Steam Update Could Be Huge for Early Access Transparency, But Is It Enough?

In theory, Early Access is a win/win situation for gamers and developers alike. For game developers, it’s a chance to get some early revenue and feedback to help improve their game in progress. For fans, it’s a chance to shape the future of exciting new releases, while also getting to try them out early. But as more and more games release in Early Access, many gamers have soured on the concept. And it isn’t hard to see why.

Because so many games hit Early Access, the term has come to encompass a wide variety of situations. Some games, like Fields of Mistria, launch into Early Access with well-polished base mechanics and a plan to add more content over time. Others seem to arrive in Early Access as little more than demos, with bugs and unfinished content. This alone can make Early Access risky for gamers. But a bigger problem has many feeling unsure about paying up to play games early. In recent years, Early Access games have earned a reputation for being abandoned before ever hitting the finish line. A recent Steam update aims to help with this by encouraging transparency. But I’m not sure it’s going to be enough to get gamers back on board.

Abandoned Early Access Games Have Left Gamers Wary of Buying in Too Soon

Last year, Steam added a new layer of transparency for Early Access games. The platform now warns potential buyers of Early Access titles that may be abandoned, with a banner noting whether it’s been a year or more since the last update. This alone is a huge help for one of gamers’ biggest fears about Early Access. But recently, Steam ramped up its Early Access transparency even more. The newest update encourages developers to include an expected full release date for games in Early Access. This 1.0 release date goal will be clearly displayed at the top of the game’s Early Access description.

In theory, changes like this make it easier for players to know what they’re getting into with Early Access games on Steam. But they may not be enough to build up trust with players who’ve been burned before. Warning gamers when a game is already abandoned is one thing. But it’s hard to know whether that new Early Access game you’re eyeing is ever going to make it to the finish line. Over the years, games like Godus and World of Diving have been left in an Early Access state without significant updates from the developers for years. Others, like The War Z and Fractured Veil, have even been removed from Steam altogether after the developers either left them behind or were shut down.

Games often cost less in Early Access than at full release. But they typically aren’t free. Players are investing money, as well as time, in these unfinished games. And for some, seeing a game they supported stop getting updated feels like a betrayal. Having a timeline on when you can expect a game to hit its full form might help with this. But there are a few issues. First, developers aren’t required to use this tool. So, the same developers who may launch a game into Early Access with little idea of their true timeline can simply continue not using the feature. And second, putting a 1.0 release date out there isn’t the same as actually delivering on it.

It’s great that Steam is addressing the lack of transparency in Early Access titles. Things like noting when games haven’t been updated and encouraging devs to be clear on the Early Access to full launch timeline definitely help. But for those who’ve seen games they invested in abandoned, it may not be enough. Early Access has become a messy part of the gaming landscape, and it’s one that may prove hard to clean up.

Early Access Games Can Be Great, But They Can Also Be a Risk

I’ve played quite a few Early Access games in my day, and I’ve seen firsthand how much they can vary. Developers have many reasons for putting their games out before they’re considered fully finished. Funding is definitely a part of it, as selling Early Access keys can help keep the lights on. First-time devs can also genuinely benefit from player feedback to help them make their games better before launching to a wider audience. But for players? The benefits can be a bit more murky.

Early Access can be an exciting way to check out a game you’re really looking forward to playing. But many gamers, myself included, may not always wind up going back to play the finished product. And that means potentially missing out on the best version of a game you might have loved, simply because you’ve already “been there, done that.” Some games, like Hades 2, were amazing in Early Access but even better in the full 1.0 release. And that’s one reason why many players prefer to wait until a game’s full release to jump in.

But even those who happily opt for Early Access know it’s a risky endeavor. You’re paying for an unfinished game, with no guarantee it’ll ever be done. Many games hit Early Access with a vague plan for how long it’ll be until launch. But sometimes, player feedback can impact that plan. And that’s likely to be the case even if a developer puts a more concrete launch window out there at the start.

Ultimately, it’s up to each individual gamer to decide whether playing games in Early Access is worth the risk. The more transparency a developer has at the start, the more likely it is that you won’t be blindsided by a game’s sudden shutdown before crossing the 1.0 finish line. Even so, there’s no guarantee. I’ll be interested to see how many developers take advantage of the new option to include a planned full release date alongside the Early Access info, and how this impacts players’ decisions to buy in.

Do you play games in Early Access, or prefer to wait for a full release? Leave a comment below and join the conversation now in the ComicBook Forum!

In Early Access, Starsand Island Is Cute & Cozy, But Rough Around the Edges (Preview)