The Pros & Cons Of Early Access Games

Pros: the community gets to have input on the game Cons: the community gets to have input on the game

With how many triple A games are flat out broken at launch, it feels like every game can be considered early access if you buy it in the first year of it's full release.

Very reasonable evaluation. I just wish Steam would provide some visible indicators of a developer's previous success with Early Access. For a developer like us, who's gone through the EA process before, released in full and to great reviews, it can be pretty disheartening to see how many players tell you they outright refuse to consider an EA game because of other developers that have failed to complete theirs. Good marketplaces do their best to reduce risk wherever they can, and giving gamers information to help them see who's delivering on their promises (and who isn't) would help a ton. Cyber Knights: Flashpoint is halfway through Early Access now, on track to release later this year. Regardless of well EA did, we'd get the game done one way or another, but there's simply no way it'd be the same level of quality without the support we have received. For independent studios and games backed by small or mid-size publishers, EA is a really crucial bridge to give developers the time and feedback they need for a game to reach its full potential. It's totally reasonable for players to ask questions about a developer's ability to deliver, not want to play a game that's still unpolished, or prefer to wait to spend their time on a game that's finished and ready for a full playthrough. A wishlist is always welcome! ...but I do worry about the future of independent games if fewer and fewer people are willing to support the games they want to see more of, at the time those games most need support to do more.

I think most of us have been burnt, so I would like to share an extremely positive EA experience: Against the Storm. The game was fantastic right from the beginning, but they kept improving it and making it bigger and more varied. They had smaller, but very frequent updates (most of the time every two weeks, if I remember correctly). They listened to the community while also staying true to their overall vision. They always identified specific problems or shortcomings and tried to solve them, most of the time succeeding, and if not, they were not afraid to admit that something just wasnt working as well as they had hoped and going back and trying again. All in all, it left me extremely impressed with the team and their dedication, and while most EA experiences were quite frustrating for me (looking at you, Valheim), this was genuinely a joy.

i do late late access myself, i buy games years after release when theyre cheaper and all the bugs are sorted out... just finished witcher 3 and going through mgs5 now..

AAA games should not be Early Access. They don't need the additional QA help or $$ from EA income. But with games like Wartales, Terra Invicta, or Manor Lords, I think Early Access is a very good thing. They're small devs, with a decent Indie publisher behind them. And they listen to the feedback they are getting about gameplay. I think it's better for strategy games than RPGs. Because essentially the whole game is visible. But they're based on replayability, as different scenarios create radically different games. You can't see 75% of the game in EA.

For me the biggest pitfall is not the game itself but my enthusiasm for it. All the EA games I bought were fun, but by the time the 1.0 version came out I had already moved on to other games and didn't feel like going back to them so I stopped buying any. Restarting from scratch doesn't help because the game is too familiar, continuing from where I left doesn't work because it's usually been a few months and I lost that momentum (plus I'm usually completely lost as to what I was doing) so I'm all left with is the impression that I played an inferior version of a game I would have enjoyed more if I had waited for its full release.

I always wait for 1.0 release. I rarely do more than one playthrough, so I don’t want to experience an unfinished game. There’s too many games to play anyway.

I remember the good old days of being a beta tester, when the developers GAVE you the game to play test, and you provided feedback. Ones that made it out of beta to release, you would either be able to keep playing, or purchase it to play. I play tested several games, most made it to release, but quite a few had the plug pulled on them too.

definitely understand the points, I personally make it a rule of thumb to not buy early access games anymore. even if it is something I really want to play like hades 2, I just feel like I'd get a better/complete experience once it hits 1.0 and I play it and for games that never hit 1.0, I wouldn't have wasted the time.

I spent a lot of time having fun in the early access of Valheim. Then when they released the Mistlands biome, I didn't enjoy it at all and stopped playing the game. And yet, I feel like I got more than my money's worth and don't regret having supported the game at all. I'm currently considering buying the early access of Len's Island.

Abiotic factor is a great example of HOW to do a early access game.

I think people forget that playing a game in beta used to be free. Now we’re paying companies to beta test their games.

Cons are for me 1 if the developer badly needs the funds from early access for development that often is a bad sign 2.usually there is only 1 chance to make a first impression there are some games that the 1.0 release get hyped like hades and bg 3 but often not the case 3. If they are planning a 1.0 release very soon afterwards there really is not enough time for changes to be implemented 4. Really hard to know how much the game changes and is the luck of the draw, some games get massive changes others very little. 5. I am seeing so many games being abandoned before release.

Even Baldur’s Gate 3 wasn’t a fully complete game until a couple months after launch 😂

I am the exact opposite of early access... I usually wait until all dlc and patching is done, before I buy a game! I prefer to own the entire game, and not feel like Im missing something.. Same reason I dont do f2p games

I almost never get Early Access games. I can see the appeals but there are enough bad apples and my backlog of older, fully released games is big enough that it's not worth the risk for me. Worst case scenario for this approach is, I play a great game slightly later than others, which I already do anyway. At least it's better than Kickstarter.

For me the biggest con is you don't quite get that first time of wonder as nobody knows what to expect, if it's a great game. I think it takes a serious anomaly like BG3 not to end up there too much. But I would say it IS a big anomaly given that they actually had a budget to build on the EA, whereas I think for many there's just not a budget to have a large part of the game develop outside of it.

As an indie developer who is in a pre-production phase & thinking about early access for the future of our game, this was a valuable input. So thank you 💙

I've kickstarted and bought some early access games. It has mostly been a positive experience. I always look into the developer, what their plan is, and how organized they are. I also always go in knowing I may get nothing out of it, but I feel the project is interesting enough I'm willing to take the risk.