Early Access Shouldn't be a Dirty Word for Gamers

[Cattraknoff]

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.

[TelperionST]

Cattraknoff

Very fair point about Paradox Interactive: you go to the forums and you will be regularly reminded that every time they release a full game or patch (and DLC) it is an Open Beta. Wait a month or two and the beta build will be hammered into a solid state - until they rip up the game engine again with another patch (and DLC).

[Cattraknoff]

Unfinished doesn't mean unfun. Rimworld was a fun game worth hundreds of hours of play long before it was finished. The same goes for a fair number of other Early Access games. To me the question is, is it a playable and fun game at the point of early-access? If it's already a fun game, just incomplete and missing some content, then that's okay.

These days buying Paradox Games is like buying an Early Access game at a full-price pricepoint only to pay more for DLC as they finish the game over a span of years. I and others put up with it because no one can scratch the grand strategy itch like they do.

But many Early Access from indy companies arent so money-hungry. Some release an already-playable game but do need time, even years, to complete the vision while providing something pretty good in the meantime, and all for a reasonable price. There are some truly GREAT early access indy devs out there who deserve our support.

[Noobc0re]

It's an unfinished product. They used to have to pay people to test that shit, now they sell it!

Also, $20-$30? If a game costs $30 it better fucking deliver, it better be one hell of a game! An unfinished game for that price is basically unacceptable for me.

[Spect3r]

No way i will knowingly pay for an incomplete product.

[k4far]

Early Access stands for pay us money for incomplete game, we will ask you for money again before releasing full game, in-game payments might apply then we might decide we will be not shipping a full product sucks to be you dude!

[Merlin]

90% of my experiences with early access games have been bad. In most circumstances what I see is the developers taking money and then never finishing the game, or rushing the game to release when presales drop only for the game to be half-finished and full of bugs. Burn me once, okay shit happens - burn me 5-6 times and I start to learn my lesson.

I never did buy, but I am glad I didn't, and always felt bad for the people who bought into it initially.

Developers have burned the bridge at this point. I honestly have no more sympathy for people who buy into early access and get scammed anymore. After this much time we have had enough experience to know it isn't a good idea. Its like any investment, don't invest money you aren't willing to lose and don't complain when you lose.

[Dub-Z]

It was only a dirty word if you don't understand what it is and can't recognize the difference between something being a legit game that's just going to crowd source testing, feedback and feature development like Prison Architect did... vs some barely even started skinner box like Radical Heights, resembling a Steam Greenlight asset flip made entirely for twitch streamer memes, ironic lulz and some kind of trading card pyramid scheme.

However... AAA companies will abuse it and make it something you have to actively avoid if you don't want to pay $60+ for something that has the luster of legitimacy, but will be even more unfinished that games already launch as, and abandoned even faster than usual.

[Saskia]

..264 hours in that game according to Steam. I would say that's well worth the 20 EUR, or whatever it was, I initially put in. Whether the game ever releases or not is largely irrelevant to me, because I have already gotten more than my moneys worth out of this experience.

Good point, and well said!

[Irritablesquid]

I agree with this, people need to be cautious when it comes to early access.

[TelperionST]

I think the whole concept of Early Access works better for games like Rimworld, Slay the Spire and Oxygen Not Included. Not to mention an earlier title like Prison Architect. Games that have the potential for hundreds of hours of fun combined with developers who are regularly putting in new content into the game, which keeps the experience fresh. I waited a good long while before buying into these four games, because they weren't in a very good state.

Will I still be playing Slay the Spire in a year or two when the game might actually release? Possibly not, but right now I have....* drum roll *...264 hours in that game according to Steam. I would say that's well worth the 20 EUR, or whatever it was, I initially put in. Whether the game ever releases or not is largely irrelevant to me, because I have already gotten more than my moneys worth out of this experience.

And I realize that that is not a pro-consumer viewpoint, so why am I shooting myself in the foot? Because the game is already really, really good. And it's constantly getting better. Slay the Spire just added a fourth floor, which is a lot of new content. Usually I would have to pay 5-10 EUR to get that fourth floor. Same deal with Oxygen Not Included: outside of holidays the game is getting updated every two weeks like clockwork. First you could only mine the inside of a single asteroid. Then you could go to the surface of said asteroid. Now you can build space rockets to mine other asteroids.

Of course, these are the few exceptions. As a general rule of thumb I don't buy into Early Access titles, because it's a bad investment. But, these games have given me tons of entertainment in their current state and keep on getting better.

[Saskia]

I don't think there's an inherent problem with the concept of Early Access. The main issue comes from people misunderstanding what it means. A lot of the time a developer will present their 'vision' of what the finished game is intended to be like, and hype it up to get people interested. Consumers often buy into this 'dream' with the expectation that it will one day be a reality; and this is where they get burned. Early Access is just a piece of a game, that is all, a piece not a promise.

From Steam's Early Access page: https://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/

When you buy an Early Access game, you should consider what the game is like to play right now. Look at the screenshots and videos to see what the game looks like in its current state. There are a lot of ways a game can go as it develops over time, so if you aren't excited to play the game in its current state, then hold off and wait until the next update--it shouldn't be far off.

Its up to the developer to determine when they are ready to 'release'. Some developers have a concrete deadline in mind, while others will get a better sense as the development of the game progresses. You should be aware that some teams will be unable to 'finish' their game. So you should only buy an Early Access game if you are excited about playing it in its current state.

[PriestTroit]

Wasn't Minecraft an early access game? I seem to remember playing it in early beta or something.

But generally.... Nah. I don't know the statistics, but I'd bet you that a huge percentage of early access games never get finished or they burn the half-baked game onto a disc and throw it into an off-brand Zip-Loc bag once their customers get pissed enough. Don't play yourselves.

[Lokaso]

I think in both cases you mentioned the tag "early access" were use just as a means to protect themselves in case they break something when trying to add something new. But if they were as they say, they well may have been properly released and add content later whether paid or not. But as many here said, usually "early access" means "flip a coin to see if we will end this unfinished game somewhere in the future", and it is used to having the game tested not only for free but also receiving money for that. Sorry, but I can't justify the mere existence of the "early access" games for sale. Make them free and MAYBE it can be justified, because at the end, putting a game available to be played before being close to be finished it normally damages the first impression of the game which hurts the future sales on "release".

[ethansito]

I am not that afraid of early access games. I make sure to read both positive and negative steam reviews before I buy early access games. Usually, if there is a problem with the game or the dev, people will mention it in their review.