“Changelog: changed version number”
Am I wrong in thinking “Early Access” is just a way for devs to sell lazily slapped together games? Like I’ve seen games that are in “early access” for years. Just feels like an admission: “this game might be broken in many ways but we don’t accept responsibility because it’s ‘early access’”.
It often can be, but there’s a ton of games that are legitimately just in development, but are still playable, and early access is a great way for developers to get user feedback, find bugs, and let people play the game without waiting for a full 1.0 release.
It’s kind of a mixed bag, but that’s why most people should be looking at videos/reviews of the current state of any early access title before immediately jumping in and buying it.
Sometimes, but some games get consistently better during early access.
The key is to buy games based on their current state (is this worth $xx to me right now?) vs buying what you imagine the game might be.
But I don’t know what their state is until after I buy them. That’s the point.
That why you read reviews and watch streams
Generally watching some real videos of people playing it can give me enough of an idea.
It’s supposed to be an alternative to the publisher system.
In the overall software industry:
- 25% of projects succeed, with minor changes to budget, schedule, or scope
- 50% of projects deliver, but only after significant changes to budget, schedule, or scope
- 25% of projects fail to deliver at all
Games are probably even worse. (Edit: and this is just talking about delivery, to say nothing of market success.)
What happens to publishers in this environment?
They get risk-averse. They pass on weird ideas, they offer insulting amounts to new studios, they pull the ripcord at the slightest hint of trouble.
And… they inflate the price of successful games to cover the losses of the rest.
You were already paying for failed projects before Early Access existed, you just never got to see what they were or decide which ones you wanted to fund more than the others.
That’s not to say there’s no outright abuse, but that’s a small percentage of the flops that people complain about. For the most part, it’s just the normal boring everyday kind of failure that you pay for whether you get a chance to see it or not.
Yes, its a way for a developer to shift blame, but its also a very obvious and clear label to the consumer to expect an unfinished game. I wouldn’t really consider ot abuse as long as the developer is actually trying to make a decent game. For example, 7 Days to Die is a buggy, unfinished game that the devs have failed to complete for years. It should be labeled as such and shouldn’t be sold as a finished game. That said, its also a good game even in its unfinished state, and I’m happy its available to buy. Removing early access either means these games aren’t sold, or they’re sold without the disclaimer. Either situation is worse for the consumer.
The bigger problem is when its used to disguise a game that isn’t even trying, but at that point, removing the early access warning doesn’t help much. In that case, a generous refund policy and decent support are far more important.
Like I’ve seen games that are in “early access” for years.
Games take years to build, especially when you are changing your design from feedback and improving the game. Some games come to early access intending to change little and just finish the game, while others come to get ideas and reshape the project as it moves along. Many EA projects are also indies with small teams, or even just one dev plugging along on their own, not even full time.
Of course there are bad actors, and devs who made mistakes (like thinking early access would fund development–even Valve tells devs not to do that, but there are always optimists thinking EA is for sales, and then they run out of money), but there are many ways to do every early access, and you have to look at each project to see what it looks like it’s doing, how much and how often it posts updates, etc.
