Take BF series (by that i mean 3/4) and Titanfall for example: Those 3 games only offer a short few days or what have you for a quick playthrough before launch. Now most people would assume that the sole purpose of this is to test net code, server-load and iron out any bugs before launch, right? What if i told its more of a marketing tool more than a live software test, that its used as a way to build hype just before launch day by giving you a small taste of whats on offer. Then comes along launch day, weeks months perhaps an entire year go by and yet the game the game is still a buggy mess, that will probably not be fixed before the next sequal. Now i know you havent mentioned Origin/BF or Titanfall, but it seems unfair to single out Valve and not have a go at anyone else. Going by the majority of threads i've read about the condition of BF4 and the fact that its suffering the exact same issues as BF3, same goes for Ghosts, which are so called AAA (whatever the fek that means) who have ridiculous amounts of cash backing them yet year after year people play the beta, see it has issues, convinces themselves that it'll be fix come release day, then are somehow taken by surprise that BF/COD are a broken mess for the next few months as if its something new. Gamers are just as predictable as they games they continue to support. The difference with the early access games on steam is that if you dont buy it right off the bat and just look at reviews/previews from other gamers who have bought E/A, you can see what you dont like as progress is made, you can see what the current issues are and what direction the game is taking. Its the perfect development process and the most honest us gamers have ever seen.