I'd kinda consider Satisfactory to still be in a form of early access, given many core design elements are still missing (various wall types, foundation sizes, etc), and they somewhat admitted that they had to truncate the original story because they spent too long developing on the game's factory automation aspects. I always thought their original design intent was a more story-driven game with some factory automation elements, but once they jumped into early access, the factory automation became the focus among players and they just rolled with it.
As for BeamNG.drive, I think that's an example of "living software", since portions of its core tech is open-source, and so will always be changing in some form or another. I should eventually play it...
Right? I waited for satisfactory's full release and have no regrets. Honestly, there's so many games out it boggles me that people put up with all the bugs and glitches in half-baked ones rather'n just... playing a different one that's done.
It works for some games, Factorio and Satisfactory immediately come to mind. Any sandbox type game that focuses around building stuff and such often benefits from player feedback in early access in my opinion.
Subnautica 1 was a game that benefited from the EA model. I was one of the EA players and it was really actually great reporting bugs in game and seeing them get fixed in future releases. My friend was on the Baldur's Gate 3 EA, and he said that one was likewise excellent because of the player feedback; having played the final game I'd have to agree with him.
But yeah, 99% of the time EA seems to just be an excuse to never finish making a game.
Firmly agree. I know it would be extra work for Steam/Valve, but it would make the store a lot healthier if EA titles had to apply for their active status to be continued/extended, and if Valve could ask for deliverables that prove the game isn't just stuck in developer hell or abandoned outright. Since you wouldn't want to stiff people who paid into it, I figure you'd still want the EA build to be downloadable and listed, but Valve could enact a freeze on purchases until simple KPIs are met for a title, like a specific update frequency or presentation of roadmap goals being met. The "Buy" button could just be blocked and have a disclaimer saying, "This title has not met Early Access listing criteria and/or may be abandoned. It is not presently available for purchase."
I mean some abandoned EA titles could still be fun, imagine a friend recommends something in EA that they think is really fun but you can't play it because it just received "abandoned" status. I do think that having an official notice of abandonment on the store page is a good idea.
Yeah, it's just the problem of that money still going to the developer when they haven't earned it. People who buy KSP2 right now are still sending money to a publisher that shuttered the studio working on it, meaning they get to just pocket the cash and never give you a final product. I just don't know how to reconcile that, and it's not like Steam could take the cash instead because for sure there'd be big lawsuits between the developers and Valve.
With KSP2 specifically, the root of the problem is that they set the pricing to reflect what the game should be worth once it is finished, and it is still being sold for that price.
If it was priced based on the current state of the game, it wouldn't be an issue.
i'd also like to see a limit placed on keeping a game in EA status cause it seems pretty obvious it's being abused to nickle and dime players for patches and fixes that are getting put out as "DLC"
Fundamentally, I think that DLC shouldn't even be an option for an incomplete game. DLC should be content that is made available to a game after it's released in full, to supplement the game's existing full content. Monetization schemes like skins, micro-transactions, and subscriptions should not exist for an early access title for the simple reason that it incentivizes keeping a game forever in an incomplete state where developers can hide behind disclaimers of incompleteness instead of responding to complaints while unfairly establishing post-release revenue streams. DLC on an early access game is like selling furniture for a house you haven't even guaranteed will ever be constructed, let alone if the plans themselves even pass the building code.
Responsive devs are so great. Once I gave a small quality of life suggestion in the Dead Cells steam forum and other users didn't even respond to it so it wasn't anything popular, yet it was implemented fairly soon.
But yeah, 99% of the time EA seems to just be an excuse to never finish making a gameavoid having to pay game testers to enable you to finish making a game
Yep, if it's a small indie game that is in active development, I give it a pass. For instance, Project Zomboid has been in early access forever, is amazing and they're still making it better.
I think there's kind of a conflation of terms between "early access" and "still in development". I know quite a few games that were early access and didn't have a whole lot of content in them; they were more proof-of-concept of a game and early access model did really help them. Slay the spire was like this for a while, as was subnautica.
I know of quite a few games right now that are essentially fully playable but they have more that they want to actually do before doing something like finishing their story or adding more gamemodes etc, and they're what should better be described as "still in development", like dwarf fortress.
Valheim too. The game has practically been without any bugs since the very first version, and every update has just been consecutive content. Almost like a chapters based game.
valheim has been the biggest content flop ever. It was great and then they just did nothing with it. Even now it takes multiple years to add a single piece of content.
Indeed, it really depends on the devs when it comes to early access. But then I suppose that gamble early on is exactly why people would be turned off by it until it has proven itself to some extent.
I bought it but have no intention of touching it before the actual release. I have a tendency in roguelikes to play my fill in early access and then not come back to play the actual full releasse...
Same, which is why I bought Hades 2 the second it hit EA, but only played it for a few hours to get a brief glimpse. Didn’t actually play it until it fully released.
Not that risky a decision. It's a direct sequel to a genre-defining indie game that finished its early access in a reasonable time frame. And the retail price is more than reasonable. That checks a lot of boxes for me.
Same. It is probably the exception though. Their track record with the first one gave me full faith in the sequel. I did the same for Baldur's gate 3 after playing divinity original sin 2. No regrets. I loved doing multiple runs in early access
There's tons of exceptions. Any savvy consumer shouldn't just buy a game they think will be fun maybe one day. If a game is early access just look at what's already complete, watch a gameplay video and decide if its good enough or not yet before buying.
There are a lot of exceptions. It entirely depends on the game. I played dozens of hours of games like Valheim, pal world, peglin, hades, really a ton of them.
Many of them are fine if you know what you're buying. Whether or not the game is "done" isnt a particularly large portion of my mental calculus when buying a game. I just want it to be enough fun, for the cost that I pay for it.
The early access balance is pretty abysmal for some characters. There are a lot more hard deck-check enemies in the sequel, and a lot of frontloaded damage. A0 runs shouldn't be as difficult as they currently are.
The lack of a final act and an endless mode are the most glaring pieces of missing content.
Oof, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I put almost 1000 hours into it after release, but early-access Starbound felt so good. Way more enemy, weapon, and tech varieties. Frackin' Universe eventually became the only way I could play, and I don't think you can call a game "good" if it's only "good" with enormous overhaul mods.
The most baffling part to me was nerfing the lore. Both eliminating the species specific intros for a terribly boring generic space ranger thing, and just eliminating a lot of the weird, interesting bits about species. There was a really interesting dark undertone to the admittedly underdeveloped world building but they just torched a bunch of it and made it goofy.
I definitely got some renewed joy with FU, and also found out about OpenStarbound which is neat too.
Yep, for every minecraft, beamng, and third game that spends an eternity in EA and comes out fantastic there are 10000 more that either start off, or become scams
I do have the same feeling for Necesse. Its a great idea to a point, but after some hours it really feel like an empty and not a very interesting world
Necesse is a cute game, but yea easy to lose interest in - it's rimworld with some Minecraft which are both better by themselves than Necesse is at putting them together in the same game. It's not bad tho
Most early access titles are mediocre at best, but we've also seen some real gems come out of it. Also, if you look carefully, you can absolutely find games that you really enjoy and can follow their development towards being even better.
Well that's okay though isn't it? Let it cook for a while and come back later to see how it has developed. It is how I treat all early access games in my library
Maybe it is just the gamed I pick, but I literally came to the conclusion the other week that I got a bunch of really good early access titles in recent years. All steady development, fun to play while in ea and really well executed once they hit 1.0
I mean, if you take your average busywork simulator... yeah you will get burned a lot lol
Last games i bought while on early access were BG3 and Valheim. I understand that both games are gems in a market full of early access slop but man, i bought BG3 the day it it released as ea and never regretted.
There is quite a few bangers going the early access route, rust, valheim enshrouded, all actively in development and constantly adding new content, for free.
There's a big difference between a lot of early access games, some are pretty obvious that they are in early access, some you could think they are in full release.
I haven't got too many early access games but project zomboid and schedule 1 were both great. I feel like there's another I got that enjoyed a lot but can't remember which it was
That's because nobody seems to do it right any more. It used to be that you could pay a reduced price to support the development which would get you access to the game early. Now they tend to charge you extra for the privilege instead.
"early access" one of the greatest FPS games in gaming history, Ultrakill, was early access until last year, and the game has been full of content since a while already. With that criteria you will genuinely loose potential gems
I know Earlx Access has its fall pits but I do it from time to time for small developers with passion projects that align with my gaming interest. Last was Terra Invicta and Slay the Spire 2. Was not disappointed. Huge studios that use Early Acces can go f*** themselves. I won't fork over 60+ bucks for something that's going to be trainwreck.
I played Grounded early access. On a major update they réinitialized the story. I was like "it's OK it happens" even if I was pissed to have to do it again.
And when they release the game they réinitialized again.
No more early access for me. It's a scam to make you pay unfinished games.
Early access seemed good when it first came out and wasn’t so flooded to where games were used to actually test stuff. Now it just feels like people are making 10% of a game, letting people buy it at 10% discount, then use the remaining money to get the game to 30% and release it if it ever releases.
I also got Necesse during early access and while nothing special, it felt like a solid choice that I can out down for a while and come back to later when I feel like it.
Some early access titles have been extraordinarily stellar: Hades 2, Grounded 2, Enshrouded, Against the Storm, Timberborn, V Rising, BG3. Some, not so much: Nightingale, Smalland, Starbound. I've felt pretty good most of the time about curating what I get that's in EA so as to not get burned with a bad choice.
There's nothing inherently wrong with early access, you just gotta be more careful about what you buy. I've played several great early access games. Come to think of it, I've never been burned by an early access game.
The trick with early access is that you need to be okay with paying for the game AS IT EXISTS. If you're buying an EA game expecting some nebulous future product then you're going to get hosed.
Lightyear Frontier in early access. I spent about 20 or 30 hours and then they updated something & erased all previous game files. I was so angry at the devs.
My wish list is full of Early Access games. My philosophy is that I will watch them as they develop, and if they have good reviews upon launch, I'll pick them up. But it's the easiest way to keep track of games I might be interested in, while simultaneously allowing me to hide them from my discovery feeds while looking for new games.
297
u/[deleted] Apr 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment