Don’t Judge Games at Launch — Some Get Much Better Later

As someone who’s been a part of the gaming community for a while now, I witnessed all sorts of things. I’m sure you did too. The great games since the launch, bugged ones, the ones that never came out, closed after a month, the ones that turned into microtransaction garbage-fest, straight out scam ones and of course once in a while there has been a game that launched sort of meh and got way better later on. 

On the chance of sounding old (boy I say this a lot these days), it wasn’t always like that. You’d get a game, install it, play it, and that was the experience. You wouldn’t get patches or roadmaps to get better.

Nowadays some games launch rough. Sometimes so rough that you can’t even boot it up. Yet devs continue to work on it and months (sometimes years) later we get games that can be enjoyed properly.

We’ve seen it happen with No Man’s Sky. We’ve seen it happen with Cyberpunk 2077.

Which doesn’t mean it’s a good practice but it happens.

Sometimes we get a mediocre game that gets improved with a lot of patches and on rare occasions we get a good game where devs continue to work on and improve it even more. Just like Crimson Desert.

Why This Keeps Happening 

There’s no definitive answer on why this keeps happening. The easiest and most common route would be to blame the devs. In reality that is almost never the case, especially for bigger games. Usually there’s always someone in charge who decides when and if the game will be released. A number cruncher. And sometimes they don’t care if devs think it’s ready or not. 

Most of the time the rush is tied to money. Either the budget is getting low or it’s no longer financially viable to be in development for five years without earning a cent. Which I completely understand. Games were smaller back then but now you have open worlds, systems, AI, online features, wild graphics and even wilder expectations. It can get overwhelming and games get harder to finish.    

Another reason is that player feedback is now part of development. Hence the early access games. Which can be a good thing if done properly. Players can report issues instantly, communities suggest changes and developers can adjust based on real behavior without investing too much time testing for themselves. Which ultimately leads to the game you play months later is partly shaped by players and once fully launched can be a product to be proud of. 

This is a rising trend in the gaming world, so many games have done this that it would be impossible for me to name all. Unfortunately not all gamers understand or like this and I can’t blame them but it’s reality and I don’t see it changing anytime soon. 

When Games Actually Get Better and How to Know

Let’s start with brutal honesty: Not every game deserves a redemption arc. But chosen few when they did it, they’ve done it right. Take No Man’s Sky as a first example. The game was basically empty at launch. The vision was there but there wasn’t anything else. Over time it turned into a massive experience where you can spend thousands of hours having fun. Same goes for Cyberpunk 2077, it was a terrible launch. It had so many bugs. I preordered it and couldn’t even play it, I was fuming. Now it’s a game I’m happy to recommend to any gamer. 

Those are good examples when games actually got better. They didn’t just fix a few bugs and “polished” a few things but they did system overhauls, gameplay improvements, added new features and improved overall performance. 

The Problem: Trust 

Here’s where things get “complicated”. Just because the games can/will get better doesn’t mean players are happy with it. And honestly, they shouldn’t be. If I gave you my hard earned money, I don’t expect to get a broken product. There’s a difference between improving a solid base and fixing something that clearly wasn’t ready. Gamers are not stupid, they know the difference immediately. 

Why Players Are Starting to Wait

As a result of everything I’ve said above, players are now waiting before purchasing the game. They either wait a week or two for “is it worth it now?” posts or they just wait for it to be on a sale. It’s not like they lack options. 

And before you even say it, no it’s not about saving money but it’s about getting the best version of the game before playing it. And ironically… The best version is often not the launch version anymore.

So… Is This Actually a Bad Thing?

It depends on how it’s handled. If the developers communicate clearly, keep improving the game, and actually listen to players feedback then it can be a good thing. If they simply admit to making mistakes and step up, everything is cool. Even if they have a half finished game and release it and if they just say ”Guys we know it’s not done but we ran out of money soooo”, I would completely understand.

But if they start acting shady, deflecting, blaming on players PC’s, completely ignoring the issues or start with vague promises (buy it and we might fix it), then yeah — it becomes a problem.

Conclusion

I know how it looks. But try to understand, gaming hasn’t necessarily gotten worse. It’s just different than it used to be. It’s important to remember not to judge the games that are in early access. It’s okay to give criticism and suggest new ideas but no need to hate on it for not being fully ready. I know for sure that there’s so many games like Palworld, Valheim, Windrose, and many more that wouldn’t be here at all if they weren’t released early.

What are your thoughts on this? Should games be released before they are fully done? Is it okay to sell unfinished products?