What’s the difference between Manor Lords’ early access launch and the 75% of early access games that never finish?
The developer already built a complete game before asking for money. Manor Lords entered early access with polished gameplay, functioning systems, and content that felt finished despite the developer planning additional improvements. The solo developer used early access revenue to hire sound designers and expand the team while improving already-solid foundations. This represents early access working exactly as intended—indie developer with limited resources uses community funding to enhance good game into great game. The model succeeds when developers have proven capability, realistic scope, and honest intentions. It fails when developers use early access as excuse to charge for unfinished prototypes they lack ability to complete or when AAA studios with million-dollar budgets exploit customers as unpaid quality assurance testers.
The Manor Lords Model
Slavic Magic released Manor Lords into early access after years of solo development building the core game. The early access version featured complete gameplay loops, functional city building mechanics, satisfying combat systems, and enough content to justify the asking price based solely on current state without considering future additions. The developer didn’t charge players to fund basic development. The charging happened after proving capability to create excellent game. The early access revenue enabled hiring additional team members for sound design and other improvements that enhance already-good experience rather than completing fundamentally broken prototype.
This approach flips the typical early access relationship. Instead of asking players to fund development with promises of eventual quality, the developer demonstrated quality first and then accepted funding to make proven concept even better. The risk for players is minimal because current content already justifies purchase price. The value of future improvements is bonus rather than prerequisite for purchase making sense. A player who buys Manor Lords and development stops tomorrow still received complete gaming experience worth the money spent.
The success also vindicates early access as concept when implemented properly. The community rallied around Manor Lords because the developer earned trust by shipping quality before requesting payment rather than requesting payment based on promises about future quality. The enthusiastic reception and record-breaking sales demonstrate that players will support early access when developers respect them enough to prove capability before charging money. The contrast with failed early access projects that charge upfront for vague promises couldn’t be starker.
Why Indies Need Early Access
Solo developers and small indie teams often lack financial resources to complete games without external funding. A developer working alone while living on savings can dedicate maybe two years to project before needing income. If the game requires three years to complete properly, the developer faces choice between rushing to finish within financial constraints or finding funding to continue development. Early access provides this funding by generating revenue during development rather than requiring completion before first dollar arrives.
The funding model also enables hiring help for areas beyond developer expertise. A programmer can build excellent game systems but might lack artistic ability or sound design skills. Early access revenue allows hiring specialists for these areas while the developer focuses on core programming. This division of labor improves final quality by ensuring each aspect receives attention from people with appropriate skills rather than forcing solo developers to handle everything themselves despite lacking expertise in some areas.
The community feedback aspect also matters more for indie developers than AAA studios. A team of 200 developers includes designers, producers, and QA professionals who identify problems through internal processes. A solo developer working in isolation might not catch issues that become obvious when thousands of players engage with content. Early access provides access to testing and feedback that small teams can’t generate internally. The feedback genuinely improves games rather than serving as excuse for charging customers to do work that studios could afford to pay professionals to perform.
When AAA Uses Early Access
AAA studios using early access undermines the entire concept because these studios don’t need community funding and can afford proper quality assurance testing. Grounded from Obsidian Entertainment and Microsoft released in early access despite being backed by one of the world’s largest corporations. The studio has hundreds of employees and effectively unlimited budget through Microsoft funding. The early access provided no legitimate benefit beyond generating revenue from selling unfinished game while avoiding criticism through “still in development” excuse protection.
The difference in scale reveals the exploitation. Manor Lords’ solo developer genuinely needed funding to hire help and had already proven capability by building excellent game alone. Obsidian has 200+ employees and Microsoft backing providing any resources necessary to complete games properly. The studio doesn’t need early access funding. They chose to charge customers for testing that they could easily afford to pay QA professionals to perform. The decision demonstrates contempt for customers by treating them as revenue sources to exploit rather than participants in relationship where developers provide value in exchange for payment.
The AAA early access also damages legitimate indie early access by creating association between early access label and exploitative practices. Players burned by AAA early access disasters become skeptical of all early access, making it harder for indie developers who genuinely need the model to gain traction. The reputational damage spreads beyond individual failed projects to harm entire early access ecosystem by reducing player trust in purchasing incomplete games regardless of developer circumstances or intentions.
The 75% Who Take The Piss
Most early access games fail because developers lack capability to complete projects or never intended to finish them. A developer can build basic prototype demonstrating concept, release it as early access with promises about future content, collect purchase revenue from optimistic early adopters, and then abandon the project when development becomes difficult or revenue slows. Steam imposes no meaningful penalties for abandonment. Players lose refund eligibility after two hours. The developer keeps all revenue from early access sales even when never delivering promised complete product.
The abandonment pattern reveals that early access enables low-effort cash grabs where developers can profit from good ideas poorly executed. The initial excitement around novel concepts generates enough early sales to justify minimal development investment even if projects ultimately fail. This creates perverse incentive where developers benefit from launching multiple doomed projects rather than focusing on completing one properly because aggregate revenue from several abandoned early access games might exceed revenue from single completed title.
The 75% failure rate also suggests that many early access launches happen before developers have proven capability to complete projects. Manor Lords entered early access after developer built essentially complete game demonstrating mastery of complex systems. Most failed early access projects launch with basic prototypes demonstrating concept but lacking evidence that developers can execute fully. The difference determines whether early access represents proven developer seeking community support for final polish versus unproven developer asking players to fund learning game development through trial and error.
The Transparency Defense
Developers defend early access by claiming transparency about incomplete state absolves them of responsibility for delivering finished products. The argument is that customers know what they’re buying because early access label explicitly warns that games are unfinished. If players choose to purchase despite warnings, any disappointment about lack of completion is their responsibility rather than developer failing to deliver promised products. This defence treats transparency as substitute for accountability when actually transparency without accountability just provides legal cover for taking money without delivering products.
The transparency argument also ignores that early access purchases include implicit promises about eventual completion. Players don’t buy early access games just for current content. They buy based on promises about what games will become through continued development. A developer who takes early access money and then abandons project before completion has broken promises made to customers regardless of whether early access label warned that games were currently incomplete. The warning about current state doesn’t excuse failing to reach promised future state.
The defense also creates situation where developers can avoid consequences for any problems by pointing at early access status. Game has game-breaking bugs? Still in development. Features are missing? Coming in future updates. Performance is terrible? Working on optimization. The permanent excuse factory means developers never face accountability for quality as long as they maintain early access status. This enables indefinite development without pressure to actually finish because finishing means losing excuse protection and accepting criticism without deflection.
What Successful Indies Do Differently
Successful early access developers communicate regularly about development progress, implement feedback transparently, maintain realistic scope, and set achievable milestones rather than making grandiose promises. The communication builds trust by demonstrating active development and honest assessment of what’s possible within resource constraints. Players who see steady progress and honest communication develop confidence that developers will complete projects even if timelines extend beyond initial estimates.
The scope management also matters because overambitious projects collapse under their own weight while focused projects with clear boundaries can be completed. Manor Lords focuses on specific time period and geographic area rather than attempting to be comprehensive medieval strategy game covering all eras and regions. The limited scope allowed the solo developer to achieve high quality in defined area rather than spreading resources across impossible ambition that could never be completed properly. The restraint demonstrates professional discipline that separates successful developers from dreamers who promise everything and deliver nothing.
The realistic timeline expectations also differentiate successful projects from failures. Manor Lords entered early access when game was already nearly complete rather than at beginning of development. The early access period represents final polish rather than fundamental development phase. This contrasts with early access games that launch at 10% completion with promises about eventual 100% if development continues for several years. The difference determines whether early access represents late-stage funding for proven concept versus early-stage funding for unproven prototype.
The Community Relationship
Indie developers using early access properly develop close relationships with communities who feel invested in projects’ success. The relationship works because developers demonstrate respect for community through quality work and honest communication while communities provide support through purchases and constructive feedback. The mutual respect creates collaborative atmosphere where both parties want projects to succeed rather than adversarial relationship where customers feel exploited and developers feel entitled to money without delivering quality.
The community investment also provides motivation beyond financial incentives. A developer who builds trusting relationship with supportive community feels obligation to deliver quality and complete projects because people who believed in their work deserve finished products. This personal accountability supplements financial accountability in motivating completion. The combination creates stronger incentive structure than pure profit motive because developers care about reputation and relationships beyond just extracting maximum revenue.
The positive community relationships also generate better feedback because players who feel respected by developers provide constructive criticism aimed at improvement rather than hostile complaints about feeling cheated. The quality of feedback improves games more effectively than feedback from players who feel exploited and approach early access as hostile relationship with developers who took their money. The emotional tone of developer-community relationships significantly affects how useful early access becomes for improving games through player input.
Why Most Developers Fail
Most failed early access projects suffer from combination of overambitious scope, insufficient funding, lack of development expertise, and poor project management. The developers have good ideas but lack capability to execute on vision with available resources. The early access revenue provides some funding but usually insufficient to complete projects properly when developers underestimate development complexity and costs. The result is abandonment when developers realize they can’t deliver on promises with money raised and additional funding isn’t forthcoming.
The competency gap also matters because many failed projects come from developers attempting first games. Learning game development through early access effectively makes customers pay for education that developers should fund themselves before charging for products. A developer who hasn’t completed projects previously probably lacks skills to complete ambitious early access game regardless of funding. The track record matters enormously for predicting whether developers can deliver on promises. Manor Lords succeeded partly because the developer demonstrated capability through years of work before requesting community funding.
The project management failures also contribute because completing games requires organizational discipline beyond just programming ability. Developers need to prioritize features, manage scope creep, set realistic milestones, and make difficult decisions about what to cut when resources run short. Many failed early access projects lack this discipline and either expand scope indefinitely as funding arrives or freeze in analysis paralysis attempting to perfect everything rather than completing something. The organizational skills matter as much as technical capabilities for determining whether early access projects complete successfully.
The Valve Problem
Steam could enforce higher standards for early access by requiring developers to demonstrate capability before allowing early access launches or by penalizing abandonment through refund requirements or platform restrictions. However, Valve benefits financially from early access regardless of completion rates because the platform takes percentage of all sales whether games finish or not. Higher standards would reduce number of early access games on Steam, which would reduce Valve’s revenue from the category. The financial incentive structure means Valve actively benefits from low standards that enable failed projects to generate revenue before abandonment.
The refund policy also protects Valve from liability when projects fail. The two-hour window closes quickly when evaluating early access games because players need time to assess whether content shows promise and developers seem capable. Players who exceed refund window before realizing projects are doomed lose eligibility even though they purchased incomplete products that will never be finished. This transfers all risk from Valve to customers while Valve keeps transaction fees from all early access purchases regardless of outcomes.
The platform monopoly power also means Valve faces no competitive pressure to improve standards. Alternative platforms like Epic Games Store use similar low-standards approaches to early access. Without competition on quality standards, platforms race to bottom by accepting any early access project that might generate transaction fees rather than implementing meaningful gatekeeping. The lack of standards harms legitimate developers by associating their projects with low-quality cash grabs because platforms treat all early access identically regardless of developer capability or project viability.
What Players Should Demand
Players should refuse to purchase early access from developers without track records of completing projects. First-time developers deserve skepticism rather than trust because they haven’t proven capability. The refusal to fund unproven developers would force them to either complete free demos demonstrating capability before requesting early access funding or to fund initial development themselves before asking community support. Either outcome would improve early access quality by eliminating projects from developers who lack ability to complete games.
The demand for communication and transparency also matters. Developers should provide regular updates about development progress with honest assessment of challenges and realistic timelines. The communication demonstrates active development and helps players evaluate whether continued support makes sense. Silence from developers for months creates justified suspicion about abandonment. Regular communication prevents this suspicion while building trust through demonstrated commitment.
The expectation that early access games need to be essentially complete at launch would also improve quality. Manor Lords succeeded because it entered early access after most development was done. Adopting this standard universally would mean early access becomes polish phase rather than primary development period. This protects players by ensuring purchase provides substantial content regardless of whether additional development continues while also ensuring developers prove capability before charging customers.
Does early access only work for indies who genuinely need it, or can the system be fixed so that AAA studios and unproven developers stop taking the piss?
