A lot of games on steam lately are released in "beta" state and stay like that for months or years. I rarely see them leave that stage so it seems like just an excuse to me for when people complain about bugs and other things. What do you think the thought process behind this is x trench run? Do you think it's ok to set up in-game shops and currency in the "testing" phase? I'm close to my first beta and I can't imagine doing any of this but maybe the feeling changes once you realize there's so much to implement and fix?
Thu, 12/11/2025 - 22:44
#1
How long is acceptable for a game to be in a early access/beta state?
Unfortunately, the "fund the development" and "early access" systems have been completely ruined for me. Seems like the overwhelming majority of them never leave early access. The process seems to be:
* Developer gets an idea. Builds a prototype
* Developer puts prototype up for early access
* Money comes in. Developer actively updates
* Money inevitably STOPS coming in, because most of the people who would buy the game have already done so
* Developer complains that the money isn't coming in anymore and stops development. Everyone who paid for it gets screwed.
The system is BROKEN. Developers aren't looking at it as "people have paid me for a product, I owe them a product." They're treating it like a live services games "the beta IS the product they pay for, and I'll keep updating for as long as people continue paying me."
I now have rules. I only buy a game in early release if 1. the developer has completed AT LEAST one notable game, or a few small project. And 2.the last project the developer released has good reviews - if the only thing they've made has a bunch of comments saying "it feels half-done" I'm not paying them until the game is made and people say it's a completed product.