So, you are paying for the game before its done and your reward is being a beta tester?

An early access game is "playable" the minute it's added to the store but many times it's in such an early and horrible state that it's not much better as a game which in only on paper. 

True, but aren't the forums for that particular game on steam, filled with folks reporting on those very issues?  So, shouldn't it simply boil down to educating yourself on the title you're considering buying Early Access for?  Which...now that I think of it, is pretty much the problem with your average gamer.  They educate themselves on something AFTER they buy it, and not before.

This entire issue could be simply ignored, if people perform even a modicum of due dilligence prior to purchasing anything.

This is lazy and should not be supported. Game dev's and pubs know fully well how to create completed, functional, fun products, and have been doing so for 35 years. Video gaming is not some new market or hobby that the public needs to be involved in every step of the way. This is dev laziness. There are entire teams of creative artists and paid QA people involved in the dev lifecycle of every game already. Not every game is going to be the best thing ever and rake in CoD money for companies, and this will not change that.  The notion of paying to QA bugs for a large company is laughable.  I don't support it on Steam and def won't here either.

It still has advantages over Kickstarter because if that is the case then you get to easily know about it

With Kickstarter everyone is taking a risk until whenever the devs decide to release a beta, which could be well over half a year after the funding

An early access game gets filled with user feedback on forums right when it's released. You can easily make up your mind on whether you want to buy it or wait.

Hours of footage is uploaded to youtube. And you make your decision.

but when the game is released you can look up gameplay and try out a demo or read reviews of the finished product. Even if you do some research and the game looks awesome and you decide to pay to play it early and you dont like what they are doing, then you have already spent the money. So now youre just waiting for a game you dont want to play...

You underestimate the vast amount of Steam users who record video of their gameplay experiences, additionally, if you're concerned about gameplay in an Early Access, and you can't find video of it...why would you buy into it?  That makes no fiscal sense, whatsoever.  If you spend the money, before you actually know you want it, isn't that your fault?  I mean, how can it not?  Nobody's making you buy it, it's not compulsory as a member of steam etc...  This is simply transferring the blame of poor research and an inability to wait for a final product away from the buyer, onto the developer.  That just seems completely bassackwards to me.

Yeah, people can obviously read about it in forums but only from those who already run in this "trap". Some have to experience huge problems with a game to talk about it. 

And on consoles it would be  much worse since I expect more PC gamers to check it out in forums before they buy a game as the average console gamer would do. I mean, the PC gamer is already in front of his PC if he sees something he could be interested in. 

But I think Sony would check these games out before so that they would be only allowed in an acceptable state. 

So buying a non-early access game, not liking it and then getting stuck with a game that is never going to improve, is better?

It doesn't matter to me, I think they should do it because some people will like that and you need variety in every aspect. As for me I like games being finished , then I go to target and get my copy , plus a guide if it has nice art work.