Article: Few Steam “Early Access” games have actually been completed

I have bought quite a few early access games and am still currently waiting for a couple to even be released such as "Battle Cry of Freedom"

I am starting to feel like it is a bad idea especially for myself as I play the game for a while, and then become disinterested. For my own enjoyment I would probably be better off waiting until the full version came out.

That being said I am going to be getting killing floor 2 early access, and bannerlord early access (if there is one)) haha.

Edit: In regards to the article specifically I would probably say only purchase early access that you trust ie sequels from successful games.

I don't really mind Early Access. It's just that the system needs to be refined, much like steam greenlight. It's not a bad idea in theory. But currently as it stands, it needs to be refined. Not to mention, they need to add some games that were released as "full games" but are actually still beta games.

I've picked up a few Early Access games - Endless Legend, Dungeon of the Endless, Invisible Inc., The Long Dark, and Don't Starve: Reign of Giant - and they've all been games that I knew would be released, and with active/transparent developers. Three of those have been released from Early Access since, and the two Endless games are currently two of my favorite games.

I suppose as long as the developer is trustworthy and transparent about what they're doing and their progress - Amplitude Studios and Klei both maintained regular progress updates and responded to community feedback - it's not a huge issue.

(Admittedly, these developers are the exception rather than the rule...)

I only have a few early access games, and that is because some of them seem to be generally interesting games on their own.

I think I'd be more upset about AAA games released as complete but full of so many bugs that it's laughable. I'm looking at you, AC: Unity. Don't even get me started on DLC.

As for Early Access, Project Zomboid is an example of a good one. It's playable as it is and each update expands it in logical ways.

I still like playing Prison Architect, it still gets monthly updates and will probably be in alpha for some time. Feels like it has been in alpha forever though, lol.

Early Access is a terrible idea, one that should be shut down right away. Look at Rust, the game isn't even finished and they're working on the sequel, with no actual plans on finishing the game. I think it's an easy way for companies to make money with no real commitment to finishing the product and no intention to finish it.

Ultimately, it's up to the community to decide what they want.

The thing with Early Access as I see it is you need to be aware of the game current state, where is it going like most games. But where it differs to other games is that you have to pay attention to the state of the company making the game. What other games have they released? Are they trustworthy? Are their plans feasible? If so, how long will it take? etc

I usually don't buy EA games, but some Early Access I bought have been released ("Contagion", "Contraption Maker", "Sir, you are being hunted". But some are still in that perpetual EA phase but updated regularly ("Prison Architect", "Pool Nation", fking "DayZ")

So is Early Access a bad thing? No, if done right. But it requires buyers to be more aware of what they're getting. But with most Steam users being impulsive buyers (myself included) it's fairly easy for some game development teams to take advantage of this system. I think like someone said above, Steam, getting a cut from EA games as well, should not just give them a platform to sell their games but should have the responsability to see the game being completed.

Honestly certain types of EaAc games are more trouble prone (see RUST, and similar games) than others.

I've seen some games make it to a release state (Mercenary Kings for one)

Though in general I'm a tad cautious about them in terms of spending (If i manage to trade a spare or win them it's another story)