Even though Early Access can be an incredible thing to allow developers to build up their game with the community, and pull in some early funds, it can also go very wrong. And now Valve are making it a bit clearer for you if a game hasn't been updated.
Counterpoint: There are early access games that have been under continuous active development for many years, but are also worth playing in their unfinished state. BeamNG.drive - a highly realistic physics-based driving simulation and sandbox - for example has been available for purchase for almost ten years and since then, it has seen quality updates in regular intervals. While this isn’t the developers’ only revenue stream (they are also making simulation software aimed at professionals), word of mouth and the resulting influx of new players is enough to finance the development.
While I’m in complete agreement, and I’m a huge fan of Beam (originally bought it before it was even on Steam), at some point you need to draw a line for full release, and anything beyond that is feature creep.
I think it’d be good practice for everyone to have a time limit in place, since the long term EA games that turned out well are more outliers than the norm.
another great example is satisfactory. it was in satisfactory for a long time and the result is amazing.
It was on Epic Games before that too, but it is still incredibly rough around the edges, even after launch. From listening to the dev logs, it seems they made a lot systems quickly initially and then out grew them and spent a lot of time rewriting poor code, there was quite a bit of mismanagement with Satisfactory.
It’s true. There are good examples of it being used properly, but I still don’t think games should be in early access for more than, let’s say, 2-3 years. Games should be at a point where they can be released in that time frame before even coming into early access.