How do you feel about Early Access/Live Service?

I don't have anything against live services. Most suck though. When they work they're fine. They're always going to be adding content to these services so if you think that constitutes getting an incomplete game then no point trying to convince those people that's not how I see it.

I usually skip Early Access games, there is no telling if and when they'll get done. But I have bought in once or twice, I still don't play them though: I wait for the full experience. Let's see: I bought Maximum Action, Get to the Orange Door and Wrath Aeon of Ruin. All three are unique singleplayer FPS games.

As for Live Service, it's great in theory. And for some games it has made a great game even better. I just can't think of many examples.

Games that aren't popular enough get their live service cut short. Again, you are just buying into something based of a promise.

Anthem is a prime example. I don't think its live service lasted even 2 months.

Battlefield V's was cut short because it wasn't popular enough

Assassin's Creed's live service is just repeated content... Imagine that, in a Ubisoft game of all things!

Based on previous live services like Anthem and Avengers? Not a fan.

Well, obviously, I love both when they are done well and hate both when they aren't.

I really don't like the idea that early access or live service has to be either good or bad. That is not representative of the reality where each project should be evaluated case-by-case.

Want to know if a project will screw you over and leave you hanging? Look no further than to see if there is a major publisher behind it.

I can think of plenty early access games that have been very successful and appreciated by the community. Some of my favorite games.

Crowd-funding is the dream. If a game I am interested in can be funded without the shadow of a major publisher over it, and the people working on it are adept at communication with their backers.... Well that's just the dream. Factorio is a perfect example.

Having said that: I think early access is disingenuous when done at the AAA level. Likewise, I expect a triple-A live service to be designed with malice towards the targeted customers.

Early access is awesome and something Xbox does very well. I wish that SONY would get more on board with those games still in development. Sure, they are often times incomplete train wrecks, but that is also what makes them enticing to a certain extent. Especially early on before they are completely overran with cheaters. It's all part of the charm. Getting to play the games the way they were supposed to be played before all the kids cry and everything feels watered down and samey.

I generally like early access games, especially indie titles. It's fun watching a game get built as you are playing it, providing feedback, and things of that nature. It's been very rewarding playing Star Citizen, to name a game people love to hate, and seeing how far it has come. Every new build adds features, ships, and gameplay changes/additions.

Of course there's always the risk of the game either not being complete, but that hasn't happened to me yet. Except for Godus. Damn you, Molyneux.

As for "live service", it depends. I've been played MMO's for the better part of two decades now and those are technically live service games, and for the most part my MMO experiences (especially with WoW) have been excellent. On the other hand, I don't like live service models in games I feel don't benefit from it, like shooters and other singleplayer games. Give me one reason why a game like Assassin's Creed benefits from a "live service" approach? Just give me the g ame and piss off.

I like early access hate live service

Fine as long as it's not some shitty scam job just to selling unfinished game or selling DLC when it's not finished.

Alongside being reasonably discounted, as you're helping them, not them you, an at least playable state and actually used for what it's intended to be used for.

I feel pretty indifferent about them. I play a game when I can and want to play it, that's that.

I like EA, I get the game for cheaper and don't have to play it till its done. I don't pre-order or buy EA from devs iv never heard of and only games i know ill like such as Arma III and Below Zero - so its been good for me so far.

No issues with a dev having early access I am just not interested in paying to beta test a game.

Cloud Imperium needs your wisdom Cup🙏

I'm not a fan of either generally.

Early access is just an excuse to get money in early by selling barely functional and incomplete product. There isn't even any guarantee that the devs will finish it. i mean for a SP game for example: you buy the early access, you play it in its buggy state with all the warts. you eventually finish it (when all the content is eventually released....hopefully)...and your done. game finished in its beta state. anyone who buys it after you will have a better experience as they will end up with the finished article. meanwhile your memories are of bugs and reporting issues and providing feedback. i'm not 100% against devs looking for feedback but it should be done through back channels and in limited numbers (and ideally targeted at those more interested in testing a game than playing a game). it shouldn't be available to the general public.

The only exception would be for E-Sports type games. these are a bit different as, when done correctly, these are more akin to a sport than an artistic/craftmanship endeavour. the game rules need to be properly validated (cutting out exploits, consistency in controls, balanced weapons/buffs etc.). the integrity of the network code needs to be made as robust as possible. even then it should be targets at e-sports vets (especially those who intend to take part in tournaments using the game in question) rather than the general public.

as for games as a service: not a fan. i prefer single player games and games as a service are not great for such games. i just want to be able to buy a game with a good amount of content and thats fun, then buy more content whenever suits. i done want to subscribe to anything. i dont want to see an in game store. i dont want to be walled into some vertically integrated service crap.

I'm all for early access if it's playable and has enough features to get me interested. Lost a lot of hours in Software Inc. Amazing game.

I'm also all for live service games if they're done right. Played The Division 1 & 2. Great games. And I'm looking forward to Diablo 4.

Don't have any strong feelings about it. I usually avoid early access games, because I don't want to pay for something unfinished and unknown when finished. Or be bored with the game before release.

But there's some stuff that I got, like Valheim. An ugly little game, pretty packed with content already, for a very small price. Great with friends, many hours of fun to be had. I'm down.

Live service games? I think I play some today, so I'm cool with those. But again, within reason.

As far as I'm concerned, Early Access games aren't released until they hit 1.0 and leave Early Access. Aside from that, it's just another way to develop games. Some games I've really enjoyed have been through Early Access.

Live service is just a reality I've come to live with. Some do it right, most don't.

I typically avoid early access games and live service games. For early access games, I'll go the contractor route. You get paid when the job/product is done. not before. For live service games, as soon as I hear it's live service, I tend to tune it out. They just aren't worth the time investment for me. Some of them have been good, but I could enjoy playing 4 great single player games to completion in the time I put into grinding RND for gear that won't even be applicable when the next DLC pack drops. The time investment and recycled gameplay loops kill the joy for me and I'd rather just play a game that has a cohesive beginning, middle and end.