Then shortly after came SpaceBase DF-9. This one was cancelled while still in Early Access. DoubleFine said that it was because sales weren't there to continue funding. That's PR speak for "the game sucked and people didn't want it".

When Steam introduced Early Access, they included this part: "Early Access is a full purchase of a playable game.". They specifically stressed that the game should be exciting (to the buyer) at the point of purchase, as the possibility exists that the game will not be "finished". In my opinion, regardless of the warnings given, a steam customer should be able to expect a reasonable quality from their purchases.

Around the time SpaceBase DF-9 started, DoubleFine was exploring several methods to fund the development of their games. SpaceBase DF-9 was an experiment to see how they could use the Early Access platform of steam in a way to fund the development of their game. What they ended up doing was exploit the Early Access system in a way it was never intended, in an effort to reduce responsibility in return for funding. In essence, their idea was to collect money from early access sales to fund development. They grossly overestimated how many people would buy a game that was not even remotely playable, so they ended up canning the project.

The SB DF-9 project was in pre-Alpha when it came to steam. There was nothing to play and it should not have been allowed on Steam! You cannot even say that the game sucked at this point, because there was no game. As sales stagnated more and more, DoubleFine started offering SB DF-9 up for heavy discounts and even included it in a few bundles (this is terrible behavior towards early adopters!). In fact, they added it to a bundle right before making the 'cancellation' announcement, knowing it was going to happen. The devs ended up rushing to a stable version and all promises made were discarded with the excuse that the community could work on it through the steam workshop.

In my opinion, if you offer a game up for Early Access, it should at least be in late alpha or early beta stage. However, I also feel that the traditional alpha and beta definitions don't work using steam Early Access. The most important part is to first finish the core gameplay of your game. It should be playable up to some degree, but does not necessarily have to be feature-complete. Any additions, optional or not, can be added at later stages during the development process while the game remains in Early Access. If, at any point, you find yourself in a position where you want to completely revamp your game (core and all), you went to Early Access too soon.

New features can be added based on Early Access sales, but they should not be features promised from the very start of the project. If you cannot realistically fund it, do not promise it. If your sales are good, you can add that you've now accumulated enough funds to add new content to your game.

Thus, in essence:

• Don't add your game to EA unless it's in a playable late alpha / early beta state
• Don't add your game to EA if the core gameplay is viable to fundamental changes
• Don't make feature promises you cannot realistically fund. This means: do not use EA sales as a kickstarter campaign!
• Don't offer steep discounts on your EA title: being an EA player is not a privilege, so don't screw over early adopters who want to help out by selling the same incomplete game for even less.
• Don't put your EA title in a bundle deal for the same reason as the previous point.
• Communicate with your customers and keep them updated on what work you do. This can prevent misunderstandings where players feel the project has been abandoned.