Well hello friends and unfamiliar new members. Today I'm just wondering how many of you play Early Access games, or to put it another way Alphas, Betas & Combat Demo's.

Now as for me I'd say nope I don't and never will. If you do why?

Humm for me it depends on if there is a story or not.
I would never play a RPG in any other state than Gold + patches.
Other games I could if it is stable enough with enough content ..

I do on occasion IF it is a game I am anticipating AND it's free. I would never pay to be a tester, but I'll offer feedback for free.

No. I don't have unlimited gaming time so I wait for the full release to get a better experience.

I don't have time for beta testing of any kind and that includes early access whatnot.
Demo before buying something, sure.

Nope, and I often wait for good while to play a released game, as they're often essentially in a beta state even at release. I like to know things are solid, and aren't going to be in a state of flux.

I don't blame them for doing it, though, as the days of getting a game fully funded on KS are pretty much behind us. I'm not too impressed when people are expected to pay a premium to be a beta tester, though. That seems like taking the piss, to me.

Originally Posted by Ripper
I don't blame them for doing it, though, as the days of getting a game fully funded on KS are pretty much behind us. I'm not too impressed when people are expected to pay a premium to be a beta tester, though. That seems like taking the piss, to me.

Many like paying for a higher tier for crowdfunding just to play the game early though. I always backed at the lowest tier just to get the game. I agree about KS fading though.

I'm thinking about compiling a list of games that use Early Access for 5+ or more years.

It might be a shorter list if you compile the games that AREN'T in Early Access for 5+ years

P.S. I don't Early Access crpgs as I don't want to ruin them. I constantly EA survival games though. I've played almost everything on Steam in that genre; well if the graphics are decent. Most of the time I skip the pixel stuff, though not always.

I would never pay for early access/beta testing, but if it's free and it interests me, I'm in. Also, I never do so with single player, story driven games since I don't want to spoil the story for myself. I like to play such games when all patches and DLC are out so news like the recent release of Tower of Time Final Edition is something that interests me.

As for the games I've played in beta/early access, I've noticed that a lot of them stay in beta for a long time. More often than not, version 1.0 of the game is not much different than version 0.9 and the biggest change happened on version, say, 0.4 which was years ago. There might be a new map, some cosmetic changes but the core gameplay is the same. Sure, that is to be expected to some degree. They decide to get out of beta when they have ironed out all the major bugs, but in some cases the bugs that were reported years ago are still there in 1.0 and the the game is still in what some would consider beta stage.

Generally speaking, no. I can't offhand think of an exception (like Sunless Skies and Tides of Numenara) that I didn't mostly regret.

I hardly do! I must have done this maybe once or twice in the past, but nowadays I'd say "No", even if the game interests me a lot.

I purchase a lot of games in EA, one's that I know i'm going to definitely purchase, I never play them until i'm happy the game is complete. I get a bit of a kick out of watching them progress and getting regularly updated (normally).
I used to play demos a lot, but now days if I like the look of a game I just buy.

Originally Posted by Ripper
Nope, and I often wait for good while to play a released game, as they're often essentially in a beta state even at release. I like to know things are solid, and aren't going to be in a state of flux.

I don't blame them for doing it, though, as the days of getting a game fully funded on KS are pretty much behind us. I'm not too impressed when people are expected to pay a premium to be a beta tester, though. That seems like taking the piss, to me.

Same here. Last time I played demos was when games were delivered on cds or dvds. I've also paid few kickstarter games for sure, but I never tried alphas, betas or any other early access stuff they kept throwing at their backers. I just don't care one bit to be their tester.

I voted "no" but sometimes I do.

If the developer releases a very short section like the Wasteland 3 Alpha or now the Skald 1.0 Beta, which is basically just an hour of looking around, I might give it a spin.

Besides of that, I always wait till full release, and if that is horribly buggy, also until its patched up. No need for testing and playing unfinished games. There is too many finished games waiting that there is no need to play unfinished ones.

You didn't ask this question, but a related question (which I see a lot of people answering anyway) is: do you play games on release or wait until they receive patches? This one's easy for me: I don't wait. Once a game I'm looking forward to is released, I buy it. Besides, my experience with patches is that they often make things worse rather than better. My experience is also that most games aren't as buggy (or the bugs aren't as noticeable or disruptive) as a lot of people make themn out to be.

I used to, especially back in City of Heroes, but not anymore. Heck, I rarely get to a game within a year of the release date!

My experience is also that most games aren't as buggy (or the bugs aren't as noticeable or disruptive) as a lot of people make themn out to be.

I would definitely say they are.
It's just that it doesn't get worse every year. It was already bad in the 90s with Daggerfall Ultima 7 and other buggy games.

Some of the Games I played in the last 6 months:
Interstellar Space Genesis - Released in 2019, still quite buggy (didnt do review)
This Merchant Life - Released in 2019 still so buggy that I downrated it in Review
Operencia - Released in 2019, not buggy, but with initial features (lower difficulty, no respec options) I would likely have rated it worse (I wated for the patched up steam release)
Underworld Ascendant - Released in 2018, still a total mess, not even played through it due to its horrible state
Insomnia: The Ark - Released in 2017, was still quite buggy when I played it start of this year, downrated it due to bugs
Depth of Extiction - Released in 2018, played in Dec 2019, still super buggy, downrated it due to bugs

So…yeah…not really looking good, even when waiting for months after release sometimes. Ofc there are also games which worked fine, like All Spiderweb Games or Legends of Amberland, but I'd say, at least in my niche, they are at least not in a good majority.

I would like to say no, but in fact I do play Alphas and Betas (or whatever they are called). Occasionally.
Including the original Mount and Blade as well as Bannerlord, Path of Exile Beta, Stoneshard, Risk of Rain 2. Mhm. Can't think of anything else.

I probably also played loads of full-conversion Mods in alpha and beta status. But I don't think that counts. Most of those never leave that status.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
I would definitely say they are.

All you proved with this post is that you're one of those "lot of people". Bugs just don't bother me like they do others. Rarely do I encounter bugs that actually break things or prevent me from progressing in a game. Rarely do I encounter major visual issues. Rarely do I encounter bugs that take me out of a game experience. I haven't played any of the games you listed, but I've played plenty of others with a bad reputation and my experience almost never matches the level of complaints. Actually, I just noticed: I have played Ultima VII (both of them), and had no issues.