The fallacy of early access is costing us dearly (literally)

At what point did we start agreeing to the idea of paying more to play a few days earlier or access an incomplete version of the games we anticipate?

The early access model has many benefits, especially for indie studios. However, in recent years, the concept has been distorted, leading to questionable practices such as selling unfinished games at full price, offering microtransactions, and fostering FOMO.

Now, more than ever, there are many options that allow us to enjoy a title before the official launch, but it's naive to think that all companies use them correctly.

Paying More to Play Early

When we think of early access, the traditional formats of early access and betas that allow playing weeks or months before the official release come to mind. However, in recent years, a new model has become popular and is gradually becoming the norm.

Looking back, we'll notice that high-profile releases like Diablo IV, Hogwarts Legacy, Madden NFL 24, Starfield, and many more have something in common: they allowed users to play a few days earlier. Of course, only those who pre-ordered the more expensive editions had that privilege. Are we facing a new malicious practice?

It's normal for a devoted fan to be eager to enjoy a game they are looking forward to. Companies know this well and exploit these sensitivities by putting early access behind a paywall. Want to play a bit earlier? In that case, you must open your wallet.

Deluxe editions also include an expansion, DLC characters, skins, or other bonuses; however, it's naive to think that the additional content is always attractive enough to justify the purchase. In the end, we are sure that many players succumb to temptation and acquire the more expensive versions, which can cost up to $100 USD, just to play in the days before the official debut.

This new model has proven to be profitable and very popular. Hogwarts Legacy, the open-world Harry Potter game, achieved an impressive peak of 489,139 concurrent users on Steam in the days leading up to its release. Starfield, Bethesda's RPG, broke records with over 200,000 simultaneous players before its official launch. Although to a lesser extent, Mortal Kombat 1 also had a solid debut with over 16,000 people connected at the same time on the Valve platform during the early access period. []Diablo IV and CoD: Modern Warfare II boast similar success stories.

In these cases, people who played before the release had to pre-order the more expensive deluxe editions. Is it worth paying an extra $30 USD just to play a bit earlier? Logic says no, but the facts show that many people are willing to invest more for that benefit.

It's easy to argue that the player is "weak" and succumbs to temptation, right? However, as with many questionable practices in this industry, the devil is in the details.

This model encourages FOMO, the fear of missing out. When early access periods open, the internet fills with videos, live streams, and social media posts. Obviously, we want to be part of the conversation and start playing as soon as possible. The situation is particularly tricky with single-player games with a strong narrative focus, as spoilers start to emerge, ruining the experience for users who abstained from buying the deluxe editions and patiently await the official debut.

The worst part of this new format is that it lacks real utility. It's an advertising strategy whose sole purpose is to reward people willing to pay a little more. At the end of the day, the games are already finished and ready to launch. Instead of advancing the release, companies prefer to sell early access as a reward for the passion and loyalty of fans.

For better or worse, everything indicates that this early access model is here to stay. In September alone, Starfield, Lies of P, The Crew Motorfest, Payday 3, EA Sports FC 24, and Mortal Kombat 1 all had an early access period. In the coming months, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III, Ghostrunner 2, and Forza Motorsport will follow suit. Our hope is that companies refrain from abusing this concept.

Purposeless Betas

The aforementioned model is the natural evolution of a phenomenon seen in the gaming industry for many years. We're referring to the distortion of traditional early access and its variants. In that line, Betas and their purpose have changed a lot in recent years.

Test versions as we know them in the gaming industry were created to allow players to experience part of a game's content for a limited time. They are useful for identifying errors, bugs, connection issues, and other issues before the official release.

Ultimately, Betas are a valuable resource that benefits developers and provides useful information. However, as expected, companies found ways to take advantage.

In theory, studios aim for the highest number of participants in these periods to evaluate network infrastructure and other elements such as weapon or character balance. Closed tests with a small group are also conducted for more control, but does this happenin every case?

Many times, closed Betas are used as a marketing tool or a simple pre-order incentive. Their purpose is to motivate people to buy the game before the official release, rather than being a resource intended to improve the game. We've seen numerous instances of closed beta sessions taking place just a few weeks before the release. Adjusting significant mechanics or fixing errors in such a short period is undoubtedly challenging.

The real problem arises when studios abuse this model and push it to its limits. Consider the case of MultiVersus, Warner Bros. Games' Super Smash Bros.[i]. Even though it was only a Beta, it was filled with microtransactions and featured a Battle Pass. The worst part? Developers never indicated that this trial version would come to an end, and the game would temporarily disappear. Yes, Player First Games marketed an unfinished product, and many fans fell victim to unclear communication.

There are still many Betas seeking to collect feedback, but a significant percentage only aims to generate publicity and increase pre-orders. In the end, they are a marketing strategy with no real benefit for players, except for allowing them to play a few hours to make the wait more enjoyable.

Selling Unfinished Games

The rise of closed Betas that often lack purpose and early access periods just before the official release is a consequence of the mutation of the more traditional early access.

Remember that early access games are those that are sold even though they are still incomplete. This funding tool emerged with good intentions, allowing players to try a preview version and provide feedback to developers. We can see it as a collaboration between users and studios.

However, many companies and developers lost focus and took advantage of this resource to sell games full of bugs and errors, promising that the official release would be problem-free. In many cases, production progresses slowly or simply never reaches a good conclusion.

Unfortunately, studios discovered that, despite the bugs and inconveniences, early access can be very popular and profitable. One of the most significant cases in recent years is [i]PUBG, which sold over 1 million copies before its debut. Another interesting example is Star Citizen, which has already raised over $600 million, despite its launch date being a mystery.

The problem with these formats is that developers take advantage of players' expectations to sell unfinished products or early access periods that lack purpose. In a way, companies have managed to market incomplete projects or those that are not yet available—they sell promises and good intentions.

These resources are not inherently bad, but companies use them in exploitative ways. We don't want to condemn users who participate in these practices, but it's crucial that they are aware of what's happening and reflect before supporting such a project.

Is it really worth paying an extra $30 USD to play five days earlier? Do we genuinely want to play this Beta? Are we sure that an early access game will see the light of day? It's our responsibility to answer these questions before opening our wallets.

But tell us, what do you think? Do you believe early access has gotten out of control? Do you consider it harmful? Let us hear your thoughts in the comments.