Tweet
I have frequently heard Jeremy rip into Early Access games. While it's true that they can be a dangerous ground because were are speaking of generally unproven developers who do need to prove themselves, there are many good indy devs using early access out there who do prove themselves worth our investment. Yes some use Early Access as an excuse to get paid for unfinished games, to cash out without then having to actually deliver on the promise of the game.
But many Early Access developers are also using the feature for its intended purpose: to secure funding to complete the vision of the game, while ideally releasing it in a state that is already playable and fun.
Recently talked about Rimworld is a prime example of this. It was in early access for years before its release. During those years it was quite playable and didn't have too many major bugs, and those that did emerge tended to be fixed quickly. The developer - who was just one person working alone - was earnestly working toward finishing the project, and what he had released already was good enough that many, many people sunk hundreds and thousands of hours into the game.
If an early-access game is only $20 or $30 it is not that big of a risk either. If you enjoy a game like Rimworld for even 20 hours isn't that better value than a lot of $80 triple A games which might have 20 or 40 hours of story content? But Rimworld isn't just a 20 hour value game - those who like this sort of thing will easily cruise well into the hundreds of hours. It has tons of replay value and is of far greater value to those who backed it and played it throughout its development and afterward than the measly $20 we invested in early-access. In fact the value was so good that it makes you kind've feel bad for not chipping in a little more.
Rimworld isn't the only example. Empyrion - Galactic Survival is another I have experience with as an early-access supporter who chipped in around $25 Canadian 2 or 3 years ago. When I originally bought the game the core concept was always there. It's a survival and crafting game with features like block-by-block design of ships which can be flown around quite seamlessly from planetary environments into space environments and then to other planetary environments, on-foot and in-vehicle combat which is pretty well-done, etc.. On Steam Workshop people have made detailed recreations (which look very good) of ships from Star Trek, Star Wars, and other major franchises as well as many lesser-known franchises, and these can all be imported and crafted in survival games using the blueprint system. The game was in early "alpha" when I bought it but even then was quite playable and worth many hours of enjoyment. After major updates (it is now later into "alpha", going from 1 or 2 when I got it to now Alpha 9) I tend to binge the game and by now I've accumulated several hundred hours. The game has been playable and more polished and had less bugs than many comparable AAA games on release, many $60 games on release. It's just still in "alpha" because they have such big ideas which they are gradually but actively and passionately working toward (these guys are really my favourite game developers at this point, they're clearly in it for the passion and a love of gaming rather than just to get paid). They could've released ages ago and sold many updates as DLC, but instead they've still got the same ~$25 price point for everything including years of future development even after all of this work on a game that was already playable and pretty good years ago.
In conclusion I don't believe Early Access should be something the gaming community is too reserved about to support, however malpractice is certainly something to be condemned when it does happen. But let's judge each developer based on what they do and what they deliver, and not count Early Access as something against them inherently particularly when they show themselves to be actively developing and have already delivered something worth playing.
But many Early Access developers are also using the feature for its intended purpose: to secure funding to complete the vision of the game, while ideally releasing it in a state that is already playable and fun.
Recently talked about Rimworld is a prime example of this. It was in early access for years before its release. During those years it was quite playable and didn't have too many major bugs, and those that did emerge tended to be fixed quickly. The developer - who was just one person working alone - was earnestly working toward finishing the project, and what he had released already was good enough that many, many people sunk hundreds and thousands of hours into the game.
If an early-access game is only $20 or $30 it is not that big of a risk either. If you enjoy a game like Rimworld for even 20 hours isn't that better value than a lot of $80 triple A games which might have 20 or 40 hours of story content? But Rimworld isn't just a 20 hour value game - those who like this sort of thing will easily cruise well into the hundreds of hours. It has tons of replay value and is of far greater value to those who backed it and played it throughout its development and afterward than the measly $20 we invested in early-access. In fact the value was so good that it makes you kind've feel bad for not chipping in a little more.
Rimworld isn't the only example. Empyrion - Galactic Survival is another I have experience with as an early-access supporter who chipped in around $25 Canadian 2 or 3 years ago. When I originally bought the game the core concept was always there. It's a survival and crafting game with features like block-by-block design of ships which can be flown around quite seamlessly from planetary environments into space environments and then to other planetary environments, on-foot and in-vehicle combat which is pretty well-done, etc.. On Steam Workshop people have made detailed recreations (which look very good) of ships from Star Trek, Star Wars, and other major franchises as well as many lesser-known franchises, and these can all be imported and crafted in survival games using the blueprint system. The game was in early "alpha" when I bought it but even then was quite playable and worth many hours of enjoyment. After major updates (it is now later into "alpha", going from 1 or 2 when I got it to now Alpha 9) I tend to binge the game and by now I've accumulated several hundred hours. The game has been playable and more polished and had less bugs than many comparable AAA games on release, many $60 games on release. It's just still in "alpha" because they have such big ideas which they are gradually but actively and passionately working toward (these guys are really my favourite game developers at this point, they're clearly in it for the passion and a love of gaming rather than just to get paid). They could've released ages ago and sold many updates as DLC, but instead they've still got the same ~$25 price point for everything including years of future development even after all of this work on a game that was already playable and pretty good years ago.
In conclusion I don't believe Early Access should be something the gaming community is too reserved about to support, however malpractice is certainly something to be condemned when it does happen. But let's judge each developer based on what they do and what they deliver, and not count Early Access as something against them inherently particularly when they show themselves to be actively developing and have already delivered something worth playing.
Comment