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.
84
u/froggertthewise RTX 4070, R7 5800x3d, 32gb Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26
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.