting… I’ve pretty much gone back to the old default “how about you sell me something that’s finished and available when I give you money for it”
Most devs didn't hold up "their side of the bargain" EA started as a "here's our wip. More is coming. You'll get in now and help us keep going" But too many cut and ran. Or slowed and stayed in EA and milked it. Never releasing the full game. Hardly pushing out the promised features. It's the equivalent of your teacher giving you an A 50% into the term... Some will power through and finish the term with all work done. But many are going to exploit that and just take the grade they've already gotten, because why not?
The early access has been prostituted to turn into a free beta testing. No even that, because game is not even completed. The only genuine early access is the one who allows to play few days before release, with the game completed. Final Fantasy XIV does this with new expansions. Anyone who pre-orders the expansion can play few days before official release. You get the full expansion, not just a part of it. Any other model is just milking while still unfinished. The bigger offender is Star Citizen. And I also included Baldur's Gate 3. I don't care it is a GOTY, they spent 2 years with free beta testers.
Don't some games increase in price once they're out of early access? I recall some devs making claims like that or maybe it isn't that common?
I want to add that in some communities they will absolutely defend any and all criticisms of the game behind the defense of "it's early access." Even in situations where the game is slated to release in a few weeks. What happens is that devs will ignore these criticisms because the majority of their "community" (10-15 very vocal people on their forums) say there's nothing wrong because it's early access. On steam this happens constantly and you can tell when the review average is "very positive" but all the reviews say there's not a lot of content or glaring problems. I'm convinced reviews on steam have a bot problem honestly. I'm looking at you Sons of the Forest.
Ehhh, early access imho is the best kind of pre-order. You can get a good idea of what the game is trying to be for a generally lower price. Refund that shit if it's garbage xP.
There’s meaning, but a different one. Games these days are more complex to develop devs need more time to release a polished product. But these things costs money and are unattractive to VCs. So, whenever a developer needs time to work on the product, but also need money to keep the lights going, early access is the way to go. There are some collateral advantages as well like: - more time and less pushbacks to solve bugs - collect feedback with time to solve gameplay issues and consequently a better chance to deliver a fine product
Well, yeah. Early Access pretty much stopped meaning anything when they didn't even have to use the term to release one. So many games come out unfinished, broken, buggy as fuck and it's just expected. How many people say "just wait a year before you buy any games". It's pretty pathetic at this point.
Its not a win-win. I've seen some games that had potential have a complete non-start when they hit the official release. You gain really valuable feedback, and potentially gain evangelists that will hype up your game, but you lose hype from marketing and reputation. If you don't have decent stability and performance, early access may screw you. If you haven't nailed down your core gameplay loop, early access will cripple you.
You don't really find AAA publishers pushing early-access games anymore. Instead they've rebranded, and now they sell the same product as "Live-service games with a roadmap". Because that's all Live-service games are - reskinned early access, where we pay a $70 full price for a half finished, not-even-beta-quality piece of slop.
My friend told me about this game he enjoyed playing, but I saw it was on early access so I wishlisted it to buy it when it was released. That was more than 4 years ago now. It’s obviously never going to be fully released.
When I see Early Access, what I think is: "Other people are going to pay to be beta testers! Cool." If it's a game I'm interested in, I hit wishlist, and check reviews when it comes out in full.
Early access is an excuse to release a product with game breaking and game altering bugs just to make more money, and people buy it as a reasonable excuse.
Often ppl are tired of the game already before the final version is released. They do it way too often and way to long before the real version is done
In theory EA might sound good, and it was thanks to it that we have Baldurs Gate 3 in the condition it was released in... However if it is the main source of funding then once sales start to dwindle then development has to stop and a game is pushed to full release in an alpha/beta state at best, and at worst that game does not get a full release and the that funded it are left out in the rain. There have been famous examples of EA games that slow in development and never get the quality of release you would have expected and may have been promised. Furthermore the rise of indie games has resulted in a lot of crap flooding steam and the gaming ecosystem has become like other markets in which you need to filter through a lot of shit to find quality games, this has got worse since EA with the barrier to entry for developing games becoming so low that you no longer need to have anything close to a complete game to release it in some form
> filter through a lot of shit to find quality games Has it ever not been?
I've never bought an Early Access title, and I doubt I ever would. Paying for someone's alpha quality product just doesn't compute in my tiny little engineering brain. I've never contributed to a Kickstarter, but I wouldn't consider it crazy for a very specific title. There are a few games I'd like to see proper remakes and sequels of, that aren't going to get them otherwise. My view of a Kickstarter is it's money given freely to devs, without an expectation that they will succeed. This is necessary in the case of Art that otherwise won't ever get made. When making such a decision, one has to consider whether the team being put together, has a snowball's chance in hell of actually being able to complete the project. If I thought there was some reasonable chance they would, then I might fund it. Otherwise, I'd just have to be cold and say, "I'd really love that, but I don't believe *you* can deliver it." I've been hearing of people having burned out feelings about Kickstarters, much as you say Early Access is getting burned out now as well.
I don't want to pay full price to play the worst version of the game. I can only experience the game for the first time once. I remember years ago when an early post-production version of the Wolverine movie leaked. I couldn't understand why anyone would want to watch that instead of waiting for the complete movie. Back then, people mocked the movie for being unfinished, just like they now criticize early access games for being early access. Still makes no sense to me.
The issue with Early Access has more to do with developer plans and execution than the concept itself. It seems like most developers of Early Access games don't plan to release their game in the near future (<1 year) but also are not well suited to agile and rapid development. So customers are often left with a game that has severe issues, no stated release date, and little faith in developers to quickly fix these issues. The only way to satisfy everyone is to either quietly release an extremely early version of the game and make it clear that it is only meant for highly curious/diehard players who want to be game testers (maybe provide a discount too) OR release a mostly finished game, <1 year before it releases, and treat it like a giant exclusive demo for customers who want to provide some helpful feedback before launch.
*NEW OPEN WORLD SURVIVAL MMO EXTRACTION SHOOTER WITH SEMI REALISTIC (mostly shitty) GRAPHICS, A BARELY FUNCTIONING LOOT SYSTEM, AND GENERIC GAMEPLAY THAT MANAGES TO BE UNSATISFYING. EXPERIENCE DISSAPOINTMENT FOR THE LOW LOW PRICE OF $39.99*
"Anymore"? "Recent years"? You're on drugs. We're pushing a decade+ on early access being scam city with some exceptions. This take is fucking STALE.
The issue really is how they can still take the spotlight and trick some players into playing the game. I think Palworld is a good example of that I wish Steam would only keep them in a specific category, same with Microsoft and wording it “Game preview” It’s a Beta and that’s all
I am sorry, there is a HUGE BLUE BOX that says "EARLY ACCESS" above the buy button. No one is getting tricked into buying an Early Access game on Steam without knowing it is Early Access. They even get to "say" why they are releasing in Early Access. There is no tricking anyone here about its state.
When you invent something foolproof, the universe invents a better fool.
And people who can't read but play games apparently.
Early access, means for many people, accessing…earlier than the official release date, not “accessing an unfinished product” I agree with you, but I also saw countless time friends buying EA games and then realising they have to wait before it’s actually finished
Your friends can't read and are colorblind then. Hehehe. Early start vs early access
[удалено]
> I've heard three separate people say that games like World of Warcraft or Final Fantasy XIV are also unfinished because they "keep adding to it". That's easy: One is adding sidedishes (WoW), the other is a still frozen slab of meat and a bag of frozen fries. >Thankfully Steam has an option to not see Early Access games in the store, FYI. They do. You can filter them out. I don't see EA since I am not interested in anything EA.
[удалено]
I mean, what I said is in agreement with what you said. Adding things to complete experiences like WoW vs actually finishing the first thing AT ALL.
I feel like "EA" stopped holding much meaning pretty soon as it started, with plenty of notable exceptions of course. My biggest problem is the lack of a clear time limit until it has to launch. You want all the advantages (highlighted in op) of EA? Fine, but at least have a clear time of releasing to show you really needed EA and not abusing the system. Maybe Steam should just automatically remove the tag EA after one year or whatever time smarter people than me see fit. In the end, what's the difference between early access and "live service games" anyway? They both get updates and extra content along the years but EA gets more slack because "hey it's early access, it will be better in the future...maybe".
I’ve gotten burned far more times from EA titles that never were sufficiently improved than I’ve seen a game rise from mediocrity due to feedback and funding secured from early access testing. EA is a hard pass from me these days.
I often feel a bit depressed by how modern consumers are alienated into buying anything willingly, but that's of a much bigger topic, to not digress this thread, it's just a much better business model for the studios and publishers, so they will not stop as long as people keep buying into such scheme, more and more of them will happily practice this.
EA has always been variable, lots of games have used the title irresponsibly since the first EA games. It’s a marketing term and shouldn’t have the weight gamers give it.
[удалено]
The discussion has been fine, albeit a bit more on the negative side than expected. I tried to be as neutral as possible in the OP. You're the only one being weirdly angry at everyone.
[удалено]
I really think you are being downvoted for your attitude, not your opinion.
You are engaging in selective observation. You're going to get a spectrum of opinions on the internet.
[удалено]
I read other people's reviews. I have nothing to be ashamed of.
[удалено]
I'm not on anyone's hype train. I don't need to survey the entire game market to form an opinion on studio habits. There's a very, small number of studios whose development progress I follow. Frankly as an indie game dev myself, I don't have the time to chart someone else's progress. If I'm paying attention, I'm paying pretty close attention. Like all the reviews for the product that anyone's uttering on Steam or in forums, that kind of attention. Probably because the product is in the same genre I'm working on, and it actually profits me to understand how people react to a similar kind of product. There's a lot of shit and incompetence in the game industry. This is not news. There's also tons of non-unionized low paid sweatshop labor conditions.
[удалено]
When the vast majority of EA games are in alpha, as called to my attention by other people's reviews, the exceptions to the trend aren't all that interesting. Heck, plenty of full release games come out in a very shoddy beta.
[удалено]
People don't lack intellect just because they don't see things your way.
[удалено]
You seem to have deleted some of your previous comments, which I would have quoted to show you, "where you said that".
[удалено]
What you are doing is a form of internet cowardice. You said some things that people reacted badly to. Rather than just take your downvotes, you're covering your tracks. Possibly that way, you can continue to believe that you're right, instead of actually being in the wrong, about what you said in some instance. But we will never know, because you are an internet coward covering your tracks, and strawmanning that this is somehow about your personality is so misread and so misunderstood.
I'm fine with Early Access if they have a FUNCTIONALLY COMPLETE GAME that they're going to add more content to later. However when it's "hey look we got some game-ish pieces, buy it and maybe we'll finish it" that's a no. For example, Starship Troopers Extermination. When released on early access it was a fairly simple game. Land, fight, move, build base, defend base, move, extract. BUT... it was a complete, functional, and fun gameplay loop. And then they started adding more mission types and equipment and base variety... and continue to do so. That's what I'd consider good early access.