Remember the days when you bought a game and what you got was all you’d ever get? No day 1 patches, no updates over the years, no beta testing. For better or worse that was the product. Well as we all know technology has evolved and as such developers were able to update their games to optimize performance and fix bugs. Some love that, some think it’s an easy way out for developers to put out unfinished products. And now more than ever a new way of releasing games has taken over the industry, especially in the indie scene, launching games into Early Access. And is it a good practice for the industry, or a crutch for developers to use?

This topic has long been a debated one since the “day 1 patch” era has started. As games have become more and more digital it’s allowed developers to ship games a month early for production and continue to work on the game afterwards and push the patch out at release. What gamers get on disc (and reviewers for that matter) has been some version of an unfinished game. Often the day 1 patch is simply the first of many patches to fix the game and the running joke amongst some gamers is to just wait 6 months until all the updates are out and then buy the game when it’s actually complete. Many don’t care, but many also believe it’s an industry crutch and that a game shouldn’t be shipped until it’s properly completed.

The other big thing gamers have long complained about is pre-orders. Some will say the idea of pre-ordering is enabling developers and publishers to put out incomplete games because people will buy them regardless based on the pre-order numbers. Don’t purchase a game until you see it’s worth your money. I can say I personally pre-order a lot as I buy what I want regardless of what others say about the game and form my own opinions. Do I sometimes get burned and regret it? I guess sometimes but to me it is a risk I’m willing to take, especially being a physical games purchaser.

But what has happened recently is a shift away from the complaints about the day 1 patch and pre-orders and a focus on the new tactic from many companies which is to release a game into early access for awhile and work on the game that way. And from a developer point of view it makes a lot of sense. They are essentially getting paid by people to test their game and provide feedback. And if the game isn’t great? Well hey don’t worry it’s in early access and not the complete game we will fix it!

It’s actually been quite interesting to see the evolution of both the industry and how fans react. No one seemed to complain about Baldur’s Gate 3 being in early access for years but will get mad at Manor Lords being in early access as they iron out their bugs and balance issues. The simple answer is always “don’t buy it then” but that doesn’t take away the hatred of the very idea of it.

I even spoke to a couple developers on the issue to get their takes from inside the industry. One was Tomas Sala, who is always a great chat and he had quite a bit to say about why he thinks it’s great if you are a big name like a Manor Lords or Baldurs Gate 3 but otherwise cautions against it. 

“I love the concept of Early Access, I’ve appreciated the co-creative aspect since my modding days (Moonpath to Elsweyr for Skyrim).

In some ways I’ve always wanted to get back to that modding vibe where players would come in, comment or provide their wishes and just me trying to make it happen.  

But still for Bulwark I chose to not go the Early Access route.  Rather the game is now ‘evolving’ ,which is just my indie small scale version of live service.  Grow the title after release rather than EA where you work towards a release with an unfinished version.

The reason for this is that Early Access has practical risks that far outweigh the benefits for small or even medium sized Indie titles. My reason is mostly twofold.

Firstly the now common anthem, ‘you only get one launch’ is just very true. Doing early access isn’t a soft launch, it isn’t something that comes with a second chance… EA launch is just your launch, you will get user reviews and press reviews and folks will judge you buy that forever. This also means that if you mess up your big launch, you don’t get a real second shot at 1.0, it’s not a do-over of any sort, because your game is carrying all that EA baggage with it.”

We’ve seen this recently with Craftopia (PocketPair’s previous game before Palworld). It was still in Early Access whilst a separate team worked on Palworld, but as some fans thought the devs were abandoning Craftopia for their new game, reviews on Steam took a tumble.

Tomas continues;

“Secondly EA launches are always going to be smaller (especially for indie devs), many players won’t buy EA and wait for the full release, many press don’t do EA reviews or if its a moderately hyped title not cover it that much.  Because well, it’s early access.  And the one thing you cannot afford as a small scale indie is to have even a moderately smaller launch.  

On Steam your launch is going to be your single biggest metric, you make more sales at launch than likely at any other time. That means it’s also your most decisive period.  If you mess up your user reviews or more importantly the visibility the steam algorithm assigns your title, you will likely never be able to counter that statistical hump. And its trending influence will be felt across the lifetime of your title.  Can you afford to lose an arbitrary but significant number of sales due to Early Access?  And with over a 100K wishlists before launch, I didn’t think I could nor even will. 

Now folks go on about Manor Lords or any of the EA big hitters, but the consensus I hear from the metrics gurus is that EA buys you an extra launch/visibility moment in Steam, but it’s rarely a redemption.  It’s a nice extra bonus for the giant titles that launch with hundreds of thousands of wishlists, whose spot in visibility is guaranteed.  They lose very little with EA, their EA launch is huge and visible, their algorithmic visibility at 1.0 is also guaranteed.  I think that’s why you see games like Hades 2 and others on EA, for them its free extra visibility with some free user feedback thrown in. 

If you are not a giant title  and cannot throw around wishlists in the hundreds of thousands, then don’t do Early Access.  

Literally every bit of user engagement and community building you can do post release. I call it evolving, you can call it live service, or GaaS. You don’t need EA to grow your game, you can just do it and have a full launch with the most attention you can grab.  I did and have zero regrets about skipping EA.”

The other developer I spoke with on this is Joe Henson, creative director for Hypercharge Unboxed who somewhat echoed the same sentiments.

“Early Access definitely serves a purpose in the gaming industry, but its success really depends on the developers’ intentions. It’s important to remember that Early Access isn’t just for testing out whether people like your game. It’s actually a chance for players to get involved early and help shape and improve the game with their feedback and suggestions. Think of it as more of a marathon than a sprint. I’m not saying games have to stay in Early Access for years and years, but it shouldn’t be used as a quick cash grab.”

“Personally, I think games should only go into Early Access if the developers are truly committed to improving the game with input from their players. It’s a letdown when games launch in Early Access, start off with potential, but then just stop progressing and get abandoned after getting mixed reviews. Developers should really have a clear plan and goals before they decide to go this route; Early Access shouldn’t just be a tactic to draw in players under false pretences.”

It seems that especially for indie develops Early Access is very much a double edged sword, where you may get some extra funds and insightful feedback from players you’re just as likely to receive negative reviews that might forever overshadow the game. Just this week we saw Southfield get an indefinite delay just days before launch after being available as a beta build on Steam for the last few months. As stated by the devs this is to avoid crunch, and presumably that crunch would be caused by negative feedback to the beta.

In the end it seems like Early Access isn’t going anywhere, especially as funding becomes more challenging for indie titles, but hopefully we don’t see promising games suffering by it’s downsides.