What do you expect from a game if you buy it in Early Access?

[ZedClampet]

When Valve first started the early access program, both developers and gamers were much more relaxed about how they went about things. The developers often launched with barely anything in their game. Even game save systems weren't a guarantee (hello, The Forest), and players responses to this were generally favorable, usually just responding with something along the lines of "well, it's Early Access after all."

At some point, either all at once or over time, the philosophy changed. Now most games released into Early Access are much, much farther along and are fully playable and enjoyable on launch day. It's rather like the current AAA model of releasing unfinished games and then refining and finishing them over the next year or so.

But that's not all EA games. Sometimes they have a lot farther to go to reach the finish line, and usually these games suffer under the angry scrutiny of players regardless of their EA status.

So what do you, personally, expect when you launch an EA game for the first time? If you don't buy EA games, just pretend that you do

 

[BeardyHat]

I was going to say that I don't have any real expectations, but thinking about it more, I definitely do.

I basically expect a game to work and be playable if I'm going to pick it up in EA. No proof of concept or anything, but it has to be immediately playable and fun, whether it is content complete or not.

I tend to avoid EA in general with some exceptions and that's just because I rarely go back to games I've played, so I'd rather play something feature complete when I do play it. Odds are, I'll exhaust myself on EA and then never go back when the game actually comes out.

Though this has bitten me in the butt in the past. I bought Shadows of Doubt in EA, played for 10-hours and loved it, then stopped playing to wait for it to hit release. Now that it's hit release, most people seem to be saying it's in a poor state and not at all what was promised. So I probably should have just enjoyed it as much as I could have at that point and then called it a day.

 

[ZedClampet]

Though this has bitten me in the butt in the past. I bought Shadows of Doubt in EA, played for 10-hours and loved it, then stopped playing to wait for it to hit release. Now that it's hit release, most people seem to be saying it's in a poor state and not at all what was promised. So I probably should have just enjoyed it as much as I could have at that point and then called it a day.

This happens to me but it's pretty rare. Most of the games go where you expect them to, but then there was Tektonica, a factory game, where the developer spent almost the entire early access adding "16 floors" to the cave that could only be reached by elevator (so they were like the old concept of having different, self-contained levels). The problems with this in a factory game are pretty obvious since you can't run conveyor belts from one level to the next.

 

[BeardyHat]

This happens to me but it's pretty rare. Most of the games go where you expect them to, but then there was Tektonica, a factory game, where the developer spent almost the entire early access adding "16 floors" to the cave that could only be reached by elevator (so they were like the old concept of having different, self-contained levels). The problems with this in a factory game are pretty obvious since you can't run conveyor belts from one level to the next.

Yeah, admittedly, that was really the only time.

I'm pretty sure I've actually had a decent amount of EA games that have been completed and end-up being pretty good in the end. DUSK, for one.

I'm struggling to think of others, not because there aren't any, but because my memory is awful and I just can't remember stuff I've bought.

 

[ZedClampet]

Yeah, admittedly, that was really the only time.

I'm pretty sure I've actually had a decent amount of EA games that have been completed and end-up being pretty good in the end. DUSK, for one.

I'm struggling to think of others, not because there aren't any, but because my memory is awful and I just can't remember stuff I've bought.

Honestly, almost all of the games I buy these days are in early access. In fact, it's a surprise if a game isn't in early access, and I just play them as if they are full games. I check in on them when they come out of EA (Steam is good about reminding me) and check on what's been added and decide whether I want to replay them or pick up where I left off, or just ignore it and leave it in my "finished" pile.

What's amazing is the difference between developers. You'll have a solo developer who releases major update after major update. Then you will have a small studio of people who update once or twice a year.

I think the difference might be that a solo developer stays focused on their one game, while a studio may actually move most of the people off of the EA game and put a lot of their effort into their next game. Naturally, there are many exceptions to this "rule" that I noticed. There are a number of studios who have stayed the course and concentrated on their EA game until it was finished.

 

[Colif]

Early access to me, means... you get to play it early...

I am willing to expect bugs but hey, they happen in AAA games that aren't early access. As long as game works, its generally enough for me. Most games I get in early access are playable at least.

But seriously, the way AAA games do it is not early access. True early access is about getting the games a few months or up to a year or so before actual release.. not 7 days.

Early access in Indie means you might have some input into improvements that make it into actual game... unlike AAA where game already finished, you just paid more to be bug testers and any bugs you do find may not actually be fixed until weeks/months after release.

You get to see the game change, Last Epoch changed a lot between early access and release. (downloads a 6gb patch for it while typing this)

Most times in indie you don't have to pay extra to get games in early access whereas companies like Ubisoft add it to $100 bundles.

 

[ZedClampet]

Early access to me, means... you get to play it early...

I am willing to expect bugs but hey, they happen in AAA games that aren't early access. As long as game works, its generally enough for me. Most games I get in early access are playable at least.

But seriously, the way AAA games do it is not early access. True early access is about getting the games a few months or up to a year or so before actual release.. not 7 days.

Early access in Indie means you might have some input into improvements that make it into actual game... unlike AAA where game already finished, you just paid more to be bug testers and any bugs you do find may not actually be fixed until weeks/months after release.

You get to see the game change, Last Epoch changed a lot between early access and release. (downloads a 6gb patch for it while typing this)

Most times in indie you don't have to pay extra to get games in early access whereas companies like Ubisoft add it to $100 bundles.

I wasn't really saying they were comparable. The point I was hoping to make was that a lot of indie games launch into early access in as good or better shape than a lot of AAA games that are supposed to be finished.

 

[Colif]

I agree with that. Or at least, for the ones I have bought, that is case.

Early access on Steam isn't for the faint of heart.

Its easier for actual players to give feedback on how the game is to the makers of an early access game on Steam, so that means they need to be good from day one to get a positive reaction and not just disappear into the catalogue. They can't rely on all the things AAA companies can to get eyes on their products.

Early access can be a way to get people talking about your game without needing to advertise.

So yeah, it pays to be good quality as soon as you hit early access. Make a mistake at that stage and its hard to recover. First impressions count.

Sick of waiting for Titan Quest 2 but then I want it to be good, so I wait.


AAAA (the last A was a mistake... wasn't it) games can rely on a advertising budget and reviews by other sources to get the word out. They don't need to rely on early access, if anything its just another thing to charge us for. They don't even need to be error free on launch as they use hype and nostalgia to get people to buy the games based on trailers full of cut scenes and very little game play.

AAA worked out years ago people will still accept bugs, provided they can play out some fantasy. It works for Bethesda on every release.

 

[Pifanjr]

I was going to say that I don't have any real expectations, but thinking about it more, I definitely do.

I basically expect a game to work and be playable if I'm going to pick it up in EA. No proof of concept or anything, but it has to be immediately playable and fun, whether it is content complete or not.

I tend to avoid EA in general with some exceptions and that's just because I rarely go back to games I've played, so I'd rather play something feature complete when I do play it. Odds are, I'll exhaust myself on EA and then never go back when the game actually comes out.

Though this has bitten me in the butt in the past. I bought Shadows of Doubt in EA, played for 10-hours and loved it, then stopped playing to wait for it to hit release. Now that it's hit release, most people seem to be saying it's in a poor state and not at all what was promised. So I probably should have just enjoyed it as much as I could have at that point and then called it a day.

This is pretty much it for me as well. Which is why I only buy Early Access games with multiplayer that my friends want to play with me. That way I know it's playable and (probably) fun and these kind of games are made to be replayed, so it's easy to jump back in with some friends after a big update.

 

[Frindis]

I expect the companies to actually make a finished product and not jump ship with an unfinished game.