Pros: the community gets to have input on the game Cons: the community gets to have input on the game

With how many triple A games are flat out broken at launch, it feels like every game can be considered early access if you buy it in the first year of it's full release.

Very reasonable evaluation. I just wish Steam would provide some visible indicators of a developer's previous success with Early Access. For a developer like us, who's gone through the EA process before, released in full and to great reviews, it can be pretty disheartening to see how many players tell you they outright refuse to consider an EA game because of other developers that have failed to complete theirs. Good marketplaces do their best to reduce risk wherever they can, and giving gamers information to help them see who's delivering on their promises (and who isn't) would help a ton. Cyber Knights: Flashpoint is halfway through Early Access now, on track to release later this year. Regardless of well EA did, we'd get the game done one way or another, but there's simply no way it'd be the same level of quality without the support we have received. For independent studios and games backed by small or mid-size publishers, EA is a really crucial bridge to give developers the time and feedback they need for a game to reach its full potential. It's totally reasonable for players to ask questions about a developer's ability to deliver, not want to play a game that's still unpolished, or prefer to wait to spend their time on a game that's finished and ready for a full playthrough. A wishlist is always welcome! ...but I do worry about the future of independent games if fewer and fewer people are willing to support the games they want to see more of, at the time those games most need support to do more.

I think most of us have been burnt, so I would like to share an extremely positive EA experience: Against the Storm. The game was fantastic right from the beginning, but they kept improving it and making it bigger and more varied. They had smaller, but very frequent updates (most of the time every two weeks, if I remember correctly). They listened to the community while also staying true to their overall vision. They always identified specific problems or shortcomings and tried to solve them, most of the time succeeding, and if not, they were not afraid to admit that something just wasnt working as well as they had hoped and going back and trying again. All in all, it left me extremely impressed with the team and their dedication, and while most EA experiences were quite frustrating for me (looking at you, Valheim), this was genuinely a joy.

As an indie developer who is in a pre-production phase & thinking about early access for the future of our game, this was a valuable input. So thank you 💙

AAA games should not be Early Access. They don't need the additional QA help or $$ from EA income. But with games like Wartales, Terra Invicta, or Manor Lords, I think Early Access is a very good thing. They're small devs, with a decent Indie publisher behind them. And they listen to the feedback they are getting about gameplay. I think it's better for strategy games than RPGs. Because essentially the whole game is visible. But they're based on replayability, as different scenarios create radically different games. You can't see 75% of the game in EA.

For me the biggest pitfall is not the game itself but my enthusiasm for it. All the EA games I bought were fun, but by the time the 1.0 version came out I had already moved on to other games and didn't feel like going back to them so I stopped buying any. Restarting from scratch doesn't help because the game is too familiar, continuing from where I left doesn't work because it's usually been a few months and I lost that momentum (plus I'm usually completely lost as to what I was doing) so I'm all left with is the impression that I played an inferior version of a game I would have enjoyed more if I had waited for its full release.

I remember the good old days of being a beta tester, when the developers GAVE you the game to play test, and you provided feedback. Ones that made it out of beta to release, you would either be able to keep playing, or purchase it to play. I play tested several games, most made it to release, but quite a few had the plug pulled on them too.

I always wait for 1.0 release. I rarely do more than one playthrough, so I don’t want to experience an unfinished game. There’s too many games to play anyway.

i do late late access myself, i buy games years after release when theyre cheaper and all the bugs are sorted out... just finished witcher 3 and going through mgs5 now..

I think people forget that playing a game in beta used to be free. Now we’re paying companies to beta test their games.

Abiotic factor is a great example of HOW to do a early access game.

I spent a lot of time having fun in the early access of Valheim. Then when they released the Mistlands biome, I didn't enjoy it at all and stopped playing the game. And yet, I feel like I got more than my money's worth and don't regret having supported the game at all. I'm currently considering buying the early access of Len's Island.

Even Baldur’s Gate 3 wasn’t a fully complete game until a couple months after launch 😂

I am the exact opposite of early access... I usually wait until all dlc and patching is done, before I buy a game! I prefer to own the entire game, and not feel like Im missing something.. Same reason I dont do f2p games

Cons are for me 1 if the developer badly needs the funds from early access for development that often is a bad sign 2.usually there is only 1 chance to make a first impression there are some games that the 1.0 release get hyped like hades and bg 3 but often not the case 3. If they are planning a 1.0 release very soon afterwards there really is not enough time for changes to be implemented 4. Really hard to know how much the game changes and is the luck of the draw, some games get massive changes others very little. 5. I am seeing so many games being abandoned before release.

definitely understand the points, I personally make it a rule of thumb to not buy early access games anymore. even if it is something I really want to play like hades 2, I just feel like I'd get a better/complete experience once it hits 1.0 and I play it and for games that never hit 1.0, I wouldn't have wasted the time.

I almost never get Early Access games. I can see the appeals but there are enough bad apples and my backlog of older, fully released games is big enough that it's not worth the risk for me. Worst case scenario for this approach is, I play a great game slightly later than others, which I already do anyway. At least it's better than Kickstarter.

I’m super hyped for Hades 2 but it’s quite painful waiting for full release when everyone else on the internet seems to be loving the early access version.

For me the biggest con is you don't quite get that first time of wonder as nobody knows what to expect, if it's a great game. I think it takes a serious anomaly like BG3 not to end up there too much. But I would say it IS a big anomaly given that they actually had a budget to build on the EA, whereas I think for many there's just not a budget to have a large part of the game develop outside of it.

On one hand, it helps procure funding for a game it wouldn't have gotten otherwise if it released later, speeding up development. On the other hand, many games go into early access and it STILL takes a long time for proper progress to be made.

Lovely to see Nightingale on your list - I am 200 hours in and still somehow finding new stuff. It is a banger in EA but I'd love to see your opinion on release. Not enough games with zero gravity umbrella combat :) And top hats.

You hit the goomba on the head with your thoughts on Early Access! Couldn’t have said it better myself

I've kickstarted and bought some early access games. It has mostly been a positive experience. I always look into the developer, what their plan is, and how organized they are. I also always go in knowing I may get nothing out of it, but I feel the project is interesting enough I'm willing to take the risk.

Yeah played early access balders gate 3. Played thru it 5 times and was already completely burnt out when the game finally launched.

The main thing that bugs me with early access games is that no matter whether they’re good or bad: I have to do this whole mental game to work out when the best time to play it is. Play it too early and you’ll burn out and exhaust the content. Wait too long for the version with all features and new content, but then you’ll have to start from scratch with a new save, with lots of stuff spoiled for you after the hype has died down. Or if it’s multiplayer then you could risk playing it when the player base has dwindled and you can’t matchmake with anyone anymore, whilst the people you do match with are far too skilled to play fairly with. It makes every early access game feel like a risk, and I never feel like I’m playing it at the right time. It results in me either playing the first few hours and quitting, or waiting 1-3 years for it to be ‘complete’ and even then it’s a compromised experience.

The main question I ask is similar: Does this deliver the core fun I'm looking for right now? Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord is a great example: the game lacked an endgame, the quests were paper thin, and the story was laughable, but it delivered on the core fun: leading medieval armies into battle, storming castles, and running a middle ages Railroad Tycoon trading network. Likewise with Going Medieval. In contrast, Immortal Mayor (Sim City meets Fantasy China) still doesn't have an English language UI or any working commands over 1 year after the English language Early Access release on Steam. A game that delivers the core fun now makes me willing to pay even if it is unfinished and has bugs.

I think there are two reasons to buy in Early Access. The first is what you mentioned - the game is good enough to you right now that you think it's worth the money. The second is that you like the concept of the game and want to signal that interest by putting actual money into it. Yes, you could wishlist it instead, but putting your money where your mouth is will always have a much stronger effect. By doing that, hopefully you'll end up with a game that you like, and many more games similar to it that you can buy if they also interest you. Even if the game ends up being incomplete, there's always a chance that other games inspired by those Early Access sales might scratch that itch anyway. That said, Early Access comes with even more risks than buying a game pre-release or on day 1. I would not recommend buying an Early Access title that doesn't meet either of the criteria above for you. Most of the time, if you wait six months to a year after release you'll get a much better product, and often for a much lower price as well. And if the game manages to hold your attention for that long, after you've watched some playthroughs of the released product and seen some reviews, then it's also something that you'll probably really enjoy.

I’ve done pretty well for myself by picking up games a year after release. By then, they’ve usually been patched up to an acceptable state and are staring to go on sale. But Hades II is really making a case for itself. Supergiant is a mark of quality, and it’s generally easier to swallow an unfinished rogue-like because you are meant to play it again anyway. I’m also tempte md to check out stuff like No Rest for the Wicked, The Rogue Prince of Persia, Dragon is Dead, and Hyper Light Breaker once those hit EA.

I mostly had good experiences with Early Access games, but I don't think I'm getting one ever again due to how long my backlog is; makes no sense to play an Early Access game when I have tens of already launched games to play

I like that you don't curse or overact to try and entertain. Just simple reporting with personality and self respect. Be blessed.

I agree with much that you said and wholeheartedly concur that one should evaluate an early access title as it is now, when deciding whether to purchase or not. I made that decision with BG3 and its early access and was not prepared to pay full price for something that was not a version 1.0. I'm glad BG3 worked out as it is an excellent game, but it may not have. With any form of gambling, one should not spend ANY amount of money that one is not prepared to lose.

The two early access games I've played this year (No Rest for the Wicked and Hades II) are both phenomenal already. I feel kind of spoiled as those are the first EA games I've ever tried - I just felt pretty confident in the devs of both titles to deliver

I think a game that did early acess perfectly was Dead Cells. That game morphed and changed a lot before 1.0 and even kept updating it for like 4 years after launch.

I'm glad some people enjoy early access.

Was happy putting my game up on early access a little while back, managed to get some great feedback and catch some random bugs that I never caught when I play tested.

One of the best (and longest) early access games on steam (that's not BG3) is Troubleshooter:AC. Years in EA as they literally built the game right in front of you with updates at least every month (if not every week at times).

Fortnite's pve mode was in early access for ages and was supposed to be free once it came out but fast forward a few years and it came out of early access where you still have to pay for it and it wasn't even finished. There was no conclusion to the story they had and some mission types were still broken. (The mission where you escort a bomb still doesn't have an animation for the bomb being launched the last I played)

Early access comes down to this: - if it is a trusworthy and well known publisher it's okay to buy. - if it is a new company or unknown with 1 or 2 games then don't trust it except it cost 10 euros most. Sometimes there is other issues. Dune: Spice wars was MMUUUUUUCCCCCHHH better in it's early acces build than it is now.

For most games I take the stance of: if this game never got any more updates would I be happy spending my money on it.

The problem with EA is also that community takes story and things in EA seriously, while it shouldn't, since it doesn't matter until full release. It is a mechanics test and player feedback on gameplay, more or less, as well as data gathering (heat maps, quests popularity, companions popularity). But EA creates a weird dichotomy between non-real EA period, that was still played by the players, and actual "real" game at 1.0. It isn't like EA players can forget what they've played, yet they should, because it didn't matter story-wise, only as a frame for feedback and player-data. For BG3 I would say that the amount of bugs for BG3 in act1 and act3, at least for, a month after launch (September 2023) was kind of the same, not small, but not a lot. Don't think the community gets pat on the back with the fixes, especially full release community which can rarely formulate comprehensive feedback. Same goes for interactivity. However, input on gameplay and mechanics during EA was crucial for BG3. There is 2022 GDC speak from Swen on what they actually got from EA, bugfixes and such are not that important (iteration on systems and how players engaged with the game - most important).

I admit, as someone in QA Testing (not in the gaming industry), to me a lot of games use early access as QA and for smaller indy companies it does make sense. One of the ones I play... well, the community basically QA'd the latest update and now we await the next piece of the game. All in all, I think the kickstarter campaign is a more honest way of running early access as it is clear that the game may or may not happen. Although given the rise of the mobile market the games industry has completely changed. The other thing is like doing beta for wow... by the time of the release I am burned out on it.

early access is like a kickstarter, you never know what you will get and if you will get it

Thankfully V Rising has been great through early access to full release.

Probably the easiest way to see early access is that it's a kickstarter game with an actual playable demo. It is always a risk and for me personally, I am VERY unlikely to buy early access games unless I really really like what I see. About the only early access game I've ever gotten is Songs of Conquest, since heroes of might and magic type games are exceedingly rare and I did enough research from videos to decide I liked it enough. Aside from that one game, I have a rule to never buy an early access game on launch. Even for songs of conquest I waited for over a year before I bit the bullet.

Good video. I'm much more likely to risk Early Access with an offline game compared to an MMO or other game that requires connecting to a server, because server-bound games can completely disappear if the company goes under or the game gets scrapped. See: Pathfinder Online, a EVE Online clone MMO that was Pathfinder in name only that died in Early Access. Since it was online only, it's not possible to play the game anymore, and any purchases are wasted. With offline games, at least you have the game as it was.

Thanks for the video. I don't touch early access titles these days. There have been too many that were never finished, or finished poorly. You might get access to a game at a lower price, but you can still get that just by waiting for a sale, and by that point it should be a polished title. Onward to 400k. All glory to the algorithm.

I view early access support the way I view throwing $50 a month at a dozen or so creators through patreon... an investment in hopefully improving the content / gaming landscape. I don't consider it being burned if a product I support fails if it gives a cool concept a chance to get off the ground, I consider it the cost of getting cool new gaming concepts that AAA studios would consider too risky to give a 2nd look to. Hell.. I have bought things in early access that I knew I would never play even if they released,because it was not really my thing just because it looked amazing. I don't think risking small amounts of money to hopefully end up with new cool shiny things is a bad use of money as long as one is not funding an obvious cash grab scam.

A problem I have with early access and full release games is that I don't like to play games that I know doesn't have all its content. There are a couple games that I own but haven't played because I don't have their dlc yet, because I know if I played them now I probably wouldn't care enough to buy the dlc later and go back and play it.

I think EA has both massive potential to make a game great or having it show the downsides of development when developers can't meet either the feedback/demands of the community. I've seen a couple of huge success in my time of playing some EA games but the amount of blunders or hedge funds there are really taint the concept of Early Access a lot.

My take before the video: It depends on the studio, Larian is probably the best example of how to do early access right. Sadly, too many studios use it as a way to get quick cash and then never finish the game fully...

WIthout watching the video yet: For me the biggest cons is for sure the neverending early access label. There are plenty of games, that were in early access for many years, and I think its not doing much good for the game. Im a kind of person who wants to play finished product, and if game is in EA for 3+ years, I simply loose the excitement to play the game. (Just in case, I think that BG3 is kinda an exception, since its a huge in-depth made game)

I do wonder with BG3 the last acts that we're not in early access....how do they fare now ? Have they improved it as much as the earlier acts in ea or not ?

Big no on early access games for me. Typically don't buy 1.0 release. Let the game bake for awhile after release to get the patches done. At this stage of life I probably won't ever play all the games in the library anyway.

I understand the appeal for people who wants to give feedback, but it's still working QA for free and even paying for the privilege... The benefit for the devs is obvious, but it runs the risk of the players' attention at 1.0 launch being lost when people have already moved on during the EA before the true potential of the game is met.

EA rule #1: players should never buy a game in EA unless they specifically want to actively support the studio in question in developing it. EA rule #2: developers should never use EA to fund a game's development, only to improve it. Both those rules are easier to follow if developers don't discount EA releases. Larian, for example, did not discount BG3 for EA. Owlcat typically charge even MORE than retail price to join alpha and beta public releases. This has the effect of a) limiting EA player bases to those players who genuinely want to help develop the game (rather than just get the game for cheap) and b) keeping developers honest, i.e. doing EA for the right reasons.

A way I enjoy early access games mostly comes down to the price, and if what the game offers is already worth said price. I bought into V Risings early access on that launch and I found the game at the price point to be absolutely worth it for the time alone I spent there. It has now just launched in 1.0 and I am very satisfied with it. So to not end up with a bunch of never-releasing games in your library that you regret buying, I always advice to only buy into early access games that already, with the content in the game at the point, seems worth getting into.

This video gave me some new games to look into

I will never buy a game in early access. I don’t need to play test a developers game. I would rather play the finished experience since I rarely return to a game once completed

Quagmire: I'm not paying for Early Access. Joe: Good. Don't.

Man, you sure churn out the content. I don't see how you have time to play games with all the videos you produce. You must work 24/7. Keep posting them and I'll keep clicking.

The thing I hate about Early access is that sometimes it takes years for the game to have a full release like Ultrakill it has been on Early access for nearly 4 years

For me the biggest problem of modern EA games is, that many, many small devs and studios dont have an actual development plan. I stopped buying EA games, because I have around 10-20 games, that are STILL in EA after YEARS of development. Not because of smaller delays, but because the dev studio dont have an actual plan, experience or the will to make progress. They just work on the game forever with little to no progress at all. Larian Studios released BG3 in EA as well and it took them some time to actual release the game. But they had a plan, they worked on the game to actual finish it and they listened to the community input to make the game even better. If all EA games would be like this, I still would love to buy EA games. But games like BG3 or Subnautica seem to be the exception sadly. Thats why I dont see many advantages in EA games anymore. Its always a risk to buy them and many dev dont seems to have the will to make progress or finish their games.

I think you have to look at the number of games in your library and how many of your favorite games used Early Access or even Kickstarter. How many of those games, simply wouldn't exist without getting funded through these systems. To me, if I invest in 3 games that I think have the possibility to be could and one succeeds and the other two fail, that is still a win in my book.

The term Early Access really got devalued over time. As you said, a lot of games just flat out not shipping to abandoned projects from the get go. I do think a lot of it involves communication though, and if you stay open to your community and listen to feedback (you don't have to incorporate everything but at least involve them into how to improve the game) I think it can do wonders

I used to kickstart and participate in early access, but I found that for me the biggest negative wasn't that a game might fail to release. Its I become demotivated to comeback and play the finished game, especially if they have a long time commitment.

Yeah I swore off of Early Access games about a two years ago. The community always seems to want games to be harder and more multiplayer focused regardless of the genre, and the added changes rarely feel fun to me. In other cases cases games stagnate with little improvement. Of course a lot of these supposed 1.0 releases have so many bug fixes, balance patches and added content that its hard to believe its actually a 1.0.

I never do early access. Paying to be a tester just doesn't seem like fun to me.

Early access also, very importantly, provides revenue for devs during development, which can be a big help for small studios, or even essential for them. This is a good thing for developers. But as a player I've grown fed up with early access because you know you don't play a finished game and will have to revisit because you never know if the experience you get now will be even close to the final product. On top on not knowing if it will ever be done of course. I get the opportunity for devs, but to me it's always a disapointment when I see that cool game is actually in ea... and I don't buy those anymore except in rare cases when it's clearly stated the game is already complete.

I have complicated feelings on early access on the industry level, but personally I don't like participating in them. The only one that I can recall participating in, I didn't end up playing the full release because neither starting over or jumping back in where I was after an extended break sounded appealing. So, for my own enjoyment, I like to wait for the full release unless it's a beta testing situation or something

I've only had regrets about one early access game, Black Skylands, and that was mainly due to a story change they made during EA. For most games that go in EA, just judge how the development is going before you pick it up.

I give certain early access a chance that I’m confident will be finished lol. Like Bannerlord and now Manor Lords.

Project nimbus was a game i backed and had positive thoughts as bug reports they would message people to show them...the only thing was the game badly needed replay value and was mentioned throughtbout early acces but was never done

At least early access releases are honest with that the game is not finished. Lately I've been playing a lot of Millennia and while I enjoy it, that game is for all intents and purposes effectively in Early Access, even though it was released as a complete game.

What is the first game displayed?

To me the pro and cons really only apply if you have trust in the dev/publisher. Since you give money to someone based on nothing more than a promise. Like with KSP 2 there might be lots of money and a big publisher behind it, but if that publisher is untrustworthy there is no grantee that they will not just pull the project same as small indie devs running out of money. There is in reality very few devs/publishers deserving of trust, like Larian with a proven track record and management that seem to care about their employees and costumers. As such I really don't see much utility in EA, since so few studies deserve the players money and commitment.

At least with early access you're getting a generally playable game which you can still possibly have refunded on steam as well. Even if you never play the full release version, the time you spend on the early access alone may justify the money spent on it. Kickstarter however is much more of a risk.

Do you stream?

I bought my first early access game a decade ago, and its still in EA (Zomboid.)

That's very much how I view it, too. It's my way of supporting games or companies whom I think have interesting ideas, good games, or something to offer the industry that is to the benefit of gamers and devs rather than massive corporations and shareholders who produce shite, who grind every penny they can from us without providing value for money. I did this with BG3, for example, because the game looked awesome but also because I wanted to support Larian. I don't mind paying what a game is worth, but I hate paying high and receiving either garbage or a game that's worth half the price - or less. Broken, buggy, incomplete, content locked behind paywalls, pay to win, inferior copies of previous games - they're all ways of ripping off consumers. I guess I see the money as a donation to those I wish to support and see thrive. If it comes to nothing, or I don't personally love the game, it's not the end of the world. Hopefully, the game will succeed, the studio will thrive, and the rip-off merchants will grind their teeth at the lovely lucre that isn't going into their pockets. [Edited for typos.]

Pours one out for Everquest Next founder's pack..

I was thinking about picking up Hades 2, but it's in early access. If anyone has any feedback on if that game is worth it in Early access right now or if I should wait? I really liked the first game, bought two copies as well

Another danger of Early Access - sometimes developers seem nervous about launching their games from early access and as a result will spend endless time fiddling with them in nonconstructive ways. Both Space Haven and Going Medieval are examples of colony builder games that started off with the bones for a really great, fun game. However, years of languishing in early access have seen both of them become burdened with overcomplicated extraneous systems that add very little to the game while leaving core game problems untouched. I loved both of those games in their EA release state and I would not recommend either of them to anyone today.

I think the biggest con for Early Access is seeing how a game can devolve from its original vision. I've joined Early Access for plenty of games that had an interesting initial concept, but then it gets dumbed down for the sake of greater accessibility. You're better off waiting for the final product and then grading that, instead of the constantly changing Early Access product.

It's all up to the developers ultimately. If they do a bad job or over correct then it's their fault.

I've got more than 750h in Project Zomboid, never played a better game, and I highly doubt it'll ever get out of early access... Still it offers an immense world, complexity, infinite stories and adventures, and a really awesome modding community.

Baldur's Gate 3 would have been ruined for me by early access if not for the huge influx of new players at launch who wanted to co-op it with me. I still find Act 1 to be a bit of a slog even though it's clearly the most polished area of the game as a result of EA

last decade made me highly skeptical (and paranoid) the best thing for gaming used to be in form of playable demo but not only have this concept almost completely died but also there were times when full game turned out to be far worse (on release or month after first reviews) even if there are developers i (for now) know that i can trust and price will be perfectly affordable i'm still waiting because there is a risk that it won't be released or since i'm trying to judge game after full playthrough (with every side activity (almost 300h for first full finish of baldur's gate 3)) and i have no idea if it's worth spending money (i can barely afford more than one game on release per year) and i hate idea of asking for refund since i don't do it (or while waiting for release i could use these money for something else) opinion from fans (actual gamers interested in game) can help to greatly improve it but at the same time give many bad ideas that sound good only on paper or simply bring too many and damage process of implementation and completion (ignoring people that will be pissed just for their head canon not being implemented) i have very mixed feelings on this subject

what is that game's name at 1:37 ?

I friggen hate early access games. I got Baldur's Gate 3, it was really cool and I stopped cayse I didnt want to burn out on a game before it is released. But that is the thing, I dont have a lot of time to game, I also get burned out easily, so putting time into an early access game kinda sucks

I think my one problem with early access as a concept right now is the idea that big studios are going to abuse the model like Larian did in order to get free QA. I love Baldur's Gate 3, but them selling it unfinished for full price was extremely scummy and a model that other games of a similar budget could imitate, which should be a lot more concerning for people than it was. Ultimately early access is a proven model that objectively leads to better games in a lot of cases, but it's one that is far too easy to abuse.

Pros: Gets to play the game earlier. Cons: Gets to play the inferior version of the game.

Pro: You can help fix the game like BG3 Con: A lot of time when a game is in EA for a few years I am done with it before it actually releases.

I like EA better than a Kickstarter...But in general I wait for a full release. Luckily, the one EA game I bought turned out great (Grim Dawn). I would have gotten BG3, but I didn't appreciate a $60 EA.

Early access is never worth it for me. I'm glad for people who buy these games and give feedback, but id rather come late to the party, when all the features are added and bugs are ironed out. And let's not talk about games who stay in early access indefinitely and never get the full release..

Speaking of “early access” any thoughts on star citizen?

I understand very well that you don’t want to review games that aren’t finished yet, I have a mixed relationship with early access games. On the one hand, I would like to support indie developers who lack the money to realize their game. But they also need a pretty big trust advance from us players. Unfortunately, I bought some games in Early Access that never get finished, not because the games were lacking money. The developers simply had no clear end goal in mind and have been programming their games for 10+ years without ever getting finished. And thats not my moneys worth. Meanwhile, I rarely buy games in early access. And if it’s developers who don’t have an excuse why they choose Early Access even though they have the financial resources to finish programming the game I don’t even buy it. One example from my Steamlibrary is Project Zomboid. That game is really successful. But it was released on Steam in 2013. Its still in Early Access and it will never be finished. Two other examples i wont buy are Hades 2 and No Rest for the Wicked. Both games from Dev Studios which are really successful and have the money to polish the game before releasing it. To release it in Early Access is utter outrageous.

I've always seen more pros than cons doing early access, especially if you do it right. Many good examples like Hades, BG3 and many others are obvious choices, but there are a lot of early access games that never get finished and it's a cheap money cash grab. No rest for the Wicked, Palworld, Manor Lords, Hades 2 are some of the games that came out in early access this year and you can tell that they are almost complete, but they need more time to get to the finish line and get valuable feedback. I usually know what I'm getting into with early access and for Hades 2 and No rest for the wicked..I know that, after playing 25h each for those games, that it will be worth waiting for the 1.0 release so I decided to wait for that.

Forget early access, I don't buy games until they been out for a year or two, and are on sale.

speaking of games never releasing there are plenty of EA games that were miles better than a lot of fully released games so it very much depends on the case also its not like people never released the game, to then update it the same way EA games do tbh, id rather see EA game evolve over time than get a full release with lots of issues that gets forgotten after a year by the devs