How do you feel about Early Access?

+

How do you feel about Early Access?


  • Total voters
    81
Releasing a game in Early Access means the studio can get some new funding (in case they were running out) and/or get early community feedback to improve the game, when it's still in a stage where it's easier to shape it. On the flip side, you do expose your customer to an incomplete and sometimes buggy game, which can diminish the player's experience. Not only during EA, but also when it's finally released. That's why studios might not like the idea thereof, but they don't always have a choice. Lastly, I should mention that it's also a risk to the customer because you're not sure what you're getting, if the game is released at all.
 
Depends on early access and devs. There have been games that are released as EA because they cant be bothered to finish the game and it's a good excuse to have a broken mess of a game. A good example is like DayZ as well as some other titles that never got out of that EA state.

I am sure even Fortnite still has EA label on it despite the game being microtransationed the fuck out of.

There were games that were cancelled turning EA and costumer cant really say anything about it. Just generally bad practice imo.

I am content they will finish the game by November. At least I very much hope so. Given that they did allow some journeys to play it already they are confident enough to let people play and write their opinions about it.
 
i don't like large studios doing early access for their flagship titles. a flagship, officially AAA game, should not need early access. if it seems like it does, that--to me--indicates a breakdown of priorities in the game's design. betas/alphas, especially for online games, are necessary. not for PR and hype, but for actual server capacity testing. a large studio should not have server load issues if they've had 2-3 betas/alphas beforehand.

small studios often need ea because they don't have pedigree, investment, and hype. plus if they're actually making something a large AAA studio doesn't want to make, i'd be more inclined to forgive bugs/incompleteness. there's always the risk of asset flips and vaporware, but in the grand scheme of things, ea's are necessary and good for devs who behave in good faith.
 
I am really torn by the idea .I loved Gwent in TW3 so i played the early stand alone Gwent and didn`t like it . I never went back to the game , so that would be my worry .

I think some sort of EA to the CC would be a great idea , that this stage CC must be complete :shrug:

PS A friend of mine was playing Gwent on his phone last week and he told me how go it is so .......
 
More than 5 years of development and need of a EA? I hope they don't need it, if that were the case it would be pathetic. :beer:

They promoted something that would be innovative and the head of the company for the next few years after its release, under no circumstances would I want a version where bugs and half-developed things were excusable.
 
Indifferent, but I did buy an Early Access game once because I'd seen it played and it looked really good.
The game in question did get a release and wasn't stuck in EA for several years.
 
Early Acess can turn out great, like with the game The Long Dark, for example. It released in EA with a pretty decent sandbox for the money but kept getting better and better with every update by listening to the community on what worked and what didn't. The developers were in constant contact with the community, shared where things were and where they were going, and we never felt like they weren't constantly working on the game and improving it. It went from a single map sandbox to several maps for sandbox plus a several chapter story mode. If developers treat EA like that, then I'm all for it.
 
The Long Dark is a wonderful game to play during the summer...if I put on headphones and turn off the lights, I actually feel cooler as I wander around the frozen wasteland. :cool:
 
Depends entirely on the game and dev team.
Early access is intended to test mechanics and get feedback. If you're not willing (or have the time to) to change/tweak the game there's no point in early access. It's just a cash grab ... pay us extra and you can play the game early.
 
For single player games? No thanks.
For multiplayer games - I understand the necessity. But still no thanks.

I'll happily wait for polished experience.
 
"Early access" does not suit AAA-games like CP2077. It may work better with indie and smaller scale stuff, so the companies get enough money to finish the product. So the reason here is getting more funding. I dont think CDPR is in bad shape in terms of funding, at least it doesnt seem like it.

I am not against early access as such. Whatever state CP2077 ships in, it is likely to ALREADY be in better shape than some other companies finished products. Therefore I dont think the term "early access" is applicable here.

I sincerely doubt cp2077 has Fallout 76-levels of garbage. (some day it will hit cdpr, but hopefully not today) I am willing to let them skip content just to get the game launched.

One of the main issues of early access is that you are paying for an unfinished product and that there is a high likelyhood of further costs down the line for DLC and such. This is one thing that gives early access poor rep.
 
Although I would happily take part on beta testing the gameplay mechanics, early access tends to ruin the parts it showcases for when the full game comes out. So I'm a bit on the fence for it.
 
Depends on the situation. With the delays and all the resources that CDPR has, I'm not too worried about the need for beta testing. I see Early Access as more like what Indie studios do where player input can change the development and priorities.

Of course I'd love to get my hands on it a little early, but I've got faith in the amount of time they've given themselves to polish and bug fix.
 
Top Bottom