Today, let’s unpack a topic that’s been a hot potato in the gaming community for quite some time now – Early Access games. More specifically, the hypocrisy surrounding the perception of Early Access games in comparison to Triple A titles. This discussion is fueled by the all-too-common sentiment that reviewers like myself should refrain from assessing Early Access games.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have those who resolutely refuse to buy Early Access games, yet do not hesitate to shell out upwards of £50 for a Triple A title. Some of these individuals, paradoxically, don’t think twice before buying games like ‘Forspoken’ or ‘High on Life’, both of which were less than stellar at release.
Unpacking the Inconsistencies: Triple A Titles vs Early Access
Interestingly, the argument that Early Access games are inferior seems quite at odds with the experience gamers often encounter with Triple A games. The ‘Callisto Protocol’, ‘Shadow Warrior 3’, ‘Rainbow Six Extraction’, and even games like ‘Cyberpunk 2077’ all fall under this category. All these titles were marketed as finished products, yet they were riddled with bugs and performance issues.
What, then, constitutes a ‘finished’ game?
A finished game should ideally have all its content in place, be devoid of most bugs, and offer a smooth gaming experience across multiple platforms. A finished game shouldn’t require patch after patch to fix its issues or depend on DLCs to complete the experience. The finished tag should indicate that developers have tested the game on all main platforms, beta testers have squashed bugs over a period of months or even years, and the product is polished and ready for consumers.
The Early Access Perspective
Enter Early Access – a platform where you’re paying for a game that is explicitly unfinished. You are essentially involved in the development process as a user and potentially a feedback provider. However, when a gamer invests £50 in a game like Cyberpunk 2077 at launch, only to encounter a plethora of bugs, performance issues, and unfinished elements, how is it different from buying an Early Access game like Valheim?
Yet, the bias persists. The primary difference lies in the label. A game like Cyberpunk 2077 gets a free pass despite its glaring issues because it’s marked as ‘finished’. It’s marketed as a shiny, polished product, creating an illusion that conceals its inadequacies. Meanwhile, Early Access games like ‘War of Rights’ or ‘V Rising’ face harsh criticism for being ‘unfinished’, even if they offer a superior gaming experience.
The Irony of Triple A Titles: The ‘Finished’ Games
The state of ‘Battlefield 2042’ at launch or the issues with ‘Saints Row’ further underscore the irony. Games like ‘Wild Hearts’ are priced at £60 despite severe performance issues, yet they get a pass because they’re ‘finished’ Triple A titles. On the contrary, a brilliant immersive game like ‘War of Rights’ or a fun, vampire multiplayer co-op game like ‘V Rising’, both Early Access, are labeled as ‘garbage’.
Even games like ‘Satisfactory’ and ‘Grounded’, which started as Early Access and turned out to be fantastic gaming experiences, are still not spared from the stigma.
The Risk-Reward Equation in Early Access vs Triple A Titles
Personally, I feel more confident picking up an Early Access indie game than I do a £50, 72-gigabyte Triple A game. The list of disappointingly underwhelming Triple A games that have launched in an unfinished state seems to be never-ending, with games released even a decade ago still leaving a bitter taste.
The simple conclusion is that Early Access games are indeed unfinished games, and so are many Triple A titles. The only difference lies in the labels and the deception. While Early Access games are upfront about their state, Triple A games often mask their unfinished status behind shiny packaging and extensive marketing.
The Scummy Side of Triple A Titles
A prime example of this deception is ‘Resident Evil 4’. The game, a remake, featured 21 microtransactions, totalling £67, none of which were disclosed to reviewers. This duplicitous strategy ensured that the microtransactions were entirely overlooked in the initial reviews, leading to sunshine being blown up at the game’s posterior. Only once the reviews were out did the game reveal its true colors.
Such practices are an example of the deceitful side of Triple A gaming – a world teeming with overpriced, overhyped, short, and repetitive gaming experiences. This is one of the reasons why I adore indie games and Early Access titles. They tend to be produced by gamers, not corporate suits, and as such, lack the layer of scum so often associated with Triple A titles.
Balancing Risk in Early Access
Of course, I acknowledge the inherent risks associated with Early Access games. There are instances where games have been abandoned, leaving players with an eternally unfinished product. However, this is a relatively rare occurrence. In contrast, the risk of buying a high-priced Triple A game and ending up with an incomplete mess is a far more common scenario.
For instance, look at games like ‘Hellion’ or ‘Starbound’ that started as cheap indie games, and, over time, evolved into gems now mistaken for Triple A games. This evolution is one of the exciting aspects of supporting Early Access games – the journey from inception to completion can be rewarding for both developers and players.
To sum up, it’s time to dismantle the bias against Early Access games. Whether a game is ‘finished’ or ‘unfinished’, Triple A or indie, ultimately, the value and enjoyment a player derives from the game should be paramount. Games are meant to be played, experienced, and loved, regardless of their label. So, let’s assemble, gamers, and continue to enjoy the diverse world of gaming – Early Access included.
In the end, what matters is that we enjoy the journey, whether it’s on the polished streets of a Triple A city or the under-construction paths of an Early Access village.
Leave a Reply