Early Access Has A HUGE Problem

Today we discuss a recent case study in the pitfalls of Early Access. Lack of updates, declining playerbase, is any of this a problem if people love your game? Let's dive in.

[@NuclearWinter69]

Remember when we played a game. Beat it then got another game?

[@rawallon]

Yes, happened every year with CoD

[@effectatron]

or even further back. where u rented megaman 3 for the 20th time and still never beat it but enjoyed it lol but hey the video store had a lil play castle and a popcorn machine so best day

[@brohogany9920]

Now a days we have a bunch of degenerate no lifers who need a f2p game to spend thousands of hours in and be there main personality trait.

[@TheScepticalThinker1]

the good old days

[@CBrown]

The industry doesn't. They'd rather make it once and then milk it to death, because paying a whole dev team full salaries every year to continuously make new games isn't something that produces high enough profits. Why pay two people $100K/year when I can do that once, fire one, and have the remaining person just support that game? If I hope that it produces continued revenue, I'm saving $100K/year and generating continued profit rather than potentially nothing after the initial sales.

[@DafuqModeOn]

Live service mindset is such a cancer on the industry.

[@SloRush]

It's sad how many gamers try hyping GAAS (games as a service) on social media. Either they don't realize how problematic the business model is or they really don't care.

[@SK-do5rv]

I mean... idk some people want games they can play longer then one month, just cause it's done wrong dosent mean it's bad. Destiny wow ff are all games that do well with the model you can even argue arpgs do it well too with seasonal.

[@logic9436]

American and Chinease models is a cancer! More EU or Nordic companies that deliver QUALITY for a low cost in quantity due to PRICE AND QUALITY!

[@soccerguy2433]

@@logic9436 that's nonsensical. provide an example.

[@Mordakahl]

It was fine in mid/late 2000s in the age of MMORPGs. But now this games are all lobbys for microtransactions, empty, washed out, cheap...

[@rrc3]

Weird to call out Manor Lords which came out fully playable with developed systems which will keep you busy for tens of hours. There's plenty of other games that never should have seen early access demonstrating the real pitfalls of early access.

[@alpinro]

Not weird if you want the clicks

[@prophismusic]

you're missing the point. even a "good" game can get effed due to all the hype being too soon and focused on the early access versions. the excitement dies off before the game is actually released.

[@Carnefice]

I also love how he's talking about Manor Lords in past tense as if it's not on Steam anymore haha. Anything for the negative engagement!

[@maccaronich]

Weird to call out Manor Lords and then quote the Long Darks dev which was in EA for like 15 years

[@atari947]

Manorloards isn't even multiplayer tho

[@Fantic1980]

Not every game has be be a live service that's supported forever.

[@dragonltu8349]

true just needs good story or content that can be enjoyed later on at some point of future

[@mr.sinjin-smyth]

It should've never been a thing, but gamers just went along with it over time with no real push back. The classic give an inch, and they take many many more miles. It's never going away.

[@lycanwarrior2137]

@@mr.sinjin-smyth Weird that "gamers" bash AAA game companies for the "release now, patch later" mentality. While they are buying "Early Access" games hand over fist. Even though it is basically the same thing if we are being honest. Maybe just go back to the days of public betas.

[@bonanzabrandon6877]

You are completely missing the point. The reason that CEO guy said there should be a roadmap and content updates is because he is talking about *early access* games that are not finished yet. "Live service" isn't part of the discussion at all.

[@lycanwarrior2137]

@@bonanzabrandon6877 Early Access games kinda work on the same principle as Live Service Games. As I was listening to Force gaming explain post launch support for Early Access games, that didn't really sound all that different from GaaS....

[@ggsunshiners]

Manor Lord is the worse example of for "pitfall of early access game" Its a game that will die between update, but once every big update, people will come back to check whats going on with it. Its also a single player game so there's literally no disadvantage of not having player base between update. If only 1 person come back for an update, that person will not have a bad time.

[@evanhughes9899]

LMAO! How much did your early access game sell ... only 2 millions copies?? What an example of early access pitfalls *smh*

[@axelhopfinger533]

Ml is a game literally halfway through development. With the single dev of 7 years now having made enough money from EA sales to hire himself a small team to help speed up development. In fact ,he made enough millions to hire himself an entire mid sized dev stuidio. Also the game is currently ported from UE4 to UE5, prompting a significant bump in graphical quality if successful. There are plenty of small indie games like this who have been in EA development for half a decade now. With small dev teams of only a handful of people and according slow update pace.

[@kukkilaful]

I agree a really really bad comparison PLUS 7k players play this game on daily basis soooooo its quite alive :D

[@dongarippo7279]

@@evanhughes9899 He wasn't talking about sale numbers. He was talking about interest of playing constantly to at times. It's like comparing Wow/genshin to far cry 3. If they release a far cry 3 DLC, for whatever reason people would go back and play it..TBH I would rather buy that DLC than any other DLC, but that's just me. And I would go back and play it. Or if you know porn game industry then, yeah, you play it when updates arrive and then you don't You play something else.. As playing the same porn game over and over would get boring..

[@wufflespuffs3744]

@@dongarippo7279 Both comments are talking about the quote "pitfalls of early access" and how mostly inaccurate the statement likely is.. Although the one is just read more like a joke since you can't really say someone's doing a bad job if they're super successful at launch, its just a bit backwards.

[@tex4523]

In my region Manor Lords was $20. I am more than happy for the playtime i have for that price point. Yes Early Access can be hit and miss, but this developer has shown his level of engagement long before the launch, so im confident we'll get many more improvments and additions to the game.

[@aeon-mancer]

Would be great to play with friends tho, trade, build, fight etc

[@colby8104]

This solo dev has no doubt done remarkable things in this game but a solo dev shouldn't be doing an early access game. Any additions are going take absolutely forever to be added due to only having himself working on it. It will be forgotten before he gets anywhere near his end goal.

[@IsaacChoo88]

People were saying the same things about Valheim before too

[@cmcc3721]

@@IsaacChoo88 Valheim? Was that not extremely successful with hundreds of hours of gameplay on release? Hardly comparable, whatever you're trying to say.

[@AshraNashal52]

@@cmcc3721 Valheim was hot garbage on release. People were just attention starved from the pandemic. Then we got manhandled by the devs when they refused to honor their initial timeline. Launched at any other time, Valheim would have fallen completely flat.

[@HammyLIVE]

I'm not sure why everyone is SO OBSESSED with Concurrent Playercount Numbers - I don't get it at all, unless you're talking about MMOs or Massive Multiplayer game experiences, these numbers basically do not matter in the slightest. So what if Manor Lords doesn't have a constant 150k players online at all times, it doesn't mean the people who bought the game hate it, they just played it and are now waiting on updates and playing other games, it's perfectly fine. Not every game needs to be this insane grindset live service game with infinity content always being pumped out, that's not the standard, nor should it be, that mindset is weird, especially when using an example from a solo game dev. This is totally normal, the standard even. Too many big creators like to use concurrent playercount data as if it means something so they can craft clickbait "GAME IS DEAD" videos for easy views, when in most cases it doesn't matter unless your game pretty much only exists with online multiplayer in mind.

[@icer1249]

exactly, player count numbers only matter if your playing a MMO game that requires large numbers to be enjoyable. Single player games dont need a large active player base, there meant to be enjoyed alone.

[@NGMK]

I mean, it's not like it's completely irrelevant, but still anywhere near important enough to proclaim whether the game is dead or not. More concurrent players does imply that there'll be more people active in forums, if you have troubles, or really want to talk about the game, but that's about it

[@cratecage6924]

​@@NGMK Not at all. Many classic masterpieces have miserable concurrent playercount numbers, but that doesn't mean those games are dead. Singleplayer games are just there, waiting for you to play. That's the same on early access. This guy enjoys or clickbaits, declaring death on a game that most of the community considers it's healthy, with the nonsense number he can mess around. This is modern game journalism

[@lordrams9058]

Concurrent players is only a meaningful metric for live services. We look at them on traditional games only to estimate sales ,cuz we can't see them directly.

[@dragonltu8349]

not really because concurrent player numbers does say about community on how much people can be with one game pity much / popularity look at amongus pity much or better example minecraft and rust

[@lordrams9058]

@dragonltu8349 These are all live services hahahahaha

[@Ghorda9]

@@dragonltu8349 except a lot of people don't replay single player games and are usually done in a couple weeks or a month

[@knightofblackfyre7950]

​@@dragonltu8349 all of those are multiplayer love service games, Manor Lords is a single player experience. They are not the same.

[@kylerodd2342]

@@dragonltu8349other stats fly directly counter to your claim though. It was obviously and hugely popular. What the concurrent stat says, in concordance with the other metrics, is that it just doesn’t have a lot of replayability. Which, if this is the case, means it will likely see bumps in concurrent players when big updates roll out, much like other popular games that have falling offs. You can’t isolate one metric and make a judgment. That’s the complete opposite way of viewing stats. It doesn’t help that many political pundits use this tactic of isolating stats all the time to draw insane conclusions about society.

[@Rich4098]

Early Access does have a huge problem, in that there is little financial benefit to finishing your game after an EA launch. Some large companies seem to be making that judgement. You hype your game, promise the moon, have a big glorious launch and then take the money and run. Check out what happened with Kerbal Space Program 2. It could be the end of actual early access. You can call it early, but if that's the end of development is it really?

[@novac1990]

I would be curious to know the metrics of players who actually come back to play the updates in allot of EA games. I know of a few that see a nice resurgence. But think that the momentum dies almost completely for most even if there somewhat good. I have a theory that in almost all cases after early access release anymore work hrs dedicated to updating the game comes with severe diminishing returns. But I don't have any metrics to go off other than observation.

[@TheChosenOne462]

ya if the dev want to maximize profit wouldnt it be better he start making another game? since he already made so much money

[@Rich4098]

@@TheChosenOne462 Especially if there's a parent company involved, who wants the dev to take the reputation hit.

[@Mewseeker]

From what I have seen, there is two types of early access, the "grab the money and run away" type and "the game in it's state could pass as a complete game in it form but the developer is/are mad lad(s) that keep getting input from players and keep updating the game". What you mention from Kerbal Space Program 2 is sad but not really anything new, in fact it's quite the old thing. I guess the real question would be how you determine which type of early access the game is before buying it.

[@trazyntheinfinite9895]

Thats why you do not pay before getting product.

[@CorvianScythe]

Raph from hinterland hasnt even finish the story of his game like 7 years later , still need the last part apparently coming soon lol

[@ThisIsGlitch]

The long dark... eh... we wait, the game is good

[@TheSebi99p]

He's consistently failed on delivering any of his promises... Maybe he SHOULD fucking crunch...

[@jonsnow3176]

😂

[@lfodiwsw]

Yeah not a good person to get your EA hot takes from. The Long Dark has done goofy things and over promised.

[@LiquidTang]

@@lfodiwswya they over promise but to be fair for the price of the game they have released a lot of stuff over the years

[@MaTtRoSiTy]

Problem I have had with EA games is that I play them in EA and I get all I want out of them so that if/when they get finished later on I never end up playing them again as I already had enough of the experience to not want to do it again. Trouble is, that experience is always incomplete and sometimes bordering on broken if its really early on in development... so I stopped buying EA games as I want to only play finished games

[@christiankaiser3885]

I second this. How many people that played Valheim at it's EA release, will come back for the finished game?

[@zonedout3390]

​@@christiankaiser3885 I've played Valheim in EA and will play it in 1.0 I played 7D2D around alpha 14 and looking forward to 1.0 I played V rising in EA, played it in 1.0 then left after I beat it bc I'm not sticking around for the wipe mentality or the awful changes they made for soul shards. I played Last epoch in EA came back in 1.0 beat it then haven't touched it because they didn't listen to the community about the end game being trash. My point in this is that just because some people don't play 1.0 releases from EA doesn't mean everyone thinks the same way. If I enjoy my time and experience I'll come back if I didn't enjoy my time and you didn't fix my issue or issues then guess what I'm out $20-$40 that's the gamble and I'm perfectly fine with that. Heres why: There is always a NEW game, There will be bad and good games no matter the money behind it or the people behind it. What I value is my time not being wasted and a good gaming time by myself or with friends ❤

[@Bambeakz]

I recognize this so now I play EA games just to get the feeling and to know if I need a refund and then don’t play it till release. There are exceptions like Satisfactory and Dyson Sphere Program because I know I will always return to that kind of games for a new run. I don’t but story driven EA games.

[@EarthboundX]

That's how I feel about most games now EA or not, since so many get extra content after launch. I've still have not played Elden Ring nor Lies of P because I knew DLC was probably gonna come out for them, and I want a feature complete game to play. I don't want to play a game, and then have to go back a year or more later while not remembering even how to play the game or its story and what's even going on in the game. This happened to me with Dark Souls 2 and a few other games, played and finished it at launch, it's gets 2 DLC expansions which I still have never played.

[@littlecoldhands]

​@@zonedout3390The question is: how many people will come back? Some people like you will obviously come back. Because you like the game. I myself played incomplete release once. Never again as I find it lacking. I only buy complete release now.

[@Bob21463]

Greg gave me 30 hours of fun. I gave him $30. Seems like a sweet deal AND I'm gonna jump back in when a few updates pile up. Thank you, Greg! Stop looking at player numbers, have fun with games you love to play, touch grass or play something else instead of complaining. This isn't mid 2000s played and lived that one game!

[@zonedout3390]

I've done the whole one game forever mentality it lasted roughly 2yrs an it broke me mentally and hygiene wise. I'm a proud game hopper or a tourist... nothing is home too me anymore I play what I want and I like. Games are cheaper then a hotel so I'll enjoy my stay and then bounce out when I've seen everything or don't like the game anymore due to bad decisions or whatever happens

[@RaethFennec]

@@zonedout3390 Gaming nomad!

[@kukkilaful]

Yes finally someone

[@PeachAU]

Theres a video by soviet womble talking about early access, he is essentially a QA for game developers and he said, You can label it whatever you want but "early access" IS your release, you dont get a second first impression.

[@aaronhumphrey3514]

This is usually true, but there are rare exceptions like BG3.

[@transistortion4327]

@@aaronhumphrey3514 i think the difference was Larian was clear from the begining "guys we need money to make it and some feedback, this is just a teaser and the game comes out THIS date (kinda)" and people understood the message

[@TXIIILightning]

He is right, but I have to somewhat disagree. It depends on how the Developer handles the Early Access period. It's a good way to find out if your game is clicking with players, and to adjust it in ways that your growing fanbase wants to. I think the big reason however is due to how Steam handles Early Access releases. If you release normally, you have your game Highlighted to x number of people for free, then several times more, (3 I think) for updates. If you release in Early Access you get the EA promotion/exposure and a few more for EA updates, then another major promotion for the 1.0 release and a few more updates. That's MAJOR for Indie developers considering how expensive it is to pay for viewership on Steam. Even if your game is 99% finished, releasing in EA is advantageous. If your game is only 40% finished, then the right way to go about it is by releasing the game at a much cheaper price, and upping it after 1.0.

[@Dizzifying1]

@@aaronhumphrey3514 There's a bit of a difference due to it being Larian. They already built a high amount of trust with how they had released Divinity Original Sin 2 after early access. It was well known by the fanbase that their early access releases were worth the wait because they never failed to deliver afterward. Trust is something that is hard for a company to earn, but easy for a company to lose. Blizzard for example.

[@nortyfiner]

That statement is not wrong, but I don't think it's harsh enough. As an experienced beta tester of many games, I would say that the moment the game leaves the shield of closed testing and NDAs and enters the realm of public opinion, that moment when the devs no longer control the informational spin about the game--whether you call it "early access" or "open beta" or whatever, that moment is your "release". That is when the first public impression of the game is formed, and as you say, you don't get a second chance at that.

[@olozzob64]

Early access has been A point of talk between me and my friends, we all brought sons of the forest in early access, played a lot, but when the 1.0 released, no one wanted to play it, the same happened with core keeper. It is a good feature that helps devs make games, but in the end it takes out all that magic that is playing a game for the first time

[@GlitchedVision]

Core Keeper isn't quite 1.0 yet. It's coming either this month or next, can't remember but I know it's soon. The two new magic classes will definitely bring me back to actually finish the game though lol

[@brandonuzumaki]

Same here, i had this same experience with The Forest and Subnautica, so for Bellow Zero and Sons of the Forest i just waited for the 1.0 release, doing the same for Slime Rancher 2 now, played the first game a few months ago and liked it a lot, saw there was a sequel, but it's EA, so i'm waiting for the final version first.

[@ZeroOne130]

Core Keeper is releasing on Aug 27.

[@RaethFennec]

I went back to Core Keeper once since EA launch, and it was fun again! Lots of new stuff. But, I was put off a bit by the FOMO seasonal stuff they started releasing.

[@kolai1987]

Games I am super hype about I buy in early access and then typically save the bulk of my playtime for the full release, for this reason.

[@Osirus1156]

Pretty sure the dev did warn people too...several times. It feels like whoever wrote that article just wants to stir some shit up for no reason.

[@RRP801]

This mindset is not just limited to gaming. Any sales job I’ve ever had shares the same “success = higher expectations” and it never ends.

[@jecasey222]

Hinterlands CEO “I’m jealous they sold 2 million copies. I sold way less. “

[@wheezzl]

5 million copies sold by 2021

[@Koooles]

The Long Dark has sold more than 5 million copies... What are you speaking about. And that was 2021 stats. It's also one of the few example projects where sales have went drastically up past EA, since most games sell during EA and then die off. Which is partly his point in this whole article. How EA games are "front sale loaded" and most people don't even come back to 1.0.

[@pt_dakink614]

But they have the best survival game ever

[@jackastor5265]

I refuse to pay for early access games. I have had some games on my wishlist for the better part of a DECADE that never seem to actually release. They just stay on early access forever. I'm just not that desperate. Release a full version of your game or piss off.

[@imjustadrummer]

The push for never-ending content and high player counts is directly related to all the absolute garbage shoveled at gamers on a daily basis. Quantity over quality.

[@eknick]

The problem is most early access games you have no idea when they are going to be out of early access. It may take several years and the end product can be very different than what was first presented. That is often OK with single player games, because people play at their own pace and the experience is often a personal one. But for some games that has a core co-op or multiplayer element, it can be detrimental in the sense that you are spreading your player base thin, and that player base is crucial in buliding up and maintainly a core player count that is needed to keep the game alive. The perfect example of this is V Rising, amazing game that reviewed well and sold well, I only started playing after full release, but only a month or two after release it is like a dead game now. It forced me to stop playing because I can't find a stable server where the player count didn't dimish to zero after 2 weeks. This is the real problem with early access titles.

[@palecaptainwolfkayls8499]

Without the multiplayer aspect, but thinking about the difference between early access and final product, I think of the debacle that happened with Cube World.

[@dunngyllite7883]

Imho "Satisfactory" is the peak example of EA done right : Keeping in touch with the community, releasing meaningful updates on a regular base kept this game on the radar with a solid playerbase and good ratings over quite some years now. And now, finally, the 1.0 release is around the corner, and that will push the game to new player numbers. Coffee Stain did a good job there.

[@larybenji]

4 years ! what a peak exemple LMAO

[@Swarm509]

The game UBOAT is the same. It started nearly 5 years ago with a decent launch, the game was playable, but has been steadily developed the entire time. The dev was clear that he went into early access to get extra support, and that wanted people to buy it to help test and give feedback. And he has been active taking that and making a great WW2 German sub sim that is nearly ready for 1.0 (and has a release date).

[@Swarm509]

@@larybenji Please tell us all how long you think a game should be in early access?

[@larybenji]

@@Swarm509 This is cool that the game you speak is going on 1.0 in a good state. For me I think that the maximum time for an early access should be 2 years. And i f a developper wants to take more time, he can do a kickstarter or else. That in my sense would be a perfect world.

[@KittiesandMilk]

Agreed, Satisfactory is a my personal example for great developer - player communication, possibly even the best I have ever seen.

[@boredguy_gaming]

i remeber when activison was shitting on elden ring because its player numbers dropped after a couple months like yea, its a finite experiance its not meant to last for ever

[@stemike7956]

Both Helldivers and Palword saw players shrink even after huge sales of a released game. The Millennial gamer is approaching 40 and is not going to sink 8-9 years in a game like they did WOW, Halo3, GTA online or TF2. And Zoomers have had dozens of triple a multiplayer games thrown at them for a decade. So the future of games maybe that 6 month initial buzz unless your Rockstar, From Software or Zelda.

[@kotzer71]

It has nothing to do age of gamers or how much time there willing spend games like palworld and helldivers have limits you can very easily grind till you got nothing left to do

[@TheCybercoco]

Well, yes, there are some major problems with Early Access, but nothing in this video addresses any of it. It would be interesting to see some analysis and discussion on things like The Fun Pimps releasing a game in 1.0 knowing full well that development nowhere near complete and it's missing major, game altering features. Eleon did the same thing with Empyrion. Just decided one day that it's full release while still treating it like an early access alpha (except when they eventually sold that DLC that they probably needed a 'full release' for). There are some big ethical issues when game devs decide to do these kinds of things. There are many people who avoid early access precising because they want a fully featured and polished game. When a dev is declaring a game a full release, they are saying that it is fully featured and polished, and people waiting will interpret it as such. It's deceptive for devs to do these sorts of things. If there is a discussion of the pitfalls of early access, then it has to be from the perspective of the customer. There are a lot of pitfalls from their perspective.

[@Michael-yf9ew]

The pitfall is that 9/10 EA games enter EA because the money well ran dry and they need cash injection. Which would be fine, but the problem is they release a game that people are now playing, and the gameplay issues need to be addressed in order to retain those players and then it leaves no time/funds to expand content.

[@-John-Doe-]

Out of money, _and_ an indicator of poor project management… so not a good sign for a prompt release. I’ve also noticed that EA player feedback can hinder development. They’ll demand their favorite exploits be retained, their play-style catered to, unnecessary features, etc.

[@cynthiahembree3957]

Yes I do think it really depends on the intentions. If it's because money ran out that's a red flag. Although some companies thrive when this sort of thing happens. For example team Cherry released Hollow Knight early to great success. The game was missing things they wanted in the game so they had to release them as future dlc instead of part of the base game. If they want to be a community centered game it can be different. For example Warframe never left early access but has continued to be very focused on relations between the devs and the community. I am actually super excited for Tenno con rn

[@funzario144]

Taking about not finished games, I am still waiting for the last episode of "The Long Dark" for 7 years!

[@solastorm7]

lol wtf you talking about?? TLD released years ago you expect them to add free content for 100 years? TLD was more polished than 99% when it hit EA than most AAA titles

[@Langharig_Tuig]

One of the problems with Early Access games like this is that people get that "I'll wait for the next update... nah, I'll wait for the next one... the next one..." mode. You saw this with Valheim where people barely came back during the first big update because they were waiting for the next one before returning again. Another prime example of that is V-Rising. Launched in EA, very succesfull, one year later massive update, but it didn't get back that many players because a lot of people were waiting for the full release before diving in again, and they did! And to continue on about V-Rising. I think V-Rising is the best EA game to have ever existed. Launched as a very fleshed out completely functional fun game, one year later it drops a lot of quality of life updates, including ones requested by the players, and then one year later it releases in full 1.0. There's great games that remain in EA for too long (Valheim). At some point devs do have to actually finish their games.

[@TheShawnMower]

Valheim's big updates are usually a few hours more content and barely changed the game if you already did all the content up to that point

[@Langharig_Tuig]

@@TheShawnMower very precisely my point. Which is why, despite the updates being pretty big, many people will choose to wait for at least 2 or more updates before jumping back in again

[@lorddiethorn]

@@Langharig_Tuigyou could just wait until it’s fully released

[@niqhtt]

V Rising made me sad at how much lost potential. Everything was 80% of what it should have been for greatness.

[@Langharig_Tuig]

@@niqhtt Really? What do you think couldve been better? I personally think V Rising is as good as it should be. I mean, sure I personally would love much more decoration options because I like building, but I understand that that would be too niche and its not precisely just a creative builder

[@MediocreMilton]

Early access is the new kickstarter. Almost universally games that release in early access have limited content and fail to retain players. I prefer early access being 3-6 months before a game is ready to release to allow final polishing and balance changes. That's not what early access is now. Now it's to fund the development of mostly incomplete games.

[@dragonltu8349]

well lets be honest it does make sense it is in name early access meaning you can buy and play game at moment or wait untill 1.0 release per say ( at which quite of games never see light of it )

[@Swarm509]

You may prefer that but that isn't how the service is setup. Some games can do that, but I've seen many games use the service for many years to get player feedback, allow for testing with a lot of people (really important for small indy studios), and keep some money coming in. So long as a dev is clear on all of this from the start I don't care if they take years to finish their game.

[@RLHvanDijk]

I don't know how long Kickstarter exist, but EA has been around for a long time now. I am sure both have evolved over the years. Just like Kickstarter, EA has had scams as well. And just like Kickstarter, EA is a way for devs and small studio's to get in money. Other wise they have to look for ways that makes things more difficult. So your statement about EA is a bit weird. Besides what has been happening for a couple of years now is that games are popping out so fast (mainly indie games), it's hard to take track of. I do see still a lot of games in EA releasing in 1.0, but since so many games pop up (still also a lot of scams, mostly from Russia, but Steam is unwilling to do something about it), there is bound to be a lot who just don't make it.

[@lycanwarrior2137]

@@RLHvanDijk Whether it is the responsibility of publishers or consumers to fund games to completion could be an interesting debate. But Early Acess is honestly no different from the "release now patch later" mentality that people despise AAA game companies. A concept that Valve/Steam has legitimized just FYI. Hmmmm.....

[@jackinthebox301]

@@RLHvanDijk Early Access on Steam is Valve's version of the video game Kickstarter idea. So Kickstarter, GoFundMe, etc. pre-date Early Access games by about 4 years (2009 for Kickstarter and 2013 for Steam Early Access).

[@user-qk3sz5ni1d]

I think that early access can be great for games that focus their monetization on the sale of the game. Where early access is troubling is when the game has live service monetization, like skins and collectibles. I think multiversus is a great example of that, they launched out of early access and while initially successful, the game quickly fell in player count to the point that they were forced to shut down the game until they could have a full release. But people had already bought hundreds of dollars of skins at that point so it negatively impacted the community that they wanted to come back when the game fully released.

[@dragonltu8349]

yeah that is worse reason why i never really buy skins unless they are great and for great price point and have large playerbase + content

[@Lord_Voridor]

Bottomline, The players moved on to the next thing before the game is finished, if it gets finished

[@valaine-qb8ng]

The biggest problem with Early Access is that most people playing the game in this state are long gone the moment it fully releases.

[@arthasdeskia]

The problem I see is that people believe the growth always has to go up. There's nothing with playing a game, having fun, leaving a positive review because you had fun and then moving onto the next game. I buy plenty of single player games and check that they work on my computer when I buy them then finish them at a later date. We are spoiled for choice get one game spend 20-50hrs and move on not every game has to be a 1000 hour saga.

[@innocentbystander3317]

I paid for an Early Access game called "7 Days to [censored]" I said if this goes well, Ill continue to support Early Access. 10 years later, and Im still waiting for the results. Early Access is being abused, and I will not support it ever again.

[@lorddiethorn]

Lol ok

[@tonycezar1645]

you can say "DIE", dont worry

[@innocentbystander3317]

@@tonycezar1645 No, I cannot say, "die," without being heavily censored. KZbin is not consistent with their policy enforcement, but apparently that's not obvious enough for you. This post serves as yet another test of the inconsistent censorship.

[@tonycezar1645]

@@innocentbystander3317 yes you can, I just said and nothing happened, context my friend, stop being a pussy for no reason

[@tatorios507]

Props to the CEO of Hooded Horse, i definitely agree with his statement. People looking at numbers instead of at the game itself need to calm the fuck down and go play video games.

[@mariopot789]

IT shows the difference between appreciating the artistry and design of a good game versus merely being attracted to the business model of a game ... which are drastically different things.

[@belowthestoneofficial1476]

People understanding the troubles us devs go through is really reassuring to hear. I grew up in a time where indie games were mocked BRUTALLY for not giving 100+ hours of playtime for a 15-20 dollar game despite small team sizes -- but now it seems players are way more understanding, and appreciate a game being the cost equivalent of going out to eat/ordering food somewhere.

[@RLHvanDijk]

I think it helps that larger studio's/dev teams seem to screw up, so ppl are starting to look at indie games, since the devs NEED to take risks, otherwise they would never break through. And i think that this is what the current trend is. Watching what indie devs are doing with their games, and the big ones will copy that, but bigger (not necessary better).

[@Lenariet]

There are still a lot of vultures around who will only buy something with a 50% or more discount (even it it's already being sold for a low price) or who resort to piracy for the pettiest of reasons because they feel entitled to playing whatever they want whenever they want for whatever price (or lack thereof) they want - or because they lack the spines to boycott what they don't want to officially support while being victims of whatever is currently hyping. All the cool kids are playing it, so of course they have to too. Those hypocrites should just say "no" and be done with it. But they even parade around their pretentious attitudes by proclaiming that they were gonna "sail the high seas". What a bunch of clowns.

[@Lenariet]

There are still a lot of vultures around who will only buy something with a 50% or more discount (even it it's already being sold for a low price) or who resort to piracy for the pettiest of reasons because they feel entitled to playing whatever they want whenever they want for whatever price (or lack thereof) they want - or because they lack the spines to boycott what they don't want to officially support while being victims of whatever is currently hyping. All the cool kids are playing it, so of course they have to too. Those hypocrites should just say "no" and be done with it. But they even parade around their pretentious attitudes by proclaiming that they were gonna "sail the high seas". What a bunch of 🤡.

[@Lenariet]

Still lots of vultures around who will strictly only buy something with at least X% discount (even if already being sold for little) or who resort to piracy for the pettiest of reasons because they feel entitled to playing whatever they want whenever they want for whatever price (or lack thereof) they want - or because they lack the spines to boycott what they don't want to officially support while being victims of whatever is currently hyping. All the cool kids are playing it, so of course they have to too. Those hypocrites should just say "no" and be done with it. But they even parade around their pretentious attitudes by proclaiming that they were gonna "sail the high seas".

[@MiaChillfox]

Might just be people growing up. It was for me. When I was young, I had lots of time and little money, playtime was important. Now that I am older, I have little time and more money, so quality and shorter games are important.

[@kryptkeeper2303]

As a indie dev myself and a consumer, my biggest issues with Early access is that Steam should put a Price cap on early access (Baldur's Gate 3 early access was $60 for only a single chapter of the game), and games in early access should not be allowed to have DLC (Ark was notorious for this).

[@bassisku]

But buying an early access game is a CHOICE. You don't need to buy it. Games need funding and early access is a huge way to get that money, especially if you are a struggling dev. Also it allows you to get so much feedback and improve upon. BG3 would not have been the game of the decade if it didnt have early access.

[@TheKnickwitz]

@@bassisku Well for BG3 being a goof example there tons of negative examples of games which never finished.

[@stupafly06]

I had over 200 hours in BG3 EA before the game released. I would do it all over again. I dont see why steam should decide what consumers are willing to pay?

[@kryptkeeper2303]

@@bassisku I absolutely believe there is a place for Early access, but full price for an incomplete game when so many Early access games end up abandoned and unfinished shouldnt be allowed. but that is just one persons opinion. I love BG3 and i even bought it in EA. but it doesnt mean i agree with the way it was handled.

[@skylerfreeman1173]

Early access is such a non issue lmao. They disclose the information and you as a consumer have all the power. Just don't buy them 😂. How about we talk about the games that "release" and are absolute dog instead. Not the ones that Tell You upfront they are dog lmao

[@daheadsmiter2052]

Hinderlands CEO is out of touch with telling a Solo/small dev team to make more updates to their game. As well as saying crunch is bad. Clearly Manorlords launch was more successful and they are just salty they didnt get the big bone.

[@sebonesiful]

Also, Early Access is an umbrella term. Games launch into EA in all sorts of states, Early Alpha to 'late stage' Beta, where only missing content needs to be added on top or refined. Size of studios, projects, genres all factor in. Then ofc it still comes down to if the devs are competent or not (judging by the final 1.0 product, and not by how many patches they release on a regular manner in between)

[@NeoKriko]

With all the pressure of mtx, live service, fomo, and all around any other tactics that have grown increasingly anti-consumer over the years it feels good to know people like the CEO of Hooded Horse still exist in the game development space. His response almost makes me want to pick up Manor Lords and try the game out for myself (even though it's not in the realm of genre I usually play) simply because his philosophy is what I wish more devs and publishers alike should strive to have. It's okay to release a 30 to 40 hr COMPLETE experience that players will move on from as opposed to one where they play for hundreds of thousands where they have to worry about content drought, fomo and predatory micro transactions.

[@Zzulu2]

Manor Lords is awesome, but yes, really incomplete. I played one round of it and saw all it had to offer, yet it feels like a game that can offer so much more. At the pace it's been going at, it would take another decade to finish it unless the developer starts growing in size

[@R173Y]

How many people actually go back and play after an update or full release? If you do, do you restart or load a save?

[@dragonltu8349]

if there is massive update sure i played it ( not every game but one i have most fun per say / release at which also means new save because loading game isn't possible because it is broken save so second part of quistion is out of place per say

[@Lenariet]

I don't. Well, maybe Don't Starve Together, as it used to be my comfort game when I didn't feel like playing something else. But for most other games I never return. My library is too large, my wishlist too, I have other hobbies too. I wouldn't be able to discover any kind of new, fresh experiences. And the general experience will most likely be the same anyway. So what if a few more biomes get added in Valheim? Won't fix the excessive, shallow procedural generation that made it a so-so experience to me. It's gonna be roughly the same if I were to return. Might be better to play something entirely new then.

[@Hunter_6601]

I restart every time, even when shadow of the erdtree expansion released for eldin I still restarted my whole game

[@dh8203]

I usually hold off on buying EA unless it's something really special (still haven't got Manor Lords), and I intentionally put down the game while I'm still having fun with it. Then I'll usually skip most updates because I want to actually play the game at full release with a fresh start.

[@Anon-jg7uj]

Depends on the genre. I tend to do fresh saves for survival sandboxes. For RPGs, I'll start fresh or continue depending on frequency of updates. I don't think I've bought any EA titles in any other genres apart from the two so that's my two cents.

[@Viertis]

In the past month I have jumped around on FF14 / Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader / First Descendant / City Skylines 2 / Bee Island / Elden RIng I play what fancies me at that time. The Live Service mindset, must keep the player base going at atleast 80% constantly, is so toxic and horrible and as we have seen over the last 2 decades have led to some HORRIBLE game decisions. Dont get me wrong, there are obvious success to the live service games and those games are absolutely raking in the $$$$$. But those success stories are so far and few in between that they shouldnt be followed imo. They are outliers, that are near impossible to mimic.

[@sked11]

I would argue the entire concept of DEI and companies getting funded to have a 3rd party come in and alter their product to meet artificial standards is doing much, much more harm to games as a whole.

[@krellin]

Manor lords is great, this impression is because a lot of players like me dont want to keep up with new changes and wait for release. Otherwise it feels like we are beta testers. The game is fine, the dev is grinding no complaints. Once it releases you'll see everyone jump in.

[@ruiferreira3651]

I miss the times when it was fine for a game to be 10-20 hours long, specially story games like Uncharted. Now every game needs to have hundreds of hours of content even if it means to had empty fillers and repetitive things

[@oliver_twistor]

It's a difficult balancing act for the game studio. If it's short, some gamers will complain that the price is too high for far too little content. If it's long, other gamers will complain it's just a bunch of filler content. It's more often one hears from the former category, I believe that is the reason for game studios are more willing to make too long games than too short ones. With that said, I agree with you on length. I have no issue with games being short. I've enjoyed games that are just two hours or so of gameplay, but I have also enjoyed games that take well over a hundred hours. It depends on the game. I'm a firm believer in that a game should be as long as it needs to be, but not a minute longer. If a game needs to be 80 hours, go for it; if it only needs to be three hours, it shouldn't be five or ten hours just to make gamers feel that they got their money's worth.

[@cynthiahembree3957]

Way less people would buy certain games if they were that short. Especially with how pricey games are these days it's harder and harder for me to justify paid games. Especially ones over 40 dollars

[@babselinesnipes2566]

Since Manor Lords has sold millions of copies, he should probably consider hiring more devs....

[@lorddiethorn]

That takes time it’s only been an few months he the only person working on the game for the most part he can’t really hire anybody when his main focus on working on the game

[@babselinesnipes2566]

He's not entirely alone working on the game, he allso has a publisher. Im sure he or them can manage to hire a few more heads...

[@Krieghandt]

I think early access is misused. Devs should not be using game content, but the rulesets, and iterate until they are fun and exciting. A short beta test is when you test content. And if enough people liked the test content, branch it after release.

[@NastyGenV]

When i see early access i skip it until release and if i dont hear of it again then i didnt miss anything. Im so tired of "early access"

[@Eagle6Airsoft]

You should becareful with manor lords reviews, many of us dispite not having a good time, deliberately gave it good reviews to help the developer. I’m happy to help With both a purchase and support with positive review to help further says but now I’ve seen the publisher defending the title and saying “the positive reviews are proof the game doesn’t need to expand further” in a tweet I’m suddenly regretting that support. If they don’t take that money and expand the team and focus on expanding the game to more than something that’s just a couple of hours play, I would then at that point consider it a bad purchase and bad game. I’m hoping they of course do add that replay-ability that it’s missing. I like many others brought to support and are now waiting for what’s next. Patiently.

[@NovaSoldier]

Bro are the comments e-thots and bots?

[@liamweagal7577]

yes

[@ForceGamingYT]

The first 30 seconds, every time, without fail. IDK how they do it (or why).

[@legbert123]

@@ForceGamingYT Its getting worse like this week it 2x or 3x

[@Notivarg]

@@ForceGamingYT What if you disable comments for the first minute? Do they still comment after that, or just give up? (Not like there can be any meaningful comments only 1 minute after a video goes live anyway)

[@maximuscryptosx9424]

Back an early access game, then complain the game is not finished. Please make it make sense

[@cIoudbank]

as bad as nintedo is, i think they’re pretty good about this topic, most of the time when u play their games for long sessions there’s usually a warning that pops up like “yo dude you’ve been playing a while u should like, go outside or try a new game or something alright ? “

[@RandomPNW]

I've found if I played at least 8-10 hours of a game and walked away reasonably happy then Id feel like I got my money's worth.

[@WayneTwitch]

8-10 hours lol so i would spend $60 to play a game for 1 day lol

[@Kylen1929]

@@WayneTwitchmost early access games aren’t $60?

[@AD3SPG]

I mean people played 50-60$ for games like that short -long in the 80s-90s and sometimes having cheat codes, if available to just be wacky or op having more fun nothing wrong with that or just basically replayability.

[@RLHvanDijk]

@@AD3SPG Replayability is ofcourse important to a certain extend, but for me it's how much fun, satisfaction, etc i have gotten from it.

[@WayneTwitch]

@@AD3SPG Them games never cost that much they cost about $35-40

[@tourguidefromtheunderworld2827]

the long dark developer being a drama queen, as always

[@jwatson85]

Too many developers take advantage of the Early Access title. (Starcitizen, 7 days to Die to name a few) - i'm guilty of supporting both of these games, but 10 years in early access?!! Game platforms (steam, epic, etc) should have some kind of recourse for those who abuse that label of Early Access.

[@CBrown]

The only problem that I personally think Early Access has is that it has next to no criteria for what "early access" actually means. Is the game in an alpha state? Is it in a beta state? Is it so late in development that it's practically a demo or is it a game that's so early in development that it's unplayable? This is never clear and it's unfair to anyone who spends money on these things. Sometimes it's like the players are being asked to be investors, even if they don't know it. IMO, a game released in Early Access should either be free, time limited in phases, and in a limited state to where it's basically a test of core features and functions OR in a state where it's sold for a price but is feature complete and what you're playing may be buggy mess that's in need of polish. Something that you could reasonably expect to be in a 1.0 state within a year. I simply do not see the appeal in playing a game that isn't really ready to be played, especially when I'm asked to pay for it, with no guarantee that it'll ever be finished. EA could theoretically last perpetually and the devs are under no obligation to fix issues that make it impossible to play or even get to a 1.0 state. It leaves the door open for all kinds of bad actors to take advantage of that system because there will always be people who want to just give it a try and potentially waste their money.

[@monksuu]

May I remind that Rimworld was a solo-dev project that lived in EA for years... Although, Rimworld grew their player base along it got more content (and lots of mods). Software Inc (by a solo dev company Coredumping) has been in EA since May 2015 with lots of mods. PS. So many expensive games have been single playthroughs but I still got more entertainment per hour from them than from a two-hour long movie in a movie theatre that costs 13 € plus popcorn plus soda plus there and back using public transport.

[@dono4738]

I think they both make solid points and early access could use some kind of standardization to it. Manor Lords' release could have been called a 1.0 release to me.

[@DexLuther]

The key word was said at the start of this video. The word "Launched." The game hasn't *launched*. It's *EARLY ACCESS*. As a video game tester for over 15 years I am constantly annoyed that people have absolutely no concept of what that actually means. In the case of Manor Lords and similar cases, they are still adding features, which means the game is in *alpha* stage of development. This is the stage of the game that is slow because they are building features, character models, textures, sound design, etc. Complaining about a game at this stage is like complaining about not being able to hang your pictures on the wall when they haven't finished pouring the foundation. When all the features are in, character models, textures, sound, etc are complete, the title moves to the *beta* stage. This is when bug squashing, optimisation, balance, and overall polish are ramped up and focused on. Major issues that would block testing (and maybe some easy low hanging fruit issues) would be fixed even if found during Alpha of course. The major problem with Early Access is that too many people have no idea how any of this works, and Steam doesn't do enough to educate people about it *BEFORE* buying an Early Access game. No one reads the TOS or EULA. They aren't going to read through the FAQ hidden in linked text in the paragraph of text above to buy button. Instead, they'll complain in the forums, Reddit, Discord, or wherever else that the game is incomplete and probably really buggy and unbalanced, and that it's a scam to have "released" it in its current state and that early access is no excuse. Every Early Access game usually has at least one or two of these types of posts on the first page of the discussion board, and as soon as one fades off the first page a new irate users that doesn't understand early access appears and creates a new one. granted, sometimes these people are trolling, but not always. AAA selling access to BETAS or offering "open Beta" access for the last 20 years hasn't helped either. Beta does not equal Demo. The Beta you, the public, get to access from AAA companies are snapshots of builds from 6 months ago, that were polished up a bit and released to you to test things that can only be tested with a very large sample size. A bug that a tester found that has 1 in a million chance of occurring, will occur much more often if you have 10k, 100k, or a million testers. It's literally a probability game. There's also balancing and other things they look at. In both instances many people (too many) wrongly assume "this is the game" and complete the content that's there at the time (or quit early) and don't come back.

[@GrippeeTV]

My issue with early access is that it removes investment and puts the responsibility of funding on the consumer. With early access no longer are we responsible for just purchasing the product, we’re now responsible for FUNDING the product. In a typical investment scenario, those investors can sell their shares and still get some of what they invested back if they feel the game is no longer worth investment and they’re losing capital - with crowd funding, you pay a flat price and you LOSE that completely even if the game doesn’t come to fruition because there’s little to zero legal ramifications. If they decide to cancel the project, the devs almost never have to answer for it, whereas if the game is funded traditionally via investors, they have to answer to those investors and their company goes under(cause and effect). The whole point of investment is to hold companies accountable and with crowd funding that accountability is eliminated.

[@Zohggy]

This is how I feel about "No rest for the wicked". Such a great game but I kinda wish I never played it and instead waited a couple of years for the full experience. I quit playing long ago and I don't even have any interest in the updates anymore as it's not even close to where it needs to be in terms of content.

[@louieberg2942]

I kinda worried that game would be that way and luckily held off on jumping in early.

[@uncleruckkus6867]

Manorlords is an incomplete game, it felt to me like there is only about 20% of the game completed. I actually stopped playing when i realized how little content there was. Though what is there is solid content so i didn't refund, ill revisit it when it is almost or fully completed, maybe a couple years from now.

[@Talking_Ed]

That's literally the idea behind early access. I did the same with Vrising, played it once, it was neat but there was half the game, 1 year later they give us all the game and it's amazing, and I feel like by buying the Early Access I helped them realise the game.

[@SloRush]

I did that with V Rising early access.. When I finally came back after 1.0 I was beyond hooked and spent over 100 hours in the game. However not all EA go as planned, sometimes they fail, change drastically, don't live up to expectations.

[@TheScepticalThinker1]

But you have to admit that for what it is there and it being developed by one guy, it is quite impressive no?

[@soccerguy2433]

complaining about an "incomplete game" in an EARLY ACCESS game? That's illogical. From steam's early access support page: "•Know what you are buying - With Early Access games, you are going to be playing a work-in-progress."

[@uncleruckkus6867]

@@soccerguy2433 I'm not complaining????

[@marcelomena113]

This video reminds me of a similar situation that happened to Palworld. A few weeks after launch, player count dropped (as any singleplayer/co-op title does), and people were pointing at it as proof of the game's shortcomings. Just then as now, completely unfounded. Both games came out with a solid foundation and a clear direction.

[@anzebeton1869]

Manor Lords is published by Hooded Horse. Workers and resources, Soviet republic fans will know how far that game got in early access under Hooded Horse. 3Division had free reigns in development and no extra payment was pushed to those of us that bought it in EA. If that game is an indication how Hooded horse treats developers, than we can be certain, Manor Lords is going to grow.

[@HilariousButTrue]

Early Access is basically an excuse to release Demo builds, get the profit and not put in the work to finish the product in 90% of games.

[@dragonltu8349]

so true but some games that are 10 % are golden and probaly i myself had most fun in my life and probaly having thought of game did came long way that is today ( rust , cs , minecraft , unturned , and few more per say ) but same time yeah 90 % of games are either forgeted or left by devs pity much

[@BrandonDenny-we1rw]

​@@dragonltu8349 BG3 was 3 years EA Its all on the company

[@aaronhumphrey3514]

Sadly, I can't tell much difference between early access games and full release games most of the time. In both cases we usually end up playing unfinished, buggy games long after release.

[@HilariousButTrue]

@@dragonltu8349 Yeah the best example IMO of Early Access is Subnautica and that game is where it all started. All your games are good examples as well, it's all the newer games that are coming out as half way scams. Unbaked cakes, whatever you want to call them, people looking to make a quick buck on hype.

[@mr.sinjin-smyth]

It should've never been a thing, but gamers just went along with it over time with no real push back. The classic give an inch, and they take many many more miles. It's never going away.

[@YeetMeDaddy]

Early Access is paid QA. As a player you must understand that if you just want to play the game you have to wait until 1.0 is released. Buying a game in Early Access is more about being part of the development process (somehow) by giving feedback and supporting the devs fianancially. Of course there are studios out there using EA as a way to earn some money and have an excuse to drop a project whenever they want. Still, as always, people's expectations are mostly the issue.

[@pvprangergod4024]

no its not, QA cannot be done properly by random players. QA is a profession.

[@carolinas8886]

@pvprangergod4024 That is the point. Even if what you say is true (it is!), publishers use clients as QA anyway. This is a reality.

[@pvprangergod4024]

@@carolinas8886 you can use masses to stress test servers and find some bugs if your code sucks, but it wont actually do the job that a professional QA team does

[@luridftwgaming8983]

If you ask me most early access games is just a way for them to tell you they don’t know how yo make a game at all and will never be finished. Like Dayz, does that zombie game have zombies yet? 10 years later, no not yet but we’re working on it.

[@jonny-b4954]

To be fair, manor lords only has 10 hours of content really. And its a really early release. Now the guy has the money to actually accelerate development. Its also like, what $20?

[@Evil-Never-Dies]

I don’t agree with this CEO guy. If everyone knows that it’s a small development team and as long as the developer listens to its customers - people will stay around. Grim Dawn is an amazing example of this. Most gamers are adults and they don’t need this instant gratification of weekly/monthly updates. * I don’t like early access personally, it seems like spoilers for the release (like Baldur’s Gate 3). That said I’m still going to play Manor Lords when it releases for real.*

[@AxisZtv]

"CRPGs a genre that's been dead since the 90s" Larian, Obsidian, Owlcat, InXile, Dark Crystal: * Gives confused looks *

[@whanethewhip]

You're only looking at the surface, the issue is deeper. The problem with paid early access is that it puts the risk of failure onto the backers rather than the developers. Once the developers realizes a profit before launching, they have a reduced interest in completion, often they bail. Back In The Day, developers offered beta testing to get real feedback and to let players preview the game at no cost. This was a meter for the developers to keep development on track. Once developers and publishers realized that they could sell a half baked pizza and still make a profit, Early Access stuck. The problem isn't with developers that sell half baked stuff, the problem is with impatient players that REWARD developers with cash in exchange for half baked stuff. *And this is why there are so many half-baked and bad games on the market and why many players are going back to the golden years of gaming in which developers put out good games because if they failed, then all their time and effort was wasted.* This won't be resolved anytime soon because the majority of gamers are willing to pay a dog to bite them. They will complain when they get bit, but then the very next day they will pay another dog to bite them. On and on it goes.

[@lycanwarrior2137]

EA should've never been normalized as a business model quite honestly. It adds to the serious glut of games on Steam.

[@amou2409]

When you watch a movie, do you hit replay immediately?

[@RogerSullivanNOLA]

Whenever I see "Early Access" and no recent updates, I consider it a red flag. I have Manor Lords on my wishlist, but if there are no signs if further development I will remove it from there. People on the reviews are starting to say the dev took the money and ran, so that impression is starting to simmer already. If this is the entire game and that's the way it is, then it should be sold as a finished product, probably for less than the current sale price.

[@wormspeaker]

Imagine paying a reasonable fixed price to own the game then playing it and enjoying it for a reasonable period of time then putting it down and being satisfied with your investment of leisure time and entertainment budget. What a horror!

[@robinnewhouse1563]

So what you're saying is that half finished games are the ones you enjoy the most? 😂

[@wormspeaker]

@@robinnewhouse1563 Sometimes I put more time into and get more enjoyment out of a $10 early access game than I do with a $70 AAA title.

[@ThePrimeMinisterOfTheBlock]

I agree with the bloke on LinkedIn. The Dev was hopelessly unprepared.

[@robertschaffer596]

I'm saying this since the concept of early access arrived and say this since then that early access is a cancer of the gaming industry. Most game devs or publishers milking the consumers for their money before they even deliver any kind of notable and flashed out product with the premise that "but you can take part in the journey of development" and so many people can feel themselves important for some reason. Yes nowadays even finished products don't feel as finished products. That is an issue on itself. But at least on a "finished product" you can at least judge if the product you purchased was worth the money or not in a long run and if it wasn't or isn't working, you are eligible for a refund. While in case of e.a. that is often not the case because of the legal backdoors. And most early access titles either get totally changed till it gets finished or doesn't get finished at all. But fans and people who for some reason have no feeling of reality are defending these "games" beyond any level. Just look at star citizen ffs.

[@Jazziee2zs]

My thing is, why drop a game in early access if you know it’s gonna take another 2+ years to finalize the damn thing?

[@mchonkler7225]

For an influx of cash so you can actually finish developing the game.

[@Jazziee2zs]

@@mchonkler7225 right that’s my point, I don’t think games should go into “Early Access”. If a developer does not have the funds to develop the game & drop it as a full release, then what’s the point of putting it into Early Access? Work on the game drop a few betas or alphas for people to play for a certain amount of time, then close those test plays, FINISH developing the game for a full release then drop it. All Early Access is, is just a way for companies to drop a half finished game, then once it has bugs & glitches & stuff the company just throws “well the game is still in Early Access” bs excuses

[@MikaaWoo]

I agree with triple A companies possibly not needing early access because they have the funds and most of the time dont fulfill their promises anyway. But this game is made by a small team that seems passionate and willing to take the finances they just got and use it too continue to make their game better. And if they slowly but surely make the game they aimed for, I truely dont see the problem in this being early acces.

[@dh8203]

Early Access is a double edged sword, it's a great tool for talented indie devs to get the financial support and feedback needed to make really incredible games, and we've gotten some real gems out of it. But it can also be used by scammers to take advantage of idiots who will throw their money at anything that looks pretty.

[@technodrone313]

all the streamers are too afraid to criticize. game is great but it has major problems.

[@uzer_zero]

The best example of how this is bad is the totally squandered potential of the Destiny franchise. Right out the gate, before it was even released in '14, management demanded that it be pulled apart and sold in pieces in order to create the illusion of extended engagement. All that did was completely corrupt the story, create content droughts and lead to the sort of anti-consumer shenanigans we saw during the first year of the sequel. D1 could have been an industry-defining Baldur's Gate 3, but executives didn't see an endless, positively-sloping ramp of income, so now we have the gutted remains of the original and an all but laughable "story" that is littered with social engineering bullsh!t, endless grinds, artificial difficulty gimmicks that impose mindless repetition, and overpriced "microtransactions". Tragic.

[@KiazaKadaj]

this has been a topic since DayZ and Rust etc hit the store. Everyone knows the pitfalls of EA, don’t buy if you don’t want an unfinished product. There is no getting rid of EA, it’s an industry staple now and some devs like Larian prefer using it to help fund a project and get feedback at the same time. Always look into the product before purchasing it.

[@Silent_Onis]

“Bg3 Revived the crpg genre, that was dead since the ninety’s” - Owlcat: “am I a joke to you??” 😂

[@Talking_Ed]

Owlcat made like 3 games to be fair, and they're great. But CRPG is pretty much still dead, sadly :(

[@ForceGamingYT]

Pathfinder was great, though still very niche compared to the mainstream BG3 broke into. No shade to Owlcat though, awesome games.

[@frederikstaufeldt5543]

owlcat has made great crpg's however none come close to the popularity of BG3, which is what would be able to "revive" crpg's. Revival in this case is meant as a "back into mainstream focus" and none of owlcats games did that. their games kept the genre alive for the people who like crpgs though, which has been very nice

[@cracmar03]

Just Owlcat ? What about all the cRPG revival from 2013-2019 ... That's where cRPG's were revived successfully.

[@cracmar03]

@@frederikstaufeldt5543 If Larian's own games that being Divinity Original Sin 1 and 2 didn't managed to cause on their own revival, BG 3 won't do as well. You need way more talent then Larian to revive that subgenre of games within RPG's. Larian was but a part of revival phase, not cause for it. I know because I loved cRPG's and waited for years prior for their revival. Which I got by 2013 for several years. However nowadays cRPG's are once again, dead.

[@DB-vl9ob]

I just hate early access. First it just baits you to buy an unfinished product. Then the Devs never deliver on their promises. In case of multiplayer: If you refuse to hop in ea, all the players that do have an massive advantage over you joining in later and it will ruin your experience hopping in a game where everybody is already "pro". I stopped buying ea titles. Will never do again.

[@Ultrajamz]

Even non-early access games are sneakily early access. Basically wait 2-4 years post game “release” for the real game, which usually means lower population. Games are killing themselves by doing this.

[@Gutlard]

Some of my best gaming moments came from EA games, and typically this was indicative of a full release following, because the Devs had a lock on great gameplay. But for sure some EA's are a horrible time/$ sinks. It's def a gamble. But luckily, it's usually a far cheaper gamble than experiencing horrible gaming experiences with full release turds also.

[@SH1NK1R01]

Baldurs gate and hades 2? I dunno I feel like people just pick games that are so obviously shit then get shocked and disappointed when it doesn’t get turned in to the next big thing.

[@MrRafagigapr]

that is why seasonal ecomomy resets are great , path of exile is growing for a whole decade using that

[@MS-wz9jm]

Early access just provides investment to finish the game. The problem is if there was no early access model then most of these games would never be made and we would be left to relay on the AAA studios that always put out trash.

[@bonanzabrandon6877]

My views on early access have changed over the years. I used to think of it as a cool way to play a game I was looking forward to early, which is still true, but lately I have decided that I don't want to play an unfinished game, then wait a long time for the full release and then play it all over again from scratch. Just give us the full game. Early access is good for the devs to make money well before the full launch of a game, and to also use paying customers as beta testers.

[@CrystallineLore]

That's why I don't waste my time on early access games minus a few exceptions (Hades, Larian games) anymore than live service games. I don't want to burn myself out or get bored before the ACTUAL game even releases.

[@ArcaneZippity]

Early Access across the board is a roll of the dice... When Early Access picked up speed years ago on Steam, it was a mixed bag... You have some developers releasing regular continuous updates and content all the way up till final release... You have some developers who start off strong but waiver a year or two down the line, and then it lingers for years without any significant push forward... You have some developers who struggle from day one, pushing updates/content now and then, but it seems to be in perpetual development hell... You then have some developers who are taking forever on purpose, just to milk the public interest as long as they can, and eventually abandoning the project all together... There are a tiny few that just lose interest and abandon as well... It is insane the number of titles I've seen over the last 10 years that stay in Early Access hell for what feels like an eternity, even when they started off strong... Unless it's a big studio producing a game, it's often a gamble to invest in an Early Access title, if you are hoping it will eventually finish production and go full release... Obviously, some Early Access titles start strong and feel close to done right out the gate, if not just have enough content out the gate to keep you in the fun zone, regardless if it ever finishes or not... But that is not the norm usually... Once upon a time at the initial onset of the push for all the new Survival Games, I had some friends who got me into a bunch of new titles in that genre... Other than the original Ark, most are still in Early Access development hell, even till this day... Making me very hesitant to invest in most Early Access titles not being made by larger studios... I did try Manor Lords on Xbox Game Pass, and it was alright... I played it for a few hours just to see what it was like... It was decent enough for what it is, but I would not spend money on it until it's closer to a final release, or if it was a sale on Steam... Early Access has its benefits, especially for a developer in search of more development capital, but I've seen far too many Early Access titles go nowhere (or barely anywhere), to invest in them without doing as much research as possible before hand... To see if it's worth gambling on...

[@ajwalker4416]

Can someone share what was the game at 9:35? It looked good but I don't know what it was called to try it out.

[@Tegnuss]

I believe it's the game "No Rest For The Wicked" - an ARPG that is more reminisce of Dark Souls rather than POE or Diablo.

[@ajwalker4416]

@@Tegnuss Thanks for that. I was wondering and now see it on Steam with "mixed" reviews. It still looks good but I'm going to wait for a sale since the game reviews are mixed.

[@InfestedChris]

I dont mind early access, but cap the price. 5 or 10$ then when they release they can set the price they want. Minus the down payment people made. This would at least give devs incentive to complete the game to charge more.

[@soccerguy2433]

"done with the game" is totally acceptable

[@VersionBest]

What I don't understand is how some games can stay in early access for like a decade and not move out of it.

[@BetterDeimos]

As early access becomes more and more the norm for games anymore, I feel like its a test system for a lot of these dev teams to decide if they're going to actually going to work hard to finish it. They release the base foundation, enough to actually play, and then just early access it to see what the reception is like and then they either work on finishing, which is why it always takes several years, or they just let it die slowly. What companies used to pay people to do we all now pay them to do it and hope they actually deliver and if they even do by the time its done, so are we. Pretty much every single EA title I've played I have never touched on full release because it either never got there or I already played the FOUNDATION and got the main meat of the game done already. So many of these devs are using EA to test the waters on the least amount of actual game and investment possible to try and cash out and continue if its worth it and I have zero faith that it will get any better.

[@junechevalier]

What is the name of the game at around 5:31 minute mark?

[@riceball3756]

what game is it at 5:30?

[@swampssa]

Hinterland CEO has made one game and after all these years it hasn’t lived up to what they promised nor is it finish. Kind of discredits what he’s saying. The irony is strong.

[@IAmBrennanWant]

5:47 what game was being played

[@phantomrecluse7311]

What game were you playing?

[@ChipMatthews]

I really don't get his argument. I bought Satisfactory when it hit early access like 7 years ago. It has gotten updates once or twice a year ever since. It's launching 1.0 in September. I play it for a month or two every year and will jump back in when it launches for another run. I've already gotten so much entertainment out of it that I would happily buy it again at full price when it comes out. Take the time necessary to make a great game and those who love it will keep coming back.

[@dpedreno]

What's the game at the 9:38 mark, please?

[@RandomStranger69]

Does it have fishing tho ?

[@rendros88]

OK but does Manor Lords have a natural conclusion or do you suddenly realise you've run out of content and then go "well I guess I got my money's worth at least"?

[@hummingbirdcity]

I'm just annoyed by this ubiquitous trend of "Early Access". At this point, it's clearly a cop out. You release a game in a generally unfinished state, charge people to further test it for you, expecting to avoid criticism because "muh uurly axess bro", then cease development and/or shut the game down before the game is ever out of Early Access because it was officially released on the day EA started, no matter what the tag might say. It's not early access, it's lazy, noncommittal, "full" release. Not in all cases, but in most. It's still okay to make a game, pay people to test the game or ask them to do it for free (but don't charge them to do it), make sure the game is solid, release the game, then stop. Maybe patch things that slipped through the cracks, but endless content doesn't need to happen all the time for every game. Another problem for me is that games used to be like movies. One and done, maybe a sequel or two. There's big buzz, then the die hard fans are the only ones talking about it years later. But, now devs and publishers want games to be like a TV series that just won't end. Six years in, most people are only talking about the game because, though they loved it in the early years, they just hate it now and wish it had ended when it was still good.