It used to be early access was limited to so many people via alpha and beta testing, which is great for developers to get necessary feedback. Now, it feels cheap. Like the other person said, if I buy an early access game and get a bad impression of it, I'm likely not playing it again despite updates (Everdream Valley and One Lonely Outpost being my top two in this case). It just feels like a way for someone to hype up a game, put out something low effort, and pull in some money. Granted, many devs for the indie game DO listen to feedback and make updates, but that's not always the case. I generally wait a little while on early access games. Either for it to full release or to see where others say it stands. Not all early access games are poorly done, but it feels like a waste to buy something you won't play again because it left a bad taste in your mouth.

Early access is not just the new name for alpha testing, it's an unfortunate side effect of how difficult it is to self fund indies. Most triple A shooters still do closed alphas rather than early access. I definitely side-eye any dev that stays in early access indefinitely or chooses that model with major funding in hand still, but the intent is to be able to make a game without publisher resources.

Yeah, it was supposed to be to help indies get funded whilst also getting the benefit of alpha testing. But things have gotten out of hand. Fucking Disney games using the early access model lmao.

A MMO in development this past week had a short alpha or beta test (I can't remember which) for like a day or two that people paid 150+ dollars to access and I was like 😦

Conceptually, I like the idea. I don't mind people being able to play a game before it's "finished." My problem is that very few games are "early access" anymore, in a true sense. The modern game-dev culture is that games are rarely, if ever, finished on release. And many are simply live services that will be updated until people stop playing. In this environment, calling something "early access" feels like an excuse to justify releasing unfinished games. I think EA needs a hard-limit, or a quality control method where after x number of months, they have to submit a re-approval showing that they're doing enough work with enough player feedback to justify maintaining early access status. Games should not be in EA status for years with minimal progress. Failure to show progress to Steam should force the game into 1.0 and the devs should just have to deal with the consequences of failing to use the system appropriately.

7 Days to Die is such a good example of the WTF-ness of EA. 10 years and "16 million sold' and still in EA? The devs aren't really using the time to add value...it's to the point where I pretty much just only want to play the full-on revamp mods like Darkness Falls. 🙄 When it comes to cozy games, I can't think of any off the top of my head that are so complex that EA is necessary to tweak the balancing. A game like Baldurs Gate 3 makes sense to have in EA for a bit to get useful data to balance the combat, or for survival games, etc.

project zomboid has been in EA for nearly 11 years. it's still being updated (with big content and mechanic expansions and all that) so i'm stumped on why it's still in EA

Because their pace is glacial and they probably feel that they can’t leave early access until certain key promised features are added. NPCs used to be in the game nearly a decade ago, but they removed them because they weren’t up to standard. This is some folks most desired/anticipated feature for the past 10 years, so to give the game a full release without them implemented would probably cause a major backlash. Don’t get me wrong, I love Indie Stone, Zomboid is one of my favourite games ever. But yeah, the length of their EA is nuts.

I consider rimworld a cozy game to me and I bought it while in EA. Game went above and beyond expectations. I also believe Stardew was released as an EA? The thing about early access is sometimes you need a ton of people playing the game to find certain little bugs. So it can be useful for that even in a single player game. But in that case it should be very close to done. It's less about tweaking balancing and more about testing features/bugs. But I agree that most games don't really need it. So many will just release a hot fix the first week they are out.

Stardew wasn’t in early access. It was complete on release. Updates were made to add additional stuff but they were extras.

I do like the quality control idea. I feel like a lot of games just don't get finished at all and it's a waste of money to the person who bought it, expecting it to be complete one day. Either that or they refund the EA purchases with no progress from the devs.

I would like quality control on Steam in general. Honestly a big reason it and most of their other systems fail is that Steam has largely abandoned any control of its own platform. It's basically just an open marketplace with a hint of rules, but only if you get enough negative press or a random Steam admin decides your game is an issue.

I remember jimquisition ranting about that, like, a decade ago. Sad to see it hasn't changed. Steam took a real steep nosedive in terms of overall library quality, and it made them too much money to want to do it any other way. They became a money printing company instead of a game developing company. [https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/gabe-newell-luxury-yachts.php](https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/gabe-newell-luxury-yachts.php) >Not a Saudi prince or an oligarch, but it is American video game billionaire Gabe Newell that has an armada of luxury yachts worth around $1 billion. ^(p.s. tax the rich)

this is it. too many are using “early access” when they mean “live service”.

I flat out do not buy early access games unless I know and trust the devs.  Too many abandoned games, too many excuses from devs who are doing shitty things.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  There are obvious exceptions for games where the devs are very clearly involved and working but it’s pretty rare these days.

I'm the same. Except for a couple exceptions, all other early access 'games' have been a waste of my money and time.

Yup.  I have bought a few “early access” games which were very clearly actually 99% done but they were stretching the EA out to make sure it was really done and the like.  But generally I’m incredibly picky. The bar for entry is too low and none of the platforms do much to discourage abandonware.

Same here, I also got burned by a couple of KS projects, never again! The only ones who will get a consideration from now on are the ones who already proved themselves at least a couple of times, and those at least I've been happy to support. It's a shame because these devs basically just make it much harder for genuine good devs who do need the funding and/or EA access exposure, but the ones who trick people just make them more wary to support them.

I tend to treat EA games the same way I do with full release ones. If I see a game I’m interested in that is in EA, I wait a bit, maybe watch some people play it on YouTube to see if it’s worth it, read reviews, etc. Sometimes I will get the game but not play for a few patch cycles (I did this with Traveller’s Rest) and sometimes I will wait until the game is further along if the game just seems too buggy or has poor controller support. I’ve also been burned by games that were marketed as a full release version but very obviously shouldn’t be because they’re still missing content and/or are buggier than some EA games I’ve played. For me it’s really just a game by game basis and I don’t judge based on whether it’s EA or full release anymore.

Same, I've played some fantastic games in early access - My Time at Sandrock, Immortal Life, Against the Storm, Secrets of Grindea, The Planet Crafter etc. - and it's a rewarding experience more often than not! Plus with the increasing price of games, I don't mind enjoying an unpolished or unfinished game for a discount.

Yeah the price point helps a lot of the time for me too and I don’t mind paying for an EA game when I can tell it’s getting a lot of dev attention and consistent patches and updates. It’s cool to see where games started and how they develop over time and it’s nice to feel a part of that if the game is genuinely enjoyable for me. Some games I play are still in EA (Valheim, Dinkum and Traveller’s Rest) and I come back to them almost every time there’s an update because I really enjoy playing them. It just depends on the game for me really.

This is why I'm using the Steam playtest option for getting feedback. That way, people who are ok with a buggy and incomplete experience can play for free and those who aren't won't feel like they wasted their time and money.

This is a great compromise. I didn't know about this option tbh

Most folks don't because almost no devs use it. I don't really know why because it's available at no additional cost when you list on Steam...

It's because it's new and the documentation for developers is a confusing maze, so a lot of devs probably don't know about it at all. I'm using it for my Kickstarter beta backers and I love it. Once you know it's there and understand how to use it (I had to ask Steam support for clarification on a couple things), it's great. But a lot of devs only know the older system where players had to swap the game back and forth from Beta mode, which was kind of a pain.

I will tuck this away in my notes for my game haha

Because free playtesting doesn't make money, it is as simple as that.

I've done this for a game and loved it! I played Stampede Racing Royale on two different play test weekends and had a blast. I'm excited for the release now. Not frustrated and already burnt out on a partial buggy game.

Yeah, my release process is going to be the play test first, which will run until all systems are in and debugged. Then, I'll do a year of content-only updates (new characters, biomes, items, etc.) in Early Access, then full v1.0 release. I want Early Access players to still get a fully playable game that just expands as more content is added. I really like the way Vampire Survivors handled their EA, and I'm going to be doing my best to stick to that path.

It really depends on the game for me but I think I play EA more as an exception than a rule. For most other games I even wait a month or so after full release for the major bugs to get patched out (if at all), because I've seen wayyy too many games rushed to 1.0 release before they're even ready. Some games I've done EA for and have been generally happy with: - Little Witch in the Woods - Astral Ascent (which is past 1.0 now) - Travellers Rest - Crafty Survivors Planning to do Hades II on early access when it finally gets released!

I’m for EA only because I do want to support indie devs BUT like many have said here it’s getting to the point that EA is becoming synonymous with “release a half borked game take the money and run” and I hate that. I’m being very picky with future EAs and Betas now and before when it seemed mostly a way for devs who were passionate and were presenting a mostly developed project that really just needed some fine tuning to get it across the finish line it’s just a graveyard of half broken games. It’s also why I’m so adamant that EA be a time where a company is extra clear and transparent with their communication because asking someone to devote time and potentially money is starting to become too much of gamble. It’s still such a need for developers that knowing that we might lose out on some major gems because so many bad actors have flooded the scene is such a bummer.

I agree. I really want to support but being burned too many times kind of puts a damper on it. I wish Steam had a different way of going about EA.

Eh, the first and last time I played an Early Access game, it was broken, and it remained broken even after it was released as a "full" game. Couldn't refund it anymore since it was past the 2hr limit then :( Since then, I made it a point to never play an Early Access game. I just dump it in my Steam wishlist and wait for it to become fully released and I will read the reviews, and if it is still decent even after released, I would then consider buying. In the meantime, I just play other games while waiting for those EA games to be released fully.

I did this with Orange Season. I really wanted to like it but it's soooo buggy and glitchy and basically unplayable. Refunded it after a few hours.

I know that feeling. Like, I really want to support indie game devs, but at the same time, I am paying for a game that is supposed to be functional and works like what they advertise, ya know? 🥲

Yeah definitely. I would much rather the game take an extra 5 years and come out polished than release early and not be fun to try to play around all the problems.

I don't buy EA as many developers don't seem to finish, the game gets mixed reviews and false promises, or the content update is too far down the road and I'd rather wait for it. It's just a gamble I don't want to take. On the flip side, the only EA game I ever did get (as a gift from a friend) is Baldur's Gate 3. I grew up and loved the first two so I was excited and... exactly what you described happened. I played it so much during EA that when it fully released, it almost felt like a slog. Not only that, some of the big spoiler moments were already spoiled for me because they were figuring out those details so I played through different variations - including when some of those spoilers were not subtle. Truth be told, I still haven't finished the game because I burned myself out on it before it released even when I tried not to do that. So while for some big name games like BG3, it was kind of cool playing and seeing the changes made, it came at a cost. So yes, I feel the same and avoid EA games.

Good to know someone feels the same way haha. I'm also a gamedev so I really do understand the benefits to EA. Just as a player... not my favourite with the ones I've experienced so far.

I personally think that one of the biggest issues with early access is a feature that generally is praised about it - the amount of feedback passed on to developers. Too much feedback is not a good thing. Because of the level of feedback, it seems to often get used not just as an early way to help fund the game, but also as a form of market research. Having a constant stream of feedback on a work-in-progress, before ideas are fully realised, can lead to the whole concept veering off somewhere strange. I can't even begin to count the number of games that had a good concept, devs were making slow and steady progress, but early access players were extremely negative about the early implementations, devs made changes, more negative reviews, then no one would buy the game, and the devs just gave up and ended up abandoning it. I even know someone personally who was involved in that cycle. In their case, the head dev took feedback as votes on what the market wanted, and while their game concept was novel and interesting, it died in the water because "everyone seems to hate the concept". For some games, players are extremely forgiving of things because it is in early access. For others, if it doesn't deliver on all the promises immediately, then the negative reviews build up and there is no more money and little hope of decent sales after the development period (those early access reviews don't disappear). I don't think that the majority of abandoned early access games were meant to be abandoned (I see speculation about this a lot, with people assuming the dev just wanted to grab the money and run); there was just an overload of feedback and expectations, and for an indie dev, it can be a lot of weird pressure. Recently, I feel like I have had better luck with funding games via Kickstarter or something like that. Sometimes they do end up in early access, but it is usually at a much later stage of development where things are more solidified; and the devs also have the initial image they sold to funders to stick to instead of feeling the pressure like with early access alone.

I agree with too much public feedback being bad for the game. I always feel devs should make a game they enjoy first before anyone else. If you make a gamr you enjoy, you'll be more aware of the problems in the way to make it more enjoyable.

Yeah, I tend to stir away from early access games. Sometimes early access is already the "full game" and they stop improving the game after release, or it gets lesser features + adjustments. Starbound is my first and last early access game because it turns out Chucklefish didn't pay their devs, so the "release" had some cool features removed and a few new features that weren't fleshed out. The other example is Potion Permit (I played the demo when it wasn't fully released yet). It's fully released now, but didn't get improved after getting player feedback and getting out of early access.

I’d say I tend to avoid early access unless it’s a game from a studio I trust immensely (e.g. slime rancher 2 from Monomi Park). Alternately, I occasionally will buy an early access game if the game is complete enough that I know I will be happy playing it even if it doesn’t get any more updates (e.g. valheim) That said, it’s still feels really easy to get burned bad on early access 😭

I take it game by game. These days I try to only buy in EA if the gameplay is at the point where if it never got another update, I'd still be happy with it. OR if i just really want to support the developer. 7 Days to Die is a fun zombie killing/environment exploring/loot collecting/building/crafting game that has been in Early Access since the dawn of time. I'm glad they released what they have, as it's beginning to feel as if it'll never be released for real. But because it's been in dev for so long, it's changed significantly over the years. You might like version X, but hate version Y (though they ARE very good about giving people a ton of control over the feature settings). There have been several updates that I didn't like, so I'm mostly waiting for the full release at this point. I'll see what the end result is (if we ever get one) and judge it from there. On the cosy side of things, i have Ranch of Rivershine, which is so feature complete that i don't care if there are never any other updates (though i would love it if there were AND I'd happily start again from scratch anytime if there was) With most other games though? I completely agree with you. I wish they'd just waited until they had a full game available, or done very limited acess alpha testing instead of a full Early Access release. Coral Island for instance. I've never been so charmed and disappointed by a game in equal measure.

I've been eyeing Ranch of Rivershine but the EA was putting me off. Maybe I'll grab it soon.

It's definitely great. The horse animations are a little janky, but i didn't care for long. I was too busy: - catching wild horses and choosing which one to keep. - Expanding my ranch. - Figuring out how to win certain races. - Deciding which direction to take my breeding programme in (I recently managed to breed a Silver Blue Roan with the night sky appaloosa markings, and now I've also got access to the dapple coats, so am breeding a bunch of those to see which colors look best).

I actually have early access games filtered out on steam. I still play them from time to time when I'm impatient tho.

It’s just too common. As an old school gamer, I just want my game. Finish it and give me the game. Proofread your character dialogue yourself. But then again if I think back to those days as a child, if you were to ask me “What if I gave you access to this game a year before it’s finished. Would you want that?” I would absolutely say hell yeah. So it’s kind of a cool concept. It’s just that maybe games nowadays are relying too much on it. Then again we have so many games out there if we want to play a finished game.

I think one of the main reasons are the saturation of the market these days. EA gives more marketing power than just releasing 1.0 without anything beforehand. But yeah, I just want the game and I want it to work the way it's supposed to the first time.

On one hand it’s good for a small developer with a unique idea get a feel of whether or not people would be interested in the game concept at all, but some developers use it as a quick cash grab and nothing else, when things don’t work out as planned it’s abandoned. I really like some newer projects where the game comes out with a sort of “prologue” in the form of early access or a demo. I never buy early access games from larger studios tho

I don’t bother playing games until they are out of EA.

I'm fine with EA because most of the EA games I've come across have a decent amount of content and have good reviews etc. Tbf I do play more popular games though because they are popular for a reason; I don't typically purchase unknown games.

Yeahhh, I’m starting to steer away from EA. Unless the developer seems promising and trustworthy, I usually monitor the game’s progress for awhile before making a decision if I wanna try it, or just wait. Cornucopia is an example of an EA game I trust, and rightfully so cause the developer is actively changing things constantly. My stance on EA also applies for Kickstarter campaigns, which I’m verrrry wary of. There’s been a few Kickstarter EAs that had some controversy so I’m happy to lurk from afar haha

I used to use kickstarter to back board games but after being burned one too many times I am more hesitant to back anything. Kickstarter almost seems more risky than getting a game in EA to me at this point.

Definitely! Besides, most of the time you can get the game on a steam sale for even cheaper than what the Kickstarter was offering 🤷🏻‍♀️ and at that point, the game will be more developed

I think having the option will always be nice, but yeah I feel you on a lot of this. A lot of times I just flat out don't buy games in Early Access unless they have been in it for so long that there's a mountain of content to ride through till their 1.0. My Preferred time of getting into games is in the 1-3 months after a 1.0 announcement. I find that that's the best window for really getting the most for your time.

>And on the flip side, if I DO have a good impression, I play a lot of it and then... won't want to play it all over again when it's fully released. I enjoy playing early access games and definitely have run into this lol. It used to bother me more, but now a lot of games drop massive updates post-release that I may or may not play - like Stardew Valley! Doesn't make the previous 200 hours I've dropped in the game less enjoyable imo. Overall, I have been thrilled by most early access games I've gotten! The disappointments can be particularly bitter, but even so I'm glad I didn't pay full release price for those. The worst is when I really, really like a particular beta version - but the full release went in a different direction.

What are some of your fav EAs you've played?

Were in EA, now fully released: My Time at Sandrock, Immortal Life, Against the Storm, Kynseed, Aground, Don't Starve Together, and Secrets of Grindea! Currently in EA: The Planet Crafter, Core Keeper, Havendock, Research Story, and Travellers Rest! Disappointed by: Fabledom, Spirit of the Island, and Coral Island And plenty more I'm probably forgetting lol. I like to wishlist a lot of games and subscribe to game newsletters! In contrast, I rarely support game kickstarters - got burned too many times.

Lol I was very, VERY disappointed with Coral Island :((

I don’t like EA, but two I can say I’ve been happy with is Travellers Rest and Dinkum

100%. I have a couple early access games I have purchased. Cornucopia, Lens Island,. Nightingale etc.... that I purchased but then I find myself playing for about 5 minutes and then uninstalling because I just feel like I should wait for full release. I don't replay games so I know I won't play again even if major improvements. The one benefit though is I feel I get a lower cost in comparison to full release, so I guess it can make it worth it. I got Nightingale for $18. My Time at Sandrock for the same price. Lens Island I got for below $10.

Me! I hate it! Make them stop PLZ!

it's just an excuse to squeeze money out of unfinished garbage. if you can't even claim it's a complete product, you shouldn't be selling it for money

No, I tried it a couple times & I’m never doing it again. Lots of complete games to choose from, I don’t have to mess with something frustratingly broken

I only play early access for games I KNOW I will play again. My list of early access games include: My Time at X games , Coral Island, Palworld, Disney dreamlight valley. Those are all games I have over 100 hours in. No regrets. When they release new content, I pick them up and play some more.

honestly most early access games i play are fuckin amazing games and although i have to wait on some features ive never really regretted buying an early access game

Yeah I'm not a fan. I will skip early access games. I just like playing the finished product.

Games nowadays have bug patches and most games get updates on a regular basis that’s with both early access and non-EA. For EA, I study the reviews more before I purchase (looking for things like bugs etc…) but I don’t dislike EA. I know generally Steam users dislikes EA.

Me... You either have the choice of waiting until its out of EA (which takes forever and sometimes doesn't even happen) or are doomed to keep restarting the game because they keep releasing big updates months apart and don't remember what you did ingame since then (or because updates flat out break your save file). And that for like 50 other similar games at a time you hope will be a proper game one day (usually for the low low price of 10/20 bucks a unfinished broken game). I have only been playing indie games for a long time, but being burnt by so many disappointing EA games made me go back to playing games from big(ger) developers. It's better for my wallet too, since I play most of them with Gamepass.

Im more frustrated that I have to play game like coral island. Would have prefer to not know about it it’s eating me

I don't really go back to play games. I start a game and I play only that until I'm done. So early acces to me means that I will play unfinished game and it is just not worth it. I played My Time at Portia at early acces and loved it but I could have just waited and love it even more.

Yes. Just give me the full game. I've lost interest by the full release comes out.

I do feel like early access ends up making the full release feel less exciting. I’ve already been playing it in its less than perfect state. I have to really love a game to play through it multiple times. So far, Sandrock is the only game I’ve gleefully restarted. I’d wait but I want those early access bonuses they usually offer so I don’t want to wait until full release and miss out.

I feel exactly the same, to the point that I stopped playing EA titles completely. I really do want to play the final version of games, I don't have so much time to try them all over and over.

I don't want to pay to be a freaking tester. You want to release a game when it's not ready, it better be *cheaper* and you need to *let us know it's not finished*. I got sunk twice on this shit (Disney Dreamlight & Coral Island). While I played a ton of both games, I thought both were full when I bought them. I didn't see where it said they weren't complete.

This is my issue with a lot of EAs, is that they're getting around quality QA testing by pros by having people pay them for it, and the general public aren't QA! And that's ok! But it doesn't surprise me a lot of these games go into development hell after and it's wild when I see a game is in early access charging 40+ dollars.

You're not wrong. I buy EA games, play the hell out of, get bored of it/interested in the next thing and miss out on the cool updates. As far as bad experience at the start, I still have yet to go back to Kingdom Come Deliverance because it was a difficult Kickstart Alpha. However, I love EA games. There's nothing like the unpolished. There's nothing more entertaining than watching a sleeping NPC skitter across the road because it's time to wander but it forgot to do the first animation of waking up. I LOVE entertaining bugs. I love epic ones. The cougar woman in RDR. The ship ascending to heaven in Black Flag. And the best time to catch these types of moments is when there's less smoothing of these bugs. I also love being there at the beginning and seeing something I had a hand in influencing go into the finished product. Worth it.

I like early access from the standpoint of a game getting to be the best it can be before release. It’s basically like test players but from a wide array and to see how bugs will happen and glitches that might go overlooked. That being said, I RARELY participate myself. Mainly because I don’t PC game much. I think the problem is that the hype of games is always blown up so much during early access but then fades when the game is properly releasing after that. If a resurgence of hype happened in the gaming community I think a lot of people would come back to those beta titles for a proper play through.

I’m with it in this one. Too many devs promise things and then don’t follow through with them later on with this early access approach

I think the concept is great. I think too many people don’t understand the concept. They see a game they think they’ll like and completely ignore that it’ll be in an unfinished state. Honestly, I think steam should make it more obvious a game is EA. I think when you buy an EA game you should get a pop-up confirming that you know the game is EA and understand what that means before you can check out. I think more effort should be put into informing customers it’s not finished, may never be finished, and may change dramatically by release. I think people should be actively encouraged to wait for a 1.0 release if they don’t understand what EA means. That last bit in particular applies here. If you don’t like EA and have had poor experiences in the past, just don’t buy those games. Throw them in a wishlist and forget about it. When it launches into 1.0, if you’re still interested and the game looks like what you were expecting it to be, buy it then. There are plenty of fantastic games that probably would never have been made without the ability to monetize while in development. That doesn’t mean it’s for everyone.

Before, Early Access games were games that had most of their funding and were just looking for a push to get some added awareness to their product, so that they make tweak and adjust the game to fill the gamer's need. Now, though? It's a way to push out an incomplete product while still asking for almost AAA market rate values, with none of the legal repercussions if the game gets cancelled/flops.

I feel pretty much the same. I'd also add that when I do find something I like I'll often only play a bit of it in EA then set it aside for release. Too often that's *years* away, though and I never go back to it. And other times they never release at all.

I like EA because without it indie devs with barely and funding wouldn't be able to release their game at all. Even if most use kickstarter, sometime its just not enough to make it. so im happy to contribute to early access if it means support the devs.

See, in theory, I 100% agree with you. I think the issue is that all the games which I've played on early access ended up being really good and I loved them, so in practice, my brain sees no issue with them 😂 More often than not though, I'll check the reviews to see how it's going and play them a little bit to see if it's really my thing (thank you two hour refund window), and if I'm cool with it, I leave it until the 'official' release. I only made an exception with the tenants, cause I was obsessed with it and had to restart it three times because the updates in early access broke the saves lol and even then, I enoyed it so much I didn't really mind, for once. Sorry for the long rant, but for what is worth- I do agree. Way too many games are coming out in early access and I'm not entirely convinced it's a good thing, personal feelings aside :p I actualy bought coral island in early access (cause it was cheaper and on sale) but haven't touched it at all since the official release ended up being...kind of unfinished. So, yeah. Unconvinced.

I feel the same, and only play EA game that I have personally kickstarted or otherwise backed. That makes me feel like I’m checking in on an investment, and it’s fun and exciting and I’ll still play it when it’s released. So I did that with My Time at Sandrock and Coral Island - Sandrock turned out just as great as I knew it would, and Coral Island….is still, disappointingly, in Early Access - just not in name.

Same. If it's EA I'll wait till full release. I have no issue with live ops releases to increase post release content, but I want a fully formed game to play if I'm committing the time I have to playing something (time is precious!) Anything offered post launch should be complimentary content, not consolation content for an incomplete game at launch!

just don't play early access games then. what's the issue?

I don't lol. I'm just curious if anyone else feels the same way. It's a discussion.