There's this, though no idea what the quality of the series is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Tycoon_%28series%29

Anyway, sure, sometimes your back is against the wall and you have to release the game in early access to keep your development studio in existence.

Hell, that's what Double Fine is doing with Broken Age (their kickstarter); the studio isn't out of money entirely, but they've diverted as many funds as possible from other avenues (all revenue from games selling on Steam went to fund Broken Age, they did a Humble Bundle almost expressly to just generate some one-time revenue to add to the pile for Broken Age, etc.), and after all that the project still wasn't going to have the funds needed to develop the whole game as planned, which is why it's now basically 2 parts, and the first part is going to be sold through early access. So I can sympathize, if only because I've seen a couple documentary episodes of Tim Schafer and Greg Rice agonizing over how they'd really rather ship a complete game as intended, but this is literally their only option aside from just cutting out half the game and shipping what they've got. Ironically, they've been forced into the TellTale adventure game model of releasing an adventure game episodically.

I would feel better if I knew that every Early Access game was in such dire straits and the devs needed to release it unfinished just to keep the lights on, and maybe that is the case! But some of the descriptions just seem kinda like "Hey, we're still tinkering away on the game, but we figured we'd throw it up there now, so tell us how you think the game is doing, cool?". Like I mentioned earlier, State of Decay's inclusion seems weird, since that game sold fairly well on XBLA and while I know PC ports aren't completely trivial for a small team, I really doubt they are in desperate need of money.

I feel like the pay-for-beta phenomenon is a lot like the dot-com bubble. There's an incentive to focus on creating early buzz and getting a bunch of people to invest in the potential you tell them this thing has, and an actual finished product becomes less of a priority.

What they really, really, really need to do is to name an aimed-at release window. Just say "We strive to finish the game in February 2014" or something like that. Cause I want to know how "finished" the game is when I buy it or when I can expect a full release.

I don't care what happens to Early Access because the label is not properly applied to many games - it is a sham. Some non-EA games are betas or simply unfinished, such as Dark Matter which has no ending. The pricing of Early Access is also questionable - in particular Plantary Annihilation and Akaneiro Demon Hunters. The former is abnormally expensive to quell complaints about the game's current state, and the latter is a free-to-play game that is currently not free to play, but instead $9.99.

My final concern about Early Access: I feel there will be a few games that never leave it.

I like Early access games. I believe Don't starve was one, and Kerbal Space Program is currently one. Both I played while it was in beta, both are fantastic games.

I love seeing a game slowly come together.

I don't mind the concept of Early Access, but I agree with the sentiment that none of those games should be appearing on the front page of Steam until their official release. Early Access should simply be it's own section on the store. Currently it's dominating, taking over a large portion of the market, and shoving full, completed releases out of the spotlight.

To be honest, I feel the same way about advertising pre-orders on Steam. Whenever I see a game on the Steam home page, I expect it to be something that is completed, that I can purchase right there, play, and have a complete experience.

If I'm already excited about a game pre-release, to the point where I'm already sold, I JUST can't wait for it to come out, and I'd want to check it out early instead of adding it to my wishlist or pre-ordering... this is where Early Access might come into play, and could be pretty cool, especially if it's the type of game that you can come back to without having to start a new story or something. However, I'd already know the name of the game, and thus, I'd simply be able to search for it.

I'm also aware that it might be interesting to simply see what games are on the horizon and get a taste for what's coming next, or to follow the development process, without having to search for a specific game... but that's why there's an Early Access section on the store. They should simply stick all Early Access games there until they're ready for a full release. Enough with the front page Early Access crap, Valve!

So, to answer your question, no... I wouldn't care if they got rid of Early Access... but I also think it's a cool idea that has simply been implemented poorly.

Personally I'm not too interested in playing many alpha/beta games but I think having it available as an option is a good thing. I've backed project cars & I'm planning to back next car game even though I'm not too interested in putting many hours into either before they're finished. I just like having the ability to give an opinion the dev's can see if there's something I think is really wrong with the game. It sounds like the issues people are having with early access will go away once more people realize what games are like pre release.

Early access just seems to be a glorified demo that you pay for. I think there needs to be some type of quality control with them like they must meet x to be considered. I feel like most of whats out there is basically the devs getting the engine running the menu working and saying ok this is what it will look like now give us money and we will add some more stuff. I played prison architect months ago ive had my fill i wont be going back to play the full game. Is it possible that early access can hurt the game? i feel it is