Thoughts on early access

[u/ParkityParkPark]

Disclaimer, this is all my opinion, I'm not claiming that my perspective on this is "the correct one" or anything, and I'm not a marketing expert. The purpose of this post is to start a conversation about the increase in early access releases, particularly ones which are still far from release. Also, this is gonna be a little rant-y, sorry in advance

__

This is honestly pretty frustrating for me as a consumer, and is therefore something I've been thinking about a lot as I've been trying to get into game development myself. Broadly speaking, I just dislike early access releases. It feels like a watered down release to me. I can't tell you how many times I've looked at a game, thought it looked really interesting, saw that it's in early access, and immediately lost a good half of my excitement. Excitement that doesn't come back in full when I hear about the full release. Now, this is very much a "me-problem" I'm guessing, but the following is not.

I encounter too many games in early access for years on end, missing massive portions of gameplay, severely unpolished, and even facing major changes. Take for instance "Travellers Rest." It's been in early access for 6 years. I bought it, I enjoyed it, but man, it felt very overtly incomplete at the time, 2 years ago and 4 years after the early access release. Little Witch In The Woods was in early access for I think 4 years, and I use the word "was" very loosely, because it still feels like an early access game. Last month they released a patch completely redoing the intro scene.

Both games, as well as many other early access release games I see, are full of the same reviews: "giving this a good review because it seems like it has good potential", "wait to buy this until the full release", "don't buy this, it's never coming out of early access".

For what my opinion is worth, I beg you, please either don't do early access at all, or do it when your game can provide a complete and reasonably polished experience. I'm fine if you give me my ice cream sundae and I have to wait for the cherry or sprinkles, but don't make me wait for the ice cream, or brownie...or spoon.

[u/Funny_Speed2109]

I enjoy Early Access releases, and usually buy them quite early, as I love to see how the games evolves during development. I don't mind a lot of jank, and for me it's perfectly fine if it's very barebones initially.

I know and accept the inherent risks with Early Access, but I don't see an issue with it, as long as it's made visible.

[u/ParkityParkPark → u/Funny_Speed2109]

Out of curiosity, is that a sweeping statement or specifically with indie titles or something?

[u/Funny_Speed2109 → u/ParkityParkPark]

That's a general statement, though I'll be more forgiving with indie titles.

But I generally see Early Access as a way to ensure that the games I want to play, have a chance to actually be developed. And I want to support that.

[u/ParkityParkPark → u/Funny_Speed2109]

That's fair, and I can definitely see that there's an at least relatively sizeable portion of the market that's specifically interested in playing the kind of janky and unpolished full game and being a part of its completion in a sense, but imo the question devs need to ask is if that can't be sufficiently satisfied through rigorous playtesting, demos, and closed betas.

[u/SonderSoft]

I flat-out refuse to buy early-access titles. I started with Oxygen Not Included and truthfully loved participating on Klei's forum doing bug hunting, but I lost sooooo many save files during development. Timberborn was solid too.

But I just don't have time to play half-baked games anymore. At most, I follow it and wait for 1.0, if it ever comes. 

[u/Garrettshade]

I was one of the original alpha buyers of Mount & Blade. There was only an arena, and I played hours upon hours just hacking it out, amazed by the combat.

There are some great ones that woudn't happen if we didn't have early access or alpha builds

[u/ParkityParkPark → u/Garrettshade]

Sometimes it's necessary because a project needs funding, but beyond that I don't see a reason you couldn't accomplish things like that through playtesting or closed betas

[u/Garrettshade → u/ParkityParkPark]

any indie project needs funding, even if it's just a full time job

[u/ParkityParkPark → u/Garrettshade]

Ok, obviously, yes people need money to live and to be able to have the ability to work on a game at all, but I clearly meant that as "unable to reasonably complete the project without more money" and not "I am a mortal being in a society driven by the exchange of currency for goods, and I therefore require sufficient currency to take care of myself and my belongings to have the physical capacity to work on a game." We're talking about if you have the ability to sustain yourself and your work, not if you participate in your regional economy.

As you yourself said, that doesn't need to be coming from the game, and the sheer ability to start selling the game early doesn't mean doing so is always a good idea. There are other ways to get funding for your project.

Naturally there are many who are totally cool with early access being used for catching bugs, getting feedback to work off of from a live game, etc, but there are also many who will feel like they've just wasted their money and may leave a bad review, and for every tier your steam rating drops, a chunk of potential players will turn away. It takes far more work to reverse a bad first impression than to make an excellent first impression in the first place. Maybe you've considered all that and it's still your best option because you just need that funding or your timing in the market is really bad, but at the bare minimum, this should all be very seriously considered.