> # Welcome to GameGrinOS v1.01 > # How can I help you? > # Press ` again to close
>
Hello… | Log in or sign up
6 Thoughts on the Shortcomings of Early Access

6 Thoughts on the Shortcomings of Early Access

Having recently — and somewhat excitedly — picked up Assetto Corsa EVO when it launched on the 16th of January, I knew what I was heading into. A build of the game with a defined set of features, unfinished and rough around the edges that was likely to contain bugs, or other things that may cause elements of it to be broken, things that absolutely wouldn’t fly if the game were being released without the “Early Access” moniker.

And that’s where it all falls down. Players instantly started to call foul on the title with complaints that they weren’t getting perfect solid frame rates, that there was map geometry causing them to fall out of the world or that the AI drivers aren’t particularly great. At the time I started writing, the game was sitting at “Mixed” rating on Steam (it’s now moved to “Mostly Positive”, however).

Early Access is a bit of an open road, when you think about it

I don’t want to make it seem like these issues should be kept to yourself, after all, the developer needs to know about them in order to improve their title for the full release, this is exactly what Early Access should be about. However, it’s not the time or the place to be disparaging to the developer.

What could be done better with Early Access?

Let’s address the early access elephant in the room. It could be called something much more befitting...

“Early access” sounds like what you’re getting is access to the full final game ahead of schedule. We’ve seen this naming bandied around as a pre-order bonus for games, where you’ll get “early access” a few days or a week before the game launches without a pre-order. But there, you are getting access to the final build of the game, not one that’s still in heavy active development. Players just aren’t paying attention to what’s outlined in the “Early Access” information box, nor are they taking onboard any of the developers messaging about it from other sources, such as their website or social media.

Really, it should be called “Alpha Access” or “Beta Access” instead. Which is a better reflection of what state the game will be in when you purchase it. It might also cut down on the number of people saying “This game isn’t early access, it’s alpha at best” (yes, that is something I have read in relation to AC EVO).

rename early to alpha2

A small change, but gets across that this is an alpha build much more clearly

Making “Early Access” more prominent

Give plenty of reminders that a title is in early access, by adding a prefix label to the game name where it appears in players' libraries and on the store. The store pages could also further promote it being an early access title by adding a banner to the top of the store’s page.

make it prominent

Disable reviews in favour of generating meaningful discussion

The reviews right now range from “This game is great, no problems” to “This game is the worst, refunded”. Instead of giving users the usual review options, give them a feedback form, where they can send constructive feedback to the development team. If they’re refunding, ask them what went wrong that caused them to do so. Make the conversation two-way, not just comments dropped straight onto the store page for the game.

Offer something akin to a demo of the title

Whilst not strictly tied to the early access program, this would give players the power to try before they buy, rather than having to part with their cash and then refund. For games where there’s no cut-down demo build, something like EA Play’s 10-hour trial setup would work nicely; give players a one-hour window with the full game. That’s enough time to work out if it’s a good fit, without having to do the refund dance. These players should have limited or no access to give feedback, for reasons explained below.

What doesn’t need to be changed?

Removing the paywall to entry

There’s a fair few comments that say words to the effect that the early access builds should be free, since as players we’re now paying to test their game for them. But that’s a double-edged sword. If you make it free, you invite many more voices into the conversation since that financial barrier isn’t there. In turn, this decreases the signal-to-noise ratio where meaningful discourse gets lost to the overwhelming noise of disparaging comments and meme reviews.

Removing the program completely

For a number of developers, early access has allowed them to continue the development of their games, and based on feedback has taken them from something that would sit in the overflowing library of titles available into being some of the most notable games we have to date. Take a look at the likes of Player Unknown's Battlegrounds, Subnautica, Baldur's Gate 3, or indie title Vampire Survivors as examples of early access helping truly shape the game from just “developer’s thoughts” into “players want this”.

With those ideas in mind, what do you think about Early Access and the points raised? Good or bad, sound off in the comments!
Steven John Dawson

Steven John Dawson

Staff Writer

When not getting knee deep in lines of code behind the scenes, you'll find him shaving milliseconds off lap times in Forza.

Share this:

COMMENTS

Artura Dawn
Artura Dawn - 08:47am, 30th January 2025

I like some of the points you made here, but I do have a few qualms with others.

I'm a big fan of the feedback form you mentioned, as it would remove meme reviews from the equation, as so many have flooded Steam in favour of the points system (thanks Jester award). However, without public reviews, it might hinder the capability to understand what fellow gamers are enjoying, especially in such a saturated market where press can't preview/review everything coming out.

Elsewise, my other worry here is the free demo. Demos as a whole can be a two-edged blade, and as far as I've understood, they have a tendency to reduce sales for titles as a whole. Considering the fact that part of the Early Access approach is to be able to continue funding a game, the possibility of a demo hurting sales could be detrimental to this experience, and I know of a fair few times I've played a demo and felt "satisfied" with my time.

I love the ideas here, though, and it's a genuine critique of the Early Access state. I do wish there was a rule set to protect gamers from the consistent abandoned titles that have become prominent (though, far less so, nowadays).

Reply
djd4ws0n
djd4ws0n - 01:30pm, 4th February 2025 Author

Yes, the demo aspect could be one of the more difficult sells from the article tbh, but then the other side of the knife is that people are parting with their cash - only to refund it an hour later for the sake of the same outcome. Would save players from having to part with their cash first!

Reply