• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

What's your opinion of Steam Early Access?

Ghazi said:
I'm sure, but the game will have been in early access for three years this December and it (seemingly) has quite awhile to go. I'm no developer, but I can't see the game being done for at least another year or two. I feel like that's quite a long time to be in early access.
Click to expand...
Again, development can take a long time. A game as lean and concise as Inside took 6 years. A game as big and complex as Rain World is taking 5 years and counting. Stardew Valley took 4. The Witness took 8. And so on. 3-5 years is understandable for a big ambitious game

What matters isn't how long a game is on Early Access, but if the developers does regular updates and keep the community informed of the game's progress. If they are, what does it matter how long it takes? The game's getting made
 
I have no particularly strong opinion on it.

If it make sense for a particular game project, I don't see any cons. Players know what they get into.
 
Steam Early Access is a net positive, I'd say. It has allowed some absolute gems to come out that would otherwise not exist, like Divinity: Original Sin or Project Zomboid. In both cases, it provides critical feedback that allows these kinds of games to flourish, whether they reach full release swiftly or not. The critical thing is for devs to recognise if Early Access is right for them, because it really doesn't fit every game or even developer--I'd say this is where a lot of Early Access gripes stem from.

Really, if you think about it, Steam Early Access is the bedrock of modern game development: games as a service, never content complete. Like, how many games releasing nowadays have not just DLC down the road, but free content patches or events alongside them? And if you enjoy the game, how glad are you that they're there? (this is where I hug my copy of Total Warhammer, XCOM 2, Stellaris, Stardew Valley, and beyond.)

As a design paradigm, I like it a lot.
 
I think it can be a net positive for some genres and types of games, particularly those that benefit from a player base during development and at a point when significant design decisions can still be adjusted (e.g. competitive online games).
 
For sandboxes it's a pretty great model.

Though, like others have said, most of the time i'd rather play it when it's "finished" instead getting tired of it before great features are implemented.
 
Ghazi said:
I'm sure, but the game will have been in early access for three years this December and it (seemingly) has quite awhile to go. I'm no developer, but I can't see the game being done for at least another year or two. I feel like that's quite a long time to be in early access and selling on the store. Perhaps that's one of its better traits, that the system is fluid enough for a game to be in early access for as much time as it needs.

I feel like I should clarify that it's not specifically the time it takes a game to be made that bothers me about the system. I enjoy getting to play games early and I understand the concessions of being able to do that. I have quite a few early access games (most recent one being House of the Dying Sun). I find it fascinating being able to see all the pieces of the game come together (or not), but the magic of playing a game for the first time is gone when the full release arrives because I've already played it quite a bit. Of course that's "me" problem and not an early access one, which is why I never said that the system is bad, just that I disliked how long it a game can be on it.
Click to expand...
Lol imagine how the devs and playtesters must feel by the time the game's finished.
 
I think it's pretty good in general.You do know what your getting into,so you should be under no illusions of playing one without bugs,glitches,issues etc...or worse not ever released.

But you get the chance to follow its progress and even contribute at some points
 
The idea is interesting, the execution? It really needs some kind of policing or mandatory agreement that the devs don't fuck over their player base.
 
The gap in quality or content between EA games and full releases isn't as wide as one would expect. It speaks more towards a design philosophy than anything else.
 
mostly i avoid it now. the only early access games i've bought have been kerbal, h1z1, and dayz. dayz was downright terrible. i enjoyed h1z1 a bit more but that is turning into dayz 2. kerbal is a fantastic game.

now if i see an interesting game and it says early access then i just skip it. if the game is truly good and has a good team working on it then i'll buy it when they release the final version. if it doesn't make it that far then it can't really be worth playing.
 
A mess. It's like the wild west in there, still.

It has a place, and works well for some games, but for 99% of them it's a complete shitshow.
 
If some games benefit from it, then it's enough for me. Like everything else you have to learn to take the good with the bad, to get nice things.

Positive experiences with Early Access
*Prison Architect
*Offworld Trading Company
*Massive Chalice
*Don't Starve
*Invisible Inc

Less positive
*Nom Nom Galaxy
*Frozen Cortex - But I list it here more because of other people's reports, then my own experience.

Iterative development is a good thing for games, when it's done by developers who can actually adapt to it, plan ahead and be agile. And when the game launched on early access have enough meat on it to begin with.

That some games fail doesn't bother me that much, other then that I will question that particular developer until they show improvements. But I have bought complete games that have turned out to be trash as well, so the only difference with this is that it might take a bit longer to get the result.
 
I have had a very positive experience of it. I've been fairly discerning with my purchases - only picking up titles that I'd like to play when complete. I'm sure that it helps that I tend to enjoy sandbox games.

Kerbal Space Program, Prison Architect and Space Engineers have all been terrific (and I even enjoyed my time with DayZ.)
 
It's fine.. certain games it works great And you do see positive changes to games during EA. Then there's those select few who just stink it up.. just like Crowd funding.

In the end though we get some great games so I don't think the negatives change much just be smart about who you buy from.
 
It's kind of a minefield. For every great example there's two pieces of shit that are developed at a snails pace like DayZ and then inevitably hit release in a horrible unfinished state.

Still can't believe how much of a total shitshow DayZ ended up being. It launched with so much good will, but apparently the crew working on it was either infinitesimally small or they're all just incompetent.
 
Ultimately I think Steam Early Access is a positive thing for the gaming world, especially since Steam Refunds cushioned the risk in case you immediately don't like the experience yet. Also the changes to Steam Reviews highlighting the most recent review average in the past 30 days helps, letting you know if a game is improving or being abandoned.

Even if Steam Early Access involved more curation, there would likely be devs that release shoddy products, or just underwhelm their audience and run out of funding to keep going. So I think there will always be an element of risk that can't be avoided, but unlike Kickstarter you're at least guaranteed something to play out of your trouble.

Just like Kickstarter though, I'm happy to see another method for devs to get their content out there. Not every dev gets the benefit of a publisher, much less large community feedback to draw from for fixes on a wide variety of hardware. Early Access provides more ways for indie devs to create less buggy releases in this period, and you can just wishlist and wait until it reaches a point that satisfies you.

To me, Early Access is less useful for single-player campaign-centric games, and should only be used when you have the bulk of development done. Simulation-centric games, rogue-likes and co-op/competitive multiplayer games on the other hand can work in an earlier alpha state because they're designed to be replayed over and over again, earlier feedback can correct fundamental design problems saving devs work, or just evolve in ways the dev didn't even predict but yield a more interesting experience.

Even if I had a very complete game, I'd stay in early access for a month or two just to sort out any large bugs or performance problems when hitting a larger sample size of users.
 
I bought Nuclear Throne in early access, after the weekly dev streams. No regrets, but it's the only game I have bought in Early Access.

I want the full game, not part of it and then the rest later. If I buy it in Early Access, I will likely be sick of the game before it's been completed by the developers.
 
Often times I'll treat an Early Access game similarly to a Kickstarter, I'll buy a copy to support development, but I'm not interested in playing until the game is closer to release.

Has been a very positive experience for me.
 
Steam Early Access was a mistake.

Anything that isn't DIRT Rally has been nothing but trash.
 
I love it. Some of my most played games of the last few years have been off EA. If you want a finished product wait for a finished product. They give you plenty of warnings.
 
TheSeks said:
Steam Early Access was a mistake.

Anything that isn't DIRT Rally has been nothing but trash.
Click to expand...

Afro said:
Truth.
Click to expand...
You guys gotta get your fucking heads outta the sand. Jesus chist.

There are plenty of EA games that have had success in EA and some that will. People here have already mentioned examples.

I really enjoy EA games. I like seeing the development of games over time and the changes they bring. Cool stuff.
 
I steer clear of early access. I certainly would never pay full price for an early access game. One of the few early access games I own is CRAWL, which I've played and enjoyed on a friend's computer, and just a couple weeks ago bought from a gaffer for 2 or 3 bucks.

Early access encourages unfinished games.
There are a handful of amazing games in early access.. Most of them are shite which will never be finished.

It may be possible that early access gives more developers a chance to fund their ideas, but without quality control, we'd probably be better of without it. I'm biased against paying for unfinished work anyway..

Look at Gang Beasts.. Actually had some kind of funding with double fine for awhile apparently, still remains in early access after 2 or 3 years and is 15-20 dollars.. and it may be less of a game now than the original version. It's a god damn scam, no matter how fun it might be.
 
Polioliolio said:
I steer clear of early access. I certainly would never pay full price for an early access game. One of the few early access games I own is CRAWL, which I've played and enjoyed on a friend's computer, and just a couple weeks ago bought from a gaffer for 2 or 3 bucks.

Early access encourages unfinished games.
There are a handful of amazing games in early access.. Most of them are shite which will never be finished.

It may be possible that early access gives more developers a chance to fund their ideas, but without quality control, we'd probably be better of without it. I'm biased against paying for unfinished work anyway..

Look at Gang Beasts.. Actually had some kind of funding with double fine for awhile apparently, still remains in early access after 2 or 3 years and is 15-20 dollars.. and it may be less of a game now than the original version. It's a god damn scam, no matter how fun it might be.
Click to expand...
That isnt even remotely accurate. Gang Beasts hasn't even been in Early Access for two years. Now it has online multiplayer, improved visuals, and more arenas and customization than when it started. And DF doesnt fund the games. Just like it didnt fund Escape Goat 2 or Mountain

So many great games have come through EA that I can't fathom how one could say we're better off without it. The quality of released games and those that are regularly updated speak for themselves, and for the effectiveness of EA
 
Generally I'm not a fan but I've had good experiences with one or two games. I really like Darkwood but I'm trying to keep myself from playing too much so I'll actually want to play it when it fully releases.
 
No problem with it at all, seen many a decent game come through EA successfully and for some games it's the best route to take. I mean it's not like you're forced to purchase the fucking things either. You can just.....wait. *gasp* Problem solved.
 
r3n4ud said:
You guys gotta get your fucking heads outta the sand. Jesus chist.
Click to expand...

Two words. Well, actually one but go with me here:

Day. Z.

or, if you want me to expand that:

Killing. Floor. 2. Which even had the gall to say "EARLY. ACCESS. DONE. RIGHT!™" to supporters. Proceeds to NOT listen to supporters, throw in microtransactions BEFORE THE GAMES BASE IS FINISHED, and then has the developers working with another studio to work on another IP before their EA title is finished. Sorry, but I'm pretty firmly safe to say that Early Access is trash. DiRT Rally is the only one that has done "Early Access done right!" It had a stealth launch of "NOW AVAILABLE!" Listened to fans (even got the ability to turn the steering wheel off in cockpit view!), had pretty frequent (though not weekly, more 1-2 months) updates, and launched within a year (IIRC) of it hitting Early Access.

It's about the ONLY title I know of that has done that. "Wreckfest/Next Car Game" is what... three years (Thankfully, I didn't back this one)? into Early Access? DayZ still isn't out of beta (and Dean Hall ran with the money). Killing Floor 2 doesn't listen to it's fans, has a glacial pace, and still won't have 2 of the 10 planned perks out when it "launches" (if it launches with the PS4 port at the same time, that'll be a miracle).

I've been burned too many times by Early Access to give anyone the benefit of the doubt anymore.

texhnolyze said:
Totally wrong.
Click to expand...

No, totally right. Sorry.
 
I think it's a good initiative that has generated development resources to help games that would otherwise not exist. For that alone, it's a success.

I personally usually wait until a game seems fully playable and content ready, which means I'm going to miss out on some titles where the devs seems happy to be in perpetual Early Access/development mode.

There's successes (Darkest Dungeon), there's failures (others can find examples), there's projects that stay forever in Early Access (Gang Beasts) and a few promising ones that seemed to stall and peter out over time (Wreckfest).

Overall, it's easily been a net positive.


edit: this topic seems ripe for another tremendous Stumpakapow list/writeup.
 
I'm not even a fan of buying games that I know will get a GotY edition, let alone Early Acess games. But on paper it really is a good idea, just... not for me.
 
Needs even more curation than actual released games, but I'm not opposed to the model intrinsically. It's just not very pleasant to dig through by myself.
 
TheSeks said:
Two words. Well, actually one but go with me here:

Day. Z.

or, if you want me to expand that:

Killing. Floor. 2. Which even had the gall to say "EARLY. ACCESS. DONE. RIGHT!™" to supporters. Proceeds to NOT listen to supporters, throw in microtransactions BEFORE THE GAMES BASE IS FINISHED, and then has the developers working with another studio to work on another IP before their EA title is finished. Sorry, but I'm pretty firmly safe to say that Early Access is trash. DiRT Rally is the only one that has done "Early Access done right!" It had a stealth launch of "NOW AVAILABLE!" Listened to fans (even got the ability to turn the steering wheel off in cockpit view!), had pretty frequent (though not weekly, more 1-2 months) updates, and launched within a year (IIRC) of it hitting Early Access.

It's about the ONLY title I know of that has done that. "Wreckfest/Next Car Game" is what... three years (Thankfully, I didn't back this one)? into Early Access? DayZ still isn't out of beta (and Dean Hall ran with the money). Killing Floor 2 doesn't listen to it's fans, has a glacial pace, and still won't have 2 of the 10 planned perks out when it "launches" (if it launches with the PS4 port at the same time, that'll be a miracle).

I've been burned too many times by Early Access to give anyone the benefit of the doubt anymore.



No, totally right. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Like KS, all over again. Because you got burned means the whole thing is bad. Blame the devs who abuse, not the system. Myriad games have proved it works
 
I think it's a good idea, but needs refinement. There needs to be a certain critical mass of content available, in my opinion, for a game to go from "neat concept, I'll putz around for 1 hour" and this is the start of a good game, with the core systems in place and stuff to do to justify buying in early. That being said, some of my favorite games of recent memory have been EA games, and I've played them during various stages of development.

To be honest, I think there needs to be some recourse if the developer abandons the project as well. I'm not sure what that is, or what's fair, but I think it should be possible to recoup some of your losses if the developer decides that the project is not going to a completed concept. I mean, development happens, and I understand, but if you're taking people's money on the basis that they will eventually get a full product, and you only end up delivering half of one, then I think you owe them half a hamburger. Or at least you owe them a little something for abandoning your obligation.
 
TheSeks said:
Two words. Well, actually one but go with me here:

Day. Z.

or, if you want me to expand that:

Killing. Floor. 2. Which even had the gall to say "EARLY. ACCESS. DONE. RIGHT!™" to supporters. Proceeds to NOT listen to supporters, throw in microtransactions BEFORE THE GAMES BASE IS FINISHED, and then has the developers working with another studio to work on another IP before their EA title is finished. Sorry, but I'm pretty firmly safe to say that Early Access is trash. DiRT Rally is the only one that has done "Early Access done right!" It had a stealth launch of "NOW AVAILABLE!" Listened to fans (even got the ability to turn the steering wheel off in cockpit view!), had pretty frequent (though not weekly, more 1-2 months) updates, and launched within a year (IIRC) of it hitting Early Access.

It's about the ONLY title I know of that has done that. "Wreckfest/Next Car Game" is what... three years (Thankfully, I didn't back this one)? into Early Access? DayZ still isn't out of beta (and Dean Hall ran with the money). Killing Floor 2 doesn't listen to it's fans, has a glacial pace, and still won't have 2 of the 10 planned perks out when it "launches" (if it launches with the PS4 port at the same time, that'll be a miracle).

I've been burned too many times by Early Access to give anyone the benefit of the doubt anymore.



No, totally right. Sorry.
Click to expand...

So because you had a bad experience or two the whole system is a mistake and everything else is trash? Top logic there mate. Continue to ignore all the success stories in this thread, ignorance is bliss after all. I've bought two games in EA (Don't Starve & Darkest Dungeon) both of which I've thoroughly enjoyed, but I don't go around assuming the whole store is amazing because of my 2 experiences. Do your research.
 
It really feels like more often than not, EA games just stay in EA for years at a time while making very little progress. I don't know if that's because they now have to cater to the public playing their game or because they get lazy as they see a revenue stream coming in from unfinished work. Probably somewhere in between.
 
I support Early Access as a concept, as the format allows developers to try riskier game design compared to a regular game that you'd have to pitch to a publisher. I'm also willing to lay out the dough for an EA concept that really appeals to my interests.

But I see my purchase at that point as an investment in an idea, and not a purchased game... Essentially, a Kickstarter with a playable slice I can access immediately, with zero guarantees of completion. As such, I'm usually only willing to purchase these things at Steam Sale-level pricing.

And when I actually buy one (Xenoraptor is the last EA purchase I can remember), I play it for a bit to kick the tires and see what it's like, then wait for the final release (so I can play a finished product instead of a beta). Then I'll have purchased the full game on the cheap, and supported a developer in the process.
 
TheSeks said:
Two words. Well, actually one but go with me here:

Day. Z.

or, if you want me to expand that:

Killing. Floor. 2. Which even had the gall to say "EARLY. ACCESS. DONE. RIGHT!™" to supporters. Proceeds to NOT listen to supporters, throw in microtransactions BEFORE THE GAMES BASE IS FINISHED, and then has the developers working with another studio to work on another IP before their EA title is finished. Sorry, but I'm pretty firmly safe to say that Early Access is trash. DiRT Rally is the only one that has done "Early Access done right!" It had a stealth launch of "NOW AVAILABLE!" Listened to fans (even got the ability to turn the steering wheel off in cockpit view!), had pretty frequent (though not weekly, more 1-2 months) updates, and launched within a year (IIRC) of it hitting Early Access.

It's about the ONLY title I know of that has done that. "Wreckfest/Next Car Game" is what... three years (Thankfully, I didn't back this one)? into Early Access? DayZ still isn't out of beta (and Dean Hall ran with the money). Killing Floor 2 doesn't listen to it's fans, has a glacial pace, and still won't have 2 of the 10 planned perks out when it "launches" (if it launches with the PS4 port at the same time, that'll be a miracle).

I've been burned too many times by Early Access to give anyone the benefit of the doubt anymore.



No, totally right. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Intentionally cherry picking outliers hurts your argument.

Onemic said:
It really feels like more often than not, EA games just stay in EA for years at a time while making very little progress. I don't know if that's because they now have to cater to the public playing their game or because they get lazy as they see a revenue stream coming in from unfinished work. Probably somewhere in between.
Click to expand...

Small development teams, things take time.
 
I dislike it personally and won't buy anything until the game is ready to not be in Early Access. Only benefit is being able to wishlist a few titles I know I'll buy when they release (like I did with Poly Bridge today).
 
I hate early access because I personally hate it when I have no idea what is in a games future but yet I am forced to pay for what a game is now only for it to become something I might not even like when it is "done".

I have this dreadful fear that I have developed from being burned too many times by games that were "still in development" of which I will enjoy a game for what it is during a very specific period of its dev cycle and then they will release with an update that wipes away just enough of what I loved about the game that it will feel unfamiliar to me and then make me feel like I'm stuck with a product that I didn't pay for.

This happened to me with a bunch of games but notably DayZ, and Minecraft - the only way I can play minecraft anymore is in pure creative mode because the addition of so much tedium, the combat rebalances and the hunger meter have truly fucked the experience for me from what it was during its mid alpha stages.

DayZ was at its best when you spawned with a gun on the beach with a can of beans just to see what adventures you could go on but as soon as DayZ stopped being about having fun and became some glitchy survival outdoorsmanship simulator that made it so you couldn't have fun unless you scavenged for an hour first only to die 3 minutes later was the point where I jumped ship.

Then there was killing floor 2, which launched with much less content than what it appeared to have and the more you played it the more you realized has messy its release was, and then it got no attention until I didn't care about it anymore.
 
Grief.exe said:
Intentionally cherry picking outliers hurts your argument.

Small development teams, things take time.
Click to expand...


Killing Floor 2 isn't even that bad IMO and I'm enjoying the shit out of it, but then I just tend to play on Normal/Hard and ignore the microtransactions. Tripwires biggest flaw is with the time they take to release content but a few balancing issues aside they could release it right now and you'd have a decent amount of content. What's there though is pretty damn polished, it's not in a rough state or anything. Looking forward to the full release, it's a pity we won't get the other 2 classes until after release but I guess even they think it's taking too long.
 
I've only bought one game in early access so I don't have a lot of experience with it. That game is 20XX and so far it's been a pretty good experience. The game itself is fun and I like it when I go without playing for a while and come back and spot little changes. It's like revisiting your hometown and everything is there but just a little different, it's very cool feeling.

But I too hear about the horror stories of early access and that might be why I stay away or maybe there's just nothing I really want. I also don't Kickstart many games and when I do I don't go into the tiers that offer betas so maybe it's not really my thing to play unfinished games I'm not super into.

I think the business model has its flaws but those flaws only expose the developers that take advantage of the program and underdeliver and they should be rightfully shamed because their true selves came out when money exchanged hands. There's not really much more we can do unfortunately and asking Steam to play nanny is a nice idea but just as full of problems as early access.

I can still see myself supporting another few games in the early access model but I'm more interested in GOG's take on it where you can go back to earlier builds of the game. We'll see what sparks my interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alabaster Dawn coming to Steam early access on 5/7
17
264
tamago84 replied
Early Access indie pirate game Windrose launches on Steam with 98,000 CCU
2
55
730
Plague Doctor replied
KILLER INN | Steam Early Access Announcement Trailer
Trailer 
12
349
LordCBH replied
WarDogs Early Access Video (MP FPS)
3
146
TwinB242 replied
Everwind - Early Access Trailer
Trailer 
4
226
IbizaPocholo replied
Top Bottom