[Aaricia]

Hello Legion Gamers!

I recently read a curious research bit done by NewZoo, one of the leading analysts of the gaming industry. According to them, how long the developers keep the game in Early Access (if at all) could have a significant impact on how well the game is received, with a notable drop observed after 6 months in Early Access:



There are exceptions, of course, and the research acknowledges that, noting that some games, like Dave the Diver, performed very well after a while in Early Access, but the research mentions that those games are far in between and not representative of the trend as a whole. I wonder how Hades 2 will perform post-launch 🤔

But this got me thinking: how long in Early Access is too long? Personally, I do not play the games before the full release and would rather prefer Early Access time to be 0 with all games releasing fully like they did back in the day (I am ranting a bit, I know 😅). But Early Access is such a popular route these days (so much so even Baldur's Gate 3 used it), and games can stay there for years at a time, so the question needs to be asked: how long do you think is a good amount of time for a game to be in Early Access?

[miskkie]

I get the uses for it, but generally definitely prefer as little time in early access as possible.

Originally Posted by Aaricia

Personally, I do not play the games before the full release

I'm (mostly) with you here!

[DoctorEldritch]

Originally Posted by miskkie

I'm (mostly) with you here!

Which game was worth making an exception? 😉

[Inyeon]

Great post! I’d like to join the discussion.

For example, take Baldur’s Gate 3. Its Early Access only allowed players to experience Act 1, with no access to Act 2 or Act 3. This was a key decision because it gave the studio the chance to polish the opening section while also listening to community feedback. Thanks to that input, they added characters that weren’t originally planned, such as Karlach. Not only was she included, but the developers also wrote her entire story, tied her to Wyll, and even found her a voice actress—all because she was highly requested by the community.

On the other hand, it’s often said that 6 months to a year is a reasonable timeframe for an Early Access cycle. However, there are games that break this rule. One clear example is Palworld, which launched in January 2024 and isn’t expected to fully release until 2026. Despite this long timeline, it has managed to maintain a strong player base.

Of course, this model always comes with risks. With Early Access, you’re seeing the creator’s vision in a “bare” or unfinished state. There’s always the possibility that the game never reaches its final version, and in such cases, the money you invested won’t be refunded. In the end, paying for Early Access often means paying to be a tester, with all the pros and cons that come with it.

[Telomina]

I think it depends on the game and how much content there is. For example Disney Dreamlight Valley, at early access it was basically a full game; nothing was lost in the transfer to full release. However long that was, felt resonable.
Other games release early access even before I'd think they'd be ready for QA testing even.
Playtest -> QA test-> early access. I think at early access it should defnitely be a "ready game" that just needs some extra polishing or some levels are *almost* done and just needs a simple implementing.

[DoctorEldritch]

@Inyeon Thank you for joining! 😊 It is true, I did not think about that initially, but the result itself may be biased somewhat: it is not only the length of Early Access, but also the manner in which they do it that is a factor, and Baldur's Gate 3 is a good case study of how to do it well. Then again, it is also a very good game that'd do well, Early Access or not 😅 But the fact that they built content players asked for is an example of good practice.

As for Palworld, I am not sure... Palworld is an online game, those may be slightly different. One could even say they are never fully complete, always getting updates, events and expansions. The ways MMOs maintain player interest are different from those of single-player games and how they do it. Do you think they can be compared?

I would agree with that you are paying to be a tester and to get access to the game faster than others, but personally, I do not see the appeal. I worked as a tester before, so I am more used to being paid for that, not the other way around 😅

[DoctorEldritch]

@Telomina But if Dream Valley was almost the full game, why did they do Early Access at all? 🤔

It may be an issue of definition. I am not sure if Steam has any restrictions on how complete a game must be to be allowed into the Early Access stage. It'd be nice if there were some reasonable guidelines for that, like the game needs to have 60% gameplay mechanics, 50% visual content, 40% music. Well, maybe not all in percentages, but something along those lines. Basically, some sort of safety mechanism to make sure gamers do not get something unplayable in Early Access.