The first game was amazing. This one really doesn't feel unfinished as-is though. There's likely to be tons of balance changes, and I'm sure there will be bug fixes and more performance optimization updates to come... It's still super fun, why wait

I understand the sentiment and I generally agree with you but I think I can make a case for Hades as an exception.

I picked up the first one in ea because I was thirsty for a new roguelike and some friends raved about it enough to me, and it was already a great game. The changes that came over the period I played were additive in the sense that they just opened more options in a game that already felt complete to me (mostly anyways, but more on that in a sec). But to defend it I can’t just say “oh well it felt like a finished game” there also needs to be a tangible benefit to playing it in early access. And there was! The early access versions of the game included meta banter between the narrator and Zagreus, little jokes about new things appearing or things that should be there but aren’t, references to the fact that pieces of the story’s scaffold were still being set up. It sounds small but it was just more of the wonderful character charm that oozes from every corner of that game and I actually kind of missed it a little bit once the full release came. Anyways I haven’t picked up Hades 2 yet (been making more of an effort to clear my backlog lately), but I’m thinking about it. And as far as the ostensible “point” of early access—community feedback and income to support development—Supergiant has given me ample reason to trust that they’ll make it worth it for me as a player if I don’t want to wait for the polished final product.

A Supergiant game in Early Access is more finished than most fully-released triple-A titles.
Plus, as with the first Hades, they work the continued development into the narrative of the game.

Because they get to play it early. That's it. I played BG3 early and still had a lot of fun replaying Act 1 when it came out.

The studio gets a number of things, as well. While direct feedback is small, that is still valuable as they could never test that many hardware and software variants. They also get automated data from the software phoning home on crashes if that's enabled. And they get an influx of cash in the last few months of development as their sales spike gets a bit flattened. It's a winning strategy if you don't have the funds for a huge marketing blitz to drive initial sales.

I understand your point but you can also be satisfied with an early access game for what it had when you played regardless of later improvements. Valheim is a great example of this: you'll be hard pressed to find someone that wasn't satisfied with it, despite being unfinished.

Yeah, I feel like it's paying for the priveledge of being a beta tester. I am exited to play it, but I am not dropping money until the full release.

I will justify it in four words: It's a Hades sequel.

There's no way most of those 100k people are actually going to participate in the ea feedback / qa process

On first launch it asks if you're willing to have your play data submitted. So even if people don't actively send feedback they are still providing data about what systems/weapons/upgrades they engage with more or less, how successful their run is with any given weapon or upgrade, how frequently they win or lose in a given fight, etc.

You're getting downvoted but I agree. The first game is one of my most played on Steam and I was invited to the technical test for the second. But I probably won't be buying it any time soon. I absolutely hate the trend of buying unfinished products. While this developer is most likely not taking advantage, so many others do. Why should we pay money to beta test your game???