I never subscribed to the idea of early access. I have enough finished (or “finished”) games to play to be getting and playing unfinished ones that will get huge overhauls down the line so I’ll need to start from the beginning.

[Old Man Mode Engaged]
Yes..... Although I have never liked Early Access.......

I have no idea how to do it or how to police it but a game cant be in Early Access for years...... Its getting beyond a joke how long these games stay in Early Access for......

Another is "My Summer Car"...... That has been in Early Access since 2016....... This simply should not be allowed to happen......

While I have a few Early Access games...... Some have been "Fully released" but others are still in limbo........ I just flat out wont by any Early Access games any more.......

No fatigue here. But to be fair, the number of early access games that I have played is fairly limited. And most of them were either practically finished (like Zachtronics games) or far enough along that it wasn't an issue. The biggest offender is 7 Days To Die. But with almost 800 hours in the game, I can't say I'm really complaining. Sure, they seem to have issues deciding what they want, but it's also given me an opportunity to play several different versions of a game that is meant to be replayed. Don't really regret it. Another lengthy EA is for Satisfactory, but that was kind of expected. Also no complaints about the quality of their updates.

Sooner or later it becomes a matter of semantics, as some things never leave "beta" or "early access" or whatever. Just like some software projects never leave "v0.4.1" version schemes lol

The significance is that it implies less responsibility. That's why they do it.

Personally, I just never buy games in Early Access. If I bought it but didn't play it in the Early Access period then there's no point in buying it early, and if I bought it and did play it in Early Access then I'm not going to play it again when it's actually released (and ostensibly better) because I've already played it. A game that's in perpetual Early Access is just perpetually not getting my money.

I generally avoid early access games unless it's fully playable and just needs some polishing to finish.

Early Access = "would I continue to play this game if development ceased today?"

Quoting: saellavenEarly Access = "would I continue to play this game if development ceased today?"

Yes, that's how I am about it too. I don't want garbage for $19.99, and I don't want garbage for free. I extract a heavy toll when people waste my time. (In the case of games, nothing will get me to write a bad review, and vocalize bad opinions, more than a poor effort that wastes my time)

However, the other side of your statement has often been, for me, "I want my early access game back, I don't like what they did with the release, and subsequent updates" :-)

I did one Early Access game and it was Jupiter Hell. Great game but I've had my fill of paid early access right there and then.

don't forget the EA games that go on sale (what??) and then announce DLC's!!!

In principal... Ridiculous
In practice EA = Released (so why not??)

I don't particularly mind, I think those games are upfront about what you are getting and I can just wait until they are finished, or at least "finished enough" for me. Very different from rushed buggy "releases".

I generally wait until it goes out of EA completely, but with some games like Factorio, Satisfactory or Northgard I jumped in late but still during early access. Those games are replayable enough that I don't feel bad for playing the not-final iteration if it is already good. And if I'm waiting for it to be completed it doesn't really matter if it is in early access or not (and yes indie dev takes a long time and lots of things can go wrong and delay it more, I don't hold it against them).

For FOSS games and a few other cases (like crowdfunded games), I think it is inevitable to follow this model (releasing partial builds for people to play instead of waiting for the complete, perfect game). Development is happening in the open, you aren't trying to do a big reveal or build hype, and you can actually benefit from player feedback, bug reports, even contributions. So you show your progress, and let people choose if they want to play it or wait.

Excellently said, eldaking. I seldom buy early access games myself, but above all it depends on the kind of game and the expected timeframe.

For story-based games that I don’t expect to replay except maybe in several years, I definitely wait for full release (and usually patches and potentially sales and/or expansions) before I play them, because I want the full experience with minimal bugs the first and possibly only time around.

For heavily replayable games like arcade, sandbox, multiplayer, etc., if the early access already has plentiful features and stable builds, it doesn’t really matter what stage of development it’s at. If it’s far enough along to be fun to play, that’s about all I need to know. Even if it were to change directions dramatically, chances are I would get my money’s worth before that happens, and I make my purchasing decision with that risk in mind.

There are games that aren’t that clear-cut and where I expect to play them a while and then move on. For those, I might want to wait until certain features or contents are implemented so I don’t feel like moving on before having experienced them. I might still get the game in early access when the full release is imminent and the current builds are known to be stable if I’m hyped enough about it and currently have time to play.

I don’t think I own any, but when it comes to "perpetually EA" games like The Long Dark or Seven Days to Die, I view them a bit like MMORPGs or what the AAAs call "live service games". With the expectation that you will be playing them on and off for years, as long as you’re aware that the devs are going to keep re-tuning things and trying and changing various mechanics along the way, you’re kind of jumping along for the ride and that can be a fun experience in its own right. Again it’s mostly about accepting the risk of disappointment in design changes, and the devs being upfront about it.

Quoting: Arcadius-8606I did one Early Access game and it was Jupiter Hell. Great game but I've had my fill of paid early access right there and then.

I actually did the Kickstarter for Jupiter Hell. I did EA for Ion Fury when it was still called Ion Maiden. That's it, unless you count Caves of Qud, which I don't since it has been in a very mature state for years.

Generally I don't get why people are so keen to pay money to become a beta tester. On the other hand most AAA games are released in a state that should be called early beta.

I generally avoid games in EA. First, my time is limited, so when I get round to playing a game, I'd rather play the "final" version. And second, if developers want me to do QA and playtesting for them, they pay me, not the other way round.

But, I guess some EA titles are more complete and polished than some non-EA releases. And seeing how non-EA games might get updates (free or paid) for years that significantly alter the original, there isn't really that much of a difference, except that EA games are at least labelled more honestly.

In general, I don't really think EA is such a plague, though. It feels not that much different from hearing about an upcoming game, then having to wait for years for it to finally materialize. With EA it might take years too, but at least it's out in the open and there's the chance of monitoring progress and judging the quality. If it helps fund development at the same time, seems like a win-win to me.

Thanks for the replies everyone.
Makes me feel less like an outcast ... lol.