Subnautica 2 developer believes early access teams should worry less about adding features that are very ugly, incomplete, or still prototypes

Background: Steam Early Access and the 2014 Launch of the Original Subnautica

The original Subnautica arrived in 2014, roughly one month after the Steam Early Access program began, and it has since been described as one of the oldest success stories associated with that model. For Unknown Worlds, the studio behind Subnautica, early access was not a brief pre-release experiment. It became a long-term way of developing, publishing, and listening to players.

Subnautica 2 creative director Anthony Gallegos frames that history as a lesson for other developers: ship new ideas quickly, test them while they are still rough, and watch how players react. The advice is blunt. Rather than hiding development behind closed doors, the studio should expose unfinished features to players and treat that exposure as part of the process.

Gallegos spoke these views as part of a group discussion about early access with GamesIndustry.biz. The discussion returned repeatedly to a basic question: what does it mean for a game to be “in development” in public? For Unknown Worlds, the answer is that public development can create a relationship with players that is stronger than a conventional launch cycle.

A spoiler warning is needed here: the article later refers to a memorable horror moment in the original Subnautica, in which a Reaper grabs the player's submarine's face. That moment is used as an example of how the studio refined the final version by watching players and streamers interact with the game.

Development: Radical Transparency, Player Feedback, and an Empathetic Audience

Gallegos says Subnautica often released features when they were still very rough, incomplete, or prototype-stage. That approach gave fans a visible sense of watching the game take shape. Few studios have attempted that kind of open development, especially for a franchise that has become as large as Subnautica.

The studio's reasoning is not simply that early players are willing to tolerate bugs or missing content. It is that transparency can create trust. Unknown Worlds describes this as cultivating an empathetic audience through radical transparency. The studio trusts players to give it some grace while it figures out difficult design problems. In return, players trust that the team will make the game great in the fullness of time.

That exchange requires communication. Gallegos argues that developers should keep talking to players, take feedback seriously, and make it clear how important their input is. He also emphasizes balance: a studio should preserve its vision, but it should also let players help shape the best version of the game. In other words, feedback is not an obstacle to creative direction. It is part of the process that strengthens that direction.

This philosophy has become central to Unknown Worlds. Early access is not treated as a temporary label attached to an unfinished product. It remains core to the studio's DNA, even as it continues developing Subnautica 2.

Latest: Subnautica 2, Robot Frogs, and a Crowded Early Access Market

The next concrete detail in the source material is that Subnautica 2 is about to receive a nourishing injection of robot frogs. That update is a small but telling sign of how the studio continues to use early access as a live development channel: new ideas are introduced, tested, and refined while players are still engaged with the project.

The broader early access environment, however, has changed. GamesIndustry.biz reports, citing SteamDB, that 2,924 early access games have launched on Steam this year so far. That number shows how crowded the space has become. A model that once felt fresh and exotic is now a common commercial strategy.

Gallegos acknowledges that “early access” covers a wide range of practices. For a studio like Unknown Worlds, it can mean long-term open development. For another project, it can mean a game three months from a 1.0 release, effectively functioning as a paid beta soft launch. In that second case, the Early Access label may be used partly to soften player expectations.

The distinction matters because not every team has the same reputation or history. Unknown Worlds benefited from being an early success story. Newer teams may not receive the same benefit of the doubt. When players have already experienced polished early access titles, their tolerance for unfinished systems can shrink. A small studio without the same track record may be compared to older, better-known operators, even when its budget, goals, and development stage are very different.

Analysis: How Big Budgets and Success Stories Shape Expectations

Elsewhere in the GamesIndustry.biz article, Denis Dyack, CEO of Deadhaus Sonata developer Apocalypse Studios, argues that expectations are unavoidably set by early access developers with the largest budgets. He cites Subnautica 2 as an example. The point is that successful, high-profile early access projects can change how players interpret the entire category.

If one early access game is polished, transparent, and widely liked, players may begin to expect similar conditions from every other project using the same label. That creates a difficult dynamic for smaller or less established studios. The label “Early Access” may signal unfinished work, but players may also read it as a promise that the developer will communicate openly, iterate rapidly, and ultimately deliver a strong final product.

This is why communication becomes so important. The source suggests that early access is no longer easily separated from live service. A game can be labeled “unfinished,” but if players expect continuous updates, they may treat it much like a service that is always in motion. The dividing line between a traditional launch and an ongoing development cycle becomes less clear.

Within that environment, the reader's question changes. It is no longer only “Is this game finished?” It becomes “What kind of unfinished game is this?” Is it a long-term open development experiment, where players are invited to shape the direction over years? Or is it a near-final product using early access as a softer label before 1.0? The difference is not just marketing language. It affects how much roughness, how many missing features, and how much uncertainty a player might reasonably accept.

The article also leaves readers with a set of practical questions: What degree of instability is tolerable in an early access release? What content can be fairly left for the final version? How important is developer communication, really? And does the answer depend entirely on the game? The source does not impose a single standard. It presents early access as a spectrum, with trust, transparency, and expectations moving along with it.

Current Stage: Early Access as an Operating Model for Subnautica 2

The current stage of Unknown Worlds' relationship with early access is not a transition away from the model. It is an extension of it. Subnautica 2 is still being developed inside an identity shaped by the original Subnautica's long public evolution. The studio continues to treat early access as central to how it builds games, communicates with players, and refines ideas under observation.

The market around that model is now far more crowded than it was in 2014. With 2,924 early access games launched on Steam this year so far, the category has lost its novelty. What remains important is not merely using the Early Access label, but earning the trust that makes the label work. Unknown Worlds' history suggests that trust can be built through radical transparency, visible development, honest communication, and a willingness to expose rough features to players early.

For readers, the takeaway is less about celebrating one studio's past and more about understanding how early access now functions. It can be a genuine open development process, a soft launch, a paid beta, or something in between. The difference matters because it shapes what players should expect, how much grace they may give, and whether a developer's promise to improve the game over time is credible.

The source's closing tone remains informal. It compares the phrase “very ugly, incomplete, or prototype” to a Sergio Leone industry documentary that never happened, then returns to the reader with a simple but difficult question: what are you willing to accept in an unfinished game, and how much should communication make up for what the game cannot yet show?