# Early Access Hurts the Player Experience

###### Mar 3, 2025

Don't get me wrong, there definitely can be positive aspects to early access games, alpha/beta testing, and limited-access releases. For the developing studio, they receive feedback on the state of the game, find early bugs and exploits, and possibly some early funding, dependent on whether they've monetized the alpha/beta/early access. The players also get to experience the game _now_ rather than later, scratching the dopamine itch, and it can give them a voice to the final product of the game\*

\*_I know with the patchability of games, there is still the ability to have players' vocalization change aspects of an "actually-released" game. It is generally easier with an in-development game with a smaller player base than a larger one that is more complete, and overall the vocalization-to-change is all at the discretion of the developers._

But I think too many developers are making their games accessible too early, or just in the wrong way.

### How Did We Get Here?

Let's consider how games used to be 30 years ago. When you bought a game, you got the game. That game either came out swinging, firing on all cylinders, bringing it's A-game, or it came out with all it's bugs(/features) on full display. If a game truly required a patch, it had to be physically sent it to the studio, fixed, and sent back. This would be a large inconvenience to both the player and the developer, so it was in the best interest to _not_ have to patch a game this way.

Then the internet happened. New Content? Just download it. Critical bug fix? Just download it. Lately, I don't bat an eye when I see Steam downloading something for some game. While this, too, has it's advantages, it took away one thing that was to be expected from a game: quality from the time of purchase. Developers could take a more lax stance on ensuring their games are of the best quality, when they can just patch it later. This, to the point where there were day-one patches to games like [Call of Duty: Black Ops 4](https://www.eurogamer.net/call-of-duty-black-ops-4-requires-a-50gb-day-one-update-to-work) and [Fallout 76](https://www.dualshockers.com/fallout-76-day-one-patch/) exceeding 50 GB, and [Stalker 2 exceeding 139GB on Xbox](https://twistedvoxel.com/stalker-2-kicks-off-launch-with-a-massive-day-one-patch/). Now, I don't know quite how patch sizing works, but those sizes are still unreal.

So why fix up a game in it's development when you can patch it later?

### Why Release A Completed Game When You Can Just Release And Patch An Indev Game?

If a developer team is going to spend time working on a game, unreleased, just to patch the entire game again before day-one, why not just release it sooner and update it later? It's a common occurrence to see an early game nowadays, but it kind of feels like developers "gave up" on delivering that old on-release quality.

People's first impressions of something matters. Leave a bad first impression, and opinions are already formed. Making people _pay money_ just to be given a bad first impression is even worse. It's hard to get back those good graces once lost. And while every one of these games tout "This is early access, there may be bugs and issues", that might only dampen this feeling. Some may be swayed by the cautionary message, if the rest of the game presents well enough. That's the gamble that developers take, and get away with time after time.

### So, Your Early Access Game Was Competent Enough...

Maybe an early game has enough to hook player in. How much of the early access game is revealed? Limited to one mission? A few playable characters? Or does it play through the entire story? Allowing all progression as it will on "release"? Will progression reset when it releases? The answers to these questions draw in some players, and drive away others.

Some are happy playing a limited alpha/demo. Some are happy to hunt for bugs, "features", glitches, etc. Some **are** just happy to play whatever they have.

Some won't play it unless it's essentially an "unfinished release", and will be upset if progression resets. Some will find it unfair if pre-release progression of other players impacts their gameplay post-release, or in other ways presents some advantage.

If the entire game is able to be experienced before release, the experience of a game is that as-presented before release. I had played a closed beta for [Wayfinder](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1171690/Wayfinder/), and the game was okay. Many characters had generic asset skins. There were watermarks across the screen to prevent leaks of gameplay recordings/streams. I personally could look past these details. But a large part of the game was on display. A large part of the story was shared to explain changes. With how much of the game I experienced in this state, I didn't even bother buying it on launch because I felt I already experienced enough of it during the beta period. So my experience of Wayfinder will forever be as it was in that beta presentation.

The further developed a game is in an early access state does help it. When I purchased [Void Crew](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1063420/Void_Crew/), it was far enough where I was more surprised that it _was_ early access, and when it did reach "release", it just felt like a regular new content update. And I still think it's a phenominal game, but how much of that is due to _when_ I came across it. If I found it months earlier, would I still have felt the same about it? Would I have continued playing it, or recommended it to friends?

Then there are anomalies, like Minecraft (I hope I don't have to link _Minecraft_ to you). When I bought Minecraft ~~(back in high school, god I feel old)~~ version Beta-1.7 was to release in a few days (June 2011). Minecraft is a rare exception to "early access", as even though there was a time when when it _was_ early access, it also felt like it was "complete enough" as-is, but just happened to get more and more free added content as time went on. Maybe this is simply my younger self's perception on the matter, but seeing that Minecraft, almost 14 years later is still around, and still with a huge following, I'm likening it to a rare quality that comes around once in a while.

Another on my list of examples is [Hades II](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1145350/Hades_II/). While, like the first game, Hades II is awesome, I last played it in a fairly incomplete state. Missing assets, an unfinished story line, but there was enough story where it felt like a Schrödinger's release: complete, but simultaneously not, only determined by what you're currently experiencing.

Last, there's [7 Days to Die](https://store.steampowered.com/app/251570/7_Days_to_Die/). I don't remember much when I first/last played this (back in April 2014), but the game released recently in July 2024, after 12 years in development, and my reaction to discovering this was only "Oh, good for them". I only know that I didn't find the game catching my attention back then, and on hearing of it's release, I only remember the mundanity of when I played years ago and that I had no intention of seeing how it is today.

But these all are different points on the same idea: presenting a more incomplete game leaves a worse impression. I'm not going to play 7 Days to Die, nor Wayfinder. I'll probably, eventually play Hades II at some point. I will play Void Crew (this one dependent on friend's availability). I definitely still play Minecraft from time to time. But I can't help but see a correlation with the reception of the game when played in its early state, to the desire to play it again.

### The Money Grab

Aside from feedback, the main driver for early access lately is money, of course. Charge for the game (at a discount, due to it's incomplete state) to get money for development. Charge for cosmetics at obscene prices (that people **do** pay for), just for money. Charge for a founder's pack when/if the game does "release", so non-early players can get early-player-specific cosmetics, which _totally doesn't cause issues with players_, purely to quell FOMO ...in exchange for money.

As long as the developers/publishers find it profitable to early-access their games, develop it while it makes money, for as long as it makes money, they will continue to. I mean, [Star Citizen](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/en/star-citizen/) has been early access since 2012, and has raised an obscene amount of money, and still has no projected release date in sight. But they will certainly sell you ships and cosmetics. It's simultaneously laughable and sad.

### Where has the fun gone?

To be honest, this all takes away some of my enjoyment of games lately, where my current list of played games involves:

- Minecraft (positive early reception)
- Heroes of the Storm (positive early reception)
- No Man's Sky (no _early_ reception, picked up well after release)

...and for things I can say I play at least once a month, regularly, that's it.

Some of this is also due to lack of free funds to purchase new games, or lack of people to play certain games with, or lack of interest in certain games/genres, or even lack of Linux support (even with WINE/Proton). But I now have this sort-of aversion to most games I come across with an early access label. Let me know when it's done, if it ever gets there and still has a player base. Or have some **absolutely unique** gameplay with an incredibly strong pitch. Otherwise, I'll pass.