

ICARUS
Price History
Past 36 months · Updated dailyPrices cover Steam and 39 authorized stores; only legitimate offers are counted. The chart shows weekly market-wide lows and Steam's official price across the past 36 months.



















01About ICARUS
ICARUS is a PvE survival game set on a terraformed planet whose hostile wilderness rewards preparation. Explore, gather resources, craft equipment, and hunt while taking on missions or settling into a persistent open world. Play alone or with up to eight co-op players, choosing between Open World, timed Missions, and creative Outposts. Steam PC player reviews: 75%% positive from 56,433 reviews. Supported interface languages: Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, English, French, German, Portuguese-Brazil, Russian, Spanish-Latin America, Japanese, and Korean. Released December 3, 2021.
Credits
Lowest recorded in 36 months
$3.492025-12-18 · SteamBase game · same records as the chart above; USD history, not a regional Steam low.Language support
| Language | Interface | Subtitles | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simplified Chinese | Yes | Yes | — |
| Traditional Chinese | Yes | Yes | — |
| English | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Show 7 more languages
| Language | Interface | Subtitles | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|
| French | Yes | Yes | — |
| German | Yes | Yes | — |
| Portuguese-Brazil | Yes | Yes | — |
| Russian | Yes | Yes | — |
| Spanish-Latin America | Yes | Yes | — |
| Japanese | Yes | Yes | — |
| Korean | Yes | Yes | — |
Steam PC edition data · 2026-10-18
02Before you buy
Language
Steam PC interface text includes English, German, and Chinese, among other languages. Full audio is listed for English only.
Play modes
Play solo, in co-op with up to eight players, or on dedicated servers. Modes include Open World, timed Missions, and creative Outposts.
03Frequently asked questions
Can I play solo or cooperatively?
Yes. The game supports solo play, co-op for up to eight players, and dedicated servers.
What modes are available?
Choose Open World, timed Missions, or creative Outposts. Narrative quests can be played as Open World Operations or as separate Missions.
What do you do in the game?
Explore, gather, craft, and hunt in a harsh PvE wilderness while pursuing missions or surviving in a persistent open world.
“A hardcore co-op survival sim where losable timed prospects and weather that can torch your base outshine a forgettable story”
Our Verdict
The verdict is 7.5. This is an underrated, time-rescued hardcore survival game — it does not court everyone, but the one thing it set out to do, it does with real conviction.
From a lukewarm launch to an unlikely second wind

At release, ICARUS managed only a lukewarm reputation: a 69 average from sixteen critics on the aggregator and a 33 percent recommendation rate, parked squarely in the "fair" tier, with bugs, crashes and punishing penalties named in nearly every review that went up. For most games that kind of opening is a quiet death — a slow slide off the charts and out of the conversation within a season. This one flatly refused it. Through near-daily patches that chipped away at the jank, two substantial expansions that nearly doubled the game, and years of unbroken polish — then boosted by an early-2026 launch on new console hardware that put it in front of a fresh audience — it stumbled into a genuine second wind almost five years on. In a market this allergic to old releases, where most titles get one launch window and never another, that comeback is rare enough to be worth dwelling on, and it says something real about the bones underneath the early mess. Studios rarely get a second first impression; ICARUS effectively manufactured one through sheer persistence, and the version players are discovering now is a markedly better game than the one critics reviewed at launch. That is the unglamorous truth behind a lot of survival-game success stories — the genre runs on patience, and the developers who keep showing up tend to outlast the ones who shipped flashier launches and walked away.
Who should buy, who should walk, and which version to grab

The numbers make the case best. Developer Dean Hall revealed that during the late-2025 Steam Winter Sale the base game sold 984,000 copies in that promotion alone, with another 243,000 players buying DLC, while concurrent players climbed from just over nine thousand in November to north of thirty-five thousand in December and kept rising into the new year. A five-year-old survival game pulling off that kind of comeback is not a marketing fluke; it is a core loop that holds up under repeated scrutiny — good things, even late, eventually get found.
So who is it for? If you want to be pushed step by careful step by the environment, to feel the primal payoff of turning raw wilderness into a working base — ideally with a few regular teammates — this off-world trip will sink its hooks in. Flip it around, and if you want snappy combat, a tight story, or have no patience for the steep on-ramp and the hard penalties of XP-wiping deaths and permanent character loss on a failed prospect — especially as a solo player — it will most likely turn you away. No patch fixes that; this is simply the design it is. On versions, the safe pick is the edition that includes New Frontiers for the fullest content, with platforms each making trade-offs: PC has the higher ceiling, smoother UI and up to eight players, while console is convenient and still stunning to look at and hear but ships a controller-hostile UI and a four-player cap. In the end, the thing hardest to copy is the one-two punch of the losable timed prospect bolted to wipe-on-exit, persist-forever progression — and its most direct rival, ARK: Survival Evolved Ultimate Edition, leans on near-endless taming and accumulation, the never-ending loop that ICARUS deliberately set itself against. It does not want you to play forever. It wants every single run to be winnable, and losable.
Popular Steam reviews
Native-language selection · 10 reviewsSelected helpful reviews in this language show both recommendations and criticisms. This selection does not represent the overall positive rating; opinions reflect the version reviewed.
I wish Steam would let me give a mixed review for this game because my mind is really split down the middle on this one. I like so many more things about this game than I hate but the things that I hate, I REALLY hate. I would tentatively recommend this game for big-time lovers of survival games. For anyone else, I would maybe wait and check back in on the game status in a year or so. I feel frustrated because this game has enormous potential. It has all the right pieces and building blocks, they just aren’t quite fitting together the right way. Icarus has a lot going for itself but in its current state, the game leaves much to be desired. There’s a lot to talk about here so I’m gonna break it down with some pros and cons. Pros: The game is beautiful. Even without cranking the graphics up to their max, the game looks and feels breathtaking. Lighting and shadows are crisp and dynamic, the environment oscillates easily through a beautiful day/night cycle, and the general atmosphere and ambience is well-rounded. The survival mechanics are fantastic. With the player needing to monitor things like body temperature, thirst, hunger, and oxygen levels, keeping yourself alive requires attentiveness but is not unnecessarily burdensome. Forest fires! Finally, a survival game that lets you set a tree on fire and watch in morbid glee as an entire forest goes up in flames! Inclement weather events! With random weather events from minor winds to severe blizzards, this adds a whole new survival aspect to the game. Some weather events are little more than an inconvenience whereas others can cause trees to topple over, make you the victim of a lightning strike, or tear the roof right off your house. While the weather events can be unforgiving and deadly, I must say this is perhaps my favorite aspect of the game. Unique gameplay. This is the only survival game I’ve played that essentially has you start fresh with each new mission, dropping you into the map with nothing. While I do think this system is a new and interesting take on a survival game with good potential, I have some major criticisms about the way this is actually implemented. Cons: The chief issue that I have with the game is that the game flow is severely hindered by the incongruity between the mission lengths and the time investment of having to start from scratch for each mission. I’m actually quite a fan of the idea of having to regularly start fresh but the way this works in Icarus is pretty frustrating. Most missions take between 30 min and 6 hours to complete which just isn’t long enough for the grind of starting over to be anything other than criminally boring. I think this “start from scratch” idea could still work but only after significant edits to the gameplay workflow. There are many potential solutions to fix this tedious gameplay but I don’t have the space to suggest any here and still discuss the other major cons. Whatever the case, it feels like the missions are at an awkward stage of length: long enough to require you to invest time into gathering resources, crafting tools/weapons, and building stable shelters, but not long enough for you to really sink your teeth into the medium and high tiers of the craftable items which brings me to my next point: Most medium and high-tier craftable items are effectively useless. A majority of these items require unnecessarily intensive resource gathering to yield an item that is only mildly more effective than its lower-tier counterpart. This problem is compounded by the fact that you cannot take any of your crafted items with you for the next mission so why bother wasting an hour of your time trying to make a weapon that is only marginally better than a simpler one that will still get the job done? Plot/premise incongruities. I feel that in order for a mission-based survival game like this to be effective and engaging, it must rely on some sort of overarching premise to bind the different game elements together. The devs set themselves up beautifully for this in advertisements and the general game aesthetic but really just fail to follow through with it. I love the idea that Icarus was a lifeless planet that humans tried (and failed) to terraform into Earth.2.0. Unfortunately, I feel like the creators use this setting as a crutch to haphazardly excuse various game elements rather than investing themselves into creating an interesting reality and then using the game to reveal that reality to the player. E.G., It’s mentioned that the atmosphere of the planet turned “toxic” during the terraforming process which is why the planet is uninhabitable for humans. But if that’s the case, why are there still bears and wolves and deer walking around? I was initially expecting that the player would slowly discover that the toxic atmosphere had caused the plants/animals to evolve strange characteristics that allow them to survive the hostile environment, but by all counts, the deer on Icarus are no different than the deer that wander through my neighborhood in suburban Colorado. This is just one of many many examples of missed opportunities with the sci-fi elements of the game but at the end of the day, the pine trees in this foreign, extraterrestrial landscape are the same bland trees growing in my backyard. Bummer. The polar bears… I do not know what the devs had goin on in their personal lives when they made the polar bears in this game but when you’re going up against 1300 pounds of pure hatred that can run at 92 miles per hour, scale near-vertical cliffs, and slap your shrimpy lil biped butt back into orbit, your best hope is to pray. Just generally fighting hostile animals. It’s not that it’s particularly hard, it’s just wildly inconsistent. I think this inconsistency arises mostly because face shots deal significant bonus damage to animals (which makes sense); the problem is that the hitboxes are either terribly buggy or woefully oversimplified. You must hit an animal directly in the face (not head) to receive the damage bonus; hitting an animal in the side/back of the head or neck will do the same amount of damage as hitting it in the foot. The damage dealt to you by the animals is also terribly inconsistent. In some instances, hostile animals struggle to do any damage to you at all whereas other times, they can deal massive damage without even looking in your direction. They are also able to deal damage for about a full second after they are killed meaning it’s not uncommon to barely survive an encounter with a bear only to be killed moments later by the bear’s lifeless corpse (note that this has happened to me in both online multiplayer and offline solo so I don’t suspect this is a lag/ping issue). Scientific blasphemy. Maybe this is nit-picking, but for a realistic sci-fi survival game as highly anticipated as this, I had expected the scientifically relevant aspects of the game to at least make some sense. Many of them do not :/ A prime example is the fact that whenever the player is in an underground cave, they receive the “underground” debuff which significantly affects health/stamina regen. As if it wasn’t already weird that you are debuffed simply by walking into a cave, you also risk contracting pneumonia whilst underground. Given that the player is wearing an air-tight suit (“toxic” atmosphere, remember), I am fascinated to know how airborne viruses/fungi are getting into the player’s lungs and further baffled why this can only happen underground. There is still more to talk about with both pros and cons but I think this list at least hits some of my thoughts thus far into the game. All of the cons I’ve mentioned (and most, if not all the cons that I’ve seen other reviewers mention) are perfectly fixable problems; at this point, I'm just waiting to see if the developer is willing to put in the time and energy required to turn Icarus into the smash hit sci-fi survival game that it was advertised to be..Show moreShow less
The fact that we as gamers can't tell the difference between an "Early Access" and "Full Release" title these days should be unacceptable "But Joe, how is this not a full release?" A few of my PC specs for reference: 2080Ti, i7-8700k, 32GB of RAM Oh boy, I don't even know where to begin but let's name a few reasons: - For a full release title, performance is absolutely terrible. I've spent well over ten hours trying to find reasonable settings and I still haven't found it yet. - Multiple "coming soon" crafting items AND missions. If this is a full release game, there is absolutely no reason to have something labelled "coming soon" unless the game isn't in a finished state. - Several errors left in the game that LITERALLY SAY "beta state only" - The games description on Steam mentions "Explore a savage alien wilderness in the aftermath of terraforming gone wrong". The only thing in the game that is alien is a cave worm, a bigger cave worm (boss) and Oxite. Everything else is earthbound: pumpkins, berries, carrots, squash, watermelon, etc. The wildlife? Wolves, bears, cougars, hyenas, fish, elephants, zebras, etc. Not a single thing here is alien. - If you go back and take a look a their earlier announcement trailers, you'll notice SEVERAL actual alien creatures, including VEHICLES! None of that is present in their "full release game". If your defense to this one is "they said it'll be added in later" then you've proved the entire point of this review. - Animal levels in the game have zero purpose outside of a few extra XP given. They don't do more damage and they don't have more health. - Missions are clearly copy/pasted and rushed. Go to three areas, scan them, leave (or close to that same formula). - Outposts (aka sandbox mode) completely leave out predators, ultimately handicapping you on essential resources for advancement. No option is given to add those predators into the game at any point. Considering the desert biome is mostly predators, I can only imagine how empty that biome actually is in sandbox mode. Devs, I appreciate the free key and effort you've put into this game so far and I will admit there is a fun game sitting here. This isn't your fault, the project leads failed you on this one and rushed it out for holiday sales. Shame on them releasing this as a Full Release title. Comments regarding my play time: Yes, I left a review at 1.4 hours. It didn't take long to see this wasn't a finished game. Yes I continued to play for ~30 more hours. To those who feel this invalidates my review, that's fine. For those looking to understand why; I spent ~10 hours troubleshooting looking for the "my game runs fine" middle ground I kept seeing in the comments. Needless to say, the game still runs horribly. I continued to play beyond those extra troubleshooting hours because there IS something fun about the game. I can't tell what, but there is a foundation there for something great. I also wanted to see what else the game had to offer. To see if things got better. I think that's fair. If anything the fact that I STILL don't recommend this game after sinking more time into it should further valid my review. I gave it a fair shot. Comments regarding me getting the game for free I've been reading comments mentioning that "I don't get to have an opinion" simply because I received this game for free. I encourage you to think a bit differently regarding your stance. The fact I have received a game for free doesn't mean it automatically receives a positive review. If that was the case, you'd never get an honest review. If I'm recommending against this game despite getting a free key, that should speak volumes to you. In response to the Developer comment: This is typical PR speak. If we can just keep it real with each other, everyone would benefit from honesty and transparency. You failed to reassure me or anyone else. You managed to admit nothing outside of you "feel confident the game is still in a 1.0 state", yet in the very next sentence you state "expect to see a lot of patches, tweaks and updates over the following days, weeks, and months." but what you described is exactly what an early access game is. Don't get me wrong, I'm on board with you all fixing the game. However this is an incredibly misleading and dangerous tactic to advertise your game as a full release when it is nowhere close to being full release. Conclusion If I had to take a guess, they fell behind on development, bought basic assets for resources/ animals and tossed it into the game either as the final cut or as placeholders until they can actually finish the game. They labelled it full release because they wanted to avoid the stigma "early access" brings. This is easily comparable to the original launch of No Man's Sky; Over promised, under delivered, fix later. This is not acceptable and shouldn't be to you either. It's ok if you enjoy the game, but you should be more objective when it comes to identifying a games problems if you want games to be better. If we want better games, we need to expect better and be better.Show moreShow less
I wish Steam would let me give a mixed review for this game because my mind is really split down the middle on this one. I like so many more things about this game than I hate but the things that I hate, I REALLY hate. I would tentatively recommend this game for big-time lovers of survival games. For anyone else, I would maybe wait and check back in on the game status in a year or so. I feel frustrated because this game has enormous potential. It has all the right pieces and building blocks, they just aren’t quite fitting together the right way. Icarus has a lot going for itself but in its current state, the game leaves much to be desired. There’s a lot to talk about here so I’m gonna break it down with some pros and cons. Pros: The game is beautiful. Even without cranking the graphics up to their max, the game looks and feels breathtaking. Lighting and shadows are crisp and dynamic, the environment oscillates easily through a beautiful day/night cycle, and the general atmosphere and ambience is well-rounded. The survival mechanics are fantastic. With the player needing to monitor things like body temperature, thirst, hunger, and oxygen levels, keeping yourself alive requires attentiveness but is not unnecessarily burdensome. Forest fires! Finally, a survival game that lets you set a tree on fire and watch in morbid glee as an entire forest goes up in flames! Inclement weather events! With random weather events from minor winds to severe blizzards, this adds a whole new survival aspect to the game. Some weather events are little more than an inconvenience whereas others can cause trees to topple over, make you the victim of a lightning strike, or tear the roof right off your house. While the weather events can be unforgiving and deadly, I must say this is perhaps my favorite aspect of the game. Unique gameplay. This is the only survival game I’ve played that essentially has you start fresh with each new mission, dropping you into the map with nothing. While I do think this system is a new and interesting take on a survival game with good potential, I have some major criticisms about the way this is actually implemented. Cons: The chief issue that I have with the game is that the game flow is severely hindered by the incongruity between the mission lengths and the time investment of having to start from scratch for each mission. I’m actually quite a fan of the idea of having to regularly start fresh but the way this works in Icarus is pretty frustrating. Most missions take between 30 min and 6 hours to complete which just isn’t long enough for the grind of starting over to be anything other than criminally boring. I think this “start from scratch” idea could still work but only after significant edits to the gameplay workflow. There are many potential solutions to fix this tedious gameplay but I don’t have the space to suggest any here and still discuss the other major cons. Whatever the case, it feels like the missions are at an awkward stage of length: long enough to require you to invest time into gathering resources, crafting tools/weapons, and building stable shelters, but not long enough for you to really sink your teeth into the medium and high tiers of the craftable items which brings me to my next point: Most medium and high-tier craftable items are effectively useless. A majority of these items require unnecessarily intensive resource gathering to yield an item that is only mildly more effective than its lower-tier counterpart. This problem is compounded by the fact that you cannot take any of your crafted items with you for the next mission so why bother wasting an hour of your time trying to make a weapon that is only marginally better than a simpler one that will still get the job done? Plot/premise incongruities. I feel that in order for a mission-based survival game like this to be effective and engaging, it must rely on some sort of overarching premise to bind the different game elements together. The devs set themselves up beautifully for this in advertisements and the general game aesthetic but really just fail to follow through with it. I love the idea that Icarus was a lifeless planet that humans tried (and failed) to terraform into Earth.2.0. Unfortunately, I feel like the creators use this setting as a crutch to haphazardly excuse various game elements rather than investing themselves into creating an interesting reality and then using the game to reveal that reality to the player. E.G., It’s mentioned that the atmosphere of the planet turned “toxic” during the terraforming process which is why the planet is uninhabitable for humans. But if that’s the case, why are there still bears and wolves and deer walking around? I was initially expecting that the player would slowly discover that the toxic atmosphere had caused the plants/animals to evolve strange characteristics that allow them to survive the hostile environment, but by all counts, the deer on Icarus are no different than the deer that wander through my neighborhood in suburban Colorado. This is just one of many many examples of missed opportunities with the sci-fi elements of the game but at the end of the day, the pine trees in this foreign, extraterrestrial landscape are the same bland trees growing in my backyard. Bummer. The polar bears… I do not know what the devs had goin on in their personal lives when they made the polar bears in this game but when you’re going up against 1300 pounds of pure hatred that can run at 92 miles per hour, scale near-vertical cliffs, and slap your shrimpy lil biped butt back into orbit, your best hope is to pray. Just generally fighting hostile animals. It’s not that it’s particularly hard, it’s just wildly inconsistent. I think this inconsistency arises mostly because face shots deal significant bonus damage to animals (which makes sense); the problem is that the hitboxes are either terribly buggy or woefully oversimplified. You must hit an animal directly in the face (not head) to receive the damage bonus; hitting an animal in the side/back of the head or neck will do the same amount of damage as hitting it in the foot. The damage dealt to you by the animals is also terribly inconsistent. In some instances, hostile animals struggle to do any damage to you at all whereas other times, they can deal massive damage without even looking in your direction. They are also able to deal damage for about a full second after they are killed meaning it’s not uncommon to barely survive an encounter with a bear only to be killed moments later by the bear’s lifeless corpse (note that this has happened to me in both online multiplayer and offline solo so I don’t suspect this is a lag/ping issue). Scientific blasphemy. Maybe this is nit-picking, but for a realistic sci-fi survival game as highly anticipated as this, I had expected the scientifically relevant aspects of the game to at least make some sense. Many of them do not :/ A prime example is the fact that whenever the player is in an underground cave, they receive the “underground” debuff which significantly affects health/stamina regen. As if it wasn’t already weird that you are debuffed simply by walking into a cave, you also risk contracting pneumonia whilst underground. Given that the player is wearing an air-tight suit (“toxic” atmosphere, remember), I am fascinated to know how airborne viruses/fungi are getting into the player’s lungs and further baffled why this can only happen underground. There is still more to talk about with both pros and cons but I think this list at least hits some of my thoughts thus far into the game. All of the cons I’ve mentioned (and most, if not all the cons that I’ve seen other reviewers mention) are perfectly fixable problems; at this point, I'm just waiting to see if the developer is willing to put in the time and energy required to turn Icarus into the smash hit sci-fi survival game that it was advertised to be.Show moreShow less
I think everyone should be aware that the developer would rather push out new pricey DLC than fix the bugs in the base game. The bugs that have been there since launch and has been reported over and over. It's a scummy and greedy business model.Show moreShow less
Recommended, with some significant "but..." clauses added to it. If you're a fan of survival-craft games this one checks all the boxes. You get dropped into a dangerous environment which becomes progressively less dangerous as you grind your way up the technology tree and become more familiar with how things work in the game. The technology tree is deep and wide and offers a whole lot of upgrades and ever-more-efficient ways to accomplish your goals. There's the usual - pick up stick, use stick to hit rock, tie rock to stick to make axe, chop down tree, use log with bigger rock to mine iron, etc. etc. Eventually you work your way up to running around in full high-tech combat armor and laughing in the face of polar bears as rare and priceless resources spill out of your pockets. It's a very pretty game to look at, and it can offer enough diversity to keep you (and a few friends if you wish) busy with just building bases and goofing around. There is a lot of technology to unlock and a lot of weapons, machines and items to play with and experiment with. This is where the game really shines and a player can lose hours (or hundreds of them) just growing crops, churning cream and cleaning the gunk out of their waterwheel power generator. As a "homesteader simulation" it can be a lot of fun, but as a mission-driven game it starts to get a little wobbly. Icarus initially launched with a unique and controversial model of time-limited, discrete missions which would wipe everything you'd built off the map when the mission was done. A lot of people (myself included) didn't like this - after all, who enjoys spending 8 hours smacking rocks just to have the house and machines you've built be thrown away without any kind of payoff? So they added the Open World mode which allows you to play through most of the missions while keeping your carefully constructed base and hard-won resource stockpiles. This is better, and by RocketWerkz' own admission it has become the most popular game mode by a large margin. The missions still remain in the game though, and here's where the "but..." starts to creep into my review. While the missions provide a little bit of structure and encouragement to travel to new parts of the map ,the rewards are paltry and hardly worth the time and effort required to complete them. At the conclusion of each mission you're handed a little bit of scrip ("Ren") which can be used to purchase additional tools and items from the orbital space station. The biggest failing in this system is that it requires multiple missions (many of which can take 4-8 hours or more to complete) to buy even the worst of the available equipment, and even the best of the available equipment is inferior by a large degree to what you can make yourself. Icarus apologists and purists make the argument that the orbital Workshop items are just there to give you a running start when you first land for each mission, but the addition of Open World makes this head start largely superfluous. You can either spend 40 hours doing missions to be able to afford a pickaxe that's heavy, flimsy and capable of only mining Iron and Copper or you can spend 4 hours working your way up to making your own Titanium pickaxe that can do everything 10x better. Outside of the improved "Envirosuits" that you can purchase (which can't be crafted or changed on-planet) and a couple of the specialized suit modules and backpacks available for sale, there's very little incentive to actually run the missions or harvest the Exotic minerals. This is strange, because the entire gameplay loop appears to be that you're supposed to run missions and harvest Exotics in order to buy better gear, which in turn is supposed to allow you to access harsher areas of the planet and complete more rewarding missions and harvest greater quantities of Exotics in order to buy still better gear in order to... Well, you get the idea. In actuality, there is no "better gear" available in the Workshop and there are really no "harsher areas" of the planet either. There is a pair of Arctic areas and a pair of Desert areas which offer a small bit of additional challenge, but this is easily overcome by even a modestly prepared Prospector and, more troubling, these areas don't actually hide any resources or assets that you can't already find in the relatively safe Forest at considerably less risk and travel time. At its core, Icarus fails to offer the player any kind of incentive to explore or undertake missions beyond doing them for their own sake. There's nothing on the table to really work towards outside of leveling up to unlock blueprints for things you make for yourself - and you can do all of this within 1km of your comfortable lakeside cabin in the woods if you so desire. Once the technology tree is unlocked and you've had a chance to build everything and play with everything a little, the answer to the question of "what next?" mainly has to come from the player's own imagination. There's no story, no sense of progression or accomplishment, and what should have been the prime end-game goals - expensive and powerful Workshop equipment and deadly, high-paying missions that require them - are poorly implemented or just outright missing. 15 years ago Minecraft set the standard for these kinds of games and even back then they realized they needed to offer some kind of story and goals and ever-more-desirable resources to push the players away from the temperate forest and into the harsh deserts, snowy tundras and terrifying alternate dimensions. Icarus seems intent on reinventing the wheel and making those same mistakes all over again, but it can still be a fun and contemplative game for people who are able to set their own goals and enjoy doing them for their own sake. Ultimately my recommendation for this game depends on what the individual player is looking for. A player seeking a new game with a lot of what they enjoyed in, say, Stardew Valley might really like Icarus' take on the genre and the way it adds just a little more danger to the mix. For someone looking for a more linear sense of progression and storyline, or for someone who enjoys the hard grind into a challenging and satisfying endgame tier of content, this game may not fill the need.Show moreShow less
The game itself is actually quite decent. I'd even suggest picking it up during a sale and giving it a try. However, what really stands out in this situation is the fanservice and the way the developers handle their promises and criticisms. Lately, on their official Discord, it seems like all they do is talk about the expenses they're dealing with to make everything happen. Frankly, it gets a bit tiresome hearing about these complaints. They only seem to be active when they're about to release something new, like New Frontiers now. Other than that, they can go for months without any communication. They're going on about how much effort and money goes into creating a pet in the game, costing anywhere from $30k to $50k, and how players don't really understand the work behind it. Then they talk about features like full mod support, which we all know breathe life into games (remember how DayZ did it?), and they claim it would cost millions. They also mention something as simple as character customization being worth a million dollars. "Rocket | CEO" mentioned that those who bought the Supporters Edition will eventually get a significant discount. Depending on how many units are sold, the Supporters Edition might even end up not costing the developers anything, or possibly even causing them to lose money, especially in certain regions. Honestly, this kind of messaging to the people who believed in them and invested more to receive what was promised is a bit surprising. It's common knowledge that pre-orders and early supporters often get better deals. It's not rocket science (no pun intended). It seems like they're trying to make it look like they're the ones carrying the financial burden, which doesn't really sit right. This is a standard practice, and usually, it's the other way around – pre-orders are given at a discount. I can already imagine the defenders who will argue that we should support the developers. It's fine to have differing opinions, but we need to be honest about our concerns. The financial equation here is quite simple. The Icarus Deluxe Edition (that was the name of the edition I bought) costs $109.98, yet Styx, which everyone owning the game received for free, has a standalone cost of $23.44 (on promotion). The first DLC, priced at $25.49, brings the total to $48.93. Even if we factor in the $8.99 for Styx and a $5.99 add-on with lamps (which is also part of the deluxe edition), the total comes to $63.91 - and the next DLC won't cost $40 for sure, does that mean they'll start slicing out every little feature and selling them for $3-4 each just to hit that price point? The lack of transparency in their communication is baffling. Any expression of dissatisfaction is met with backlash from their supporters, who don't seem to grasp that if you don't voice your concerns, you won't see any improvements. On Discord, you're flooded with messages about how everything is perfect and fantastic, which doesn't make sense for a game that's still in development (and it's supposed to be the first year in Early Access, but that's a whole other issue). Encountering yet another update that introduces redundant features like two shields, coupled with the ongoing lack of progress in the development of the station shop and the repeatedly emphasized but elusive focus on future improvements, has thoroughly exhausted my patience. The absence of effective communication on these matters has significantly eroded my enthusiasm. I'm left in a state of uncertainty regarding the specifics of what the next game update will bring: what content will be added and how the game will evolve. The broad statements provided often fail to align with the actual changes that emerge when an update is eventually released. Take a look at the sudden surge in positive reviews today – it's clearly orchestrated by them. I'm sharing this negative feedback not because I dislike the game itself, but because I'm disappointed in the way the developers are handling their communication and game development. I'd still recommend buying and playing the game. While it's notably under-optimized, the recent changes seem to make the gameplay more accessible for a wider audience. Whether it suits your tastes or not is something you'll have to decide for yourself. If they follow through with the DLC as promised, it could potentially breathe new life into the game.Show moreShow less
How's it going everyone? I'm going to divide this into two parts: the pros and cons & tips for beginners. I feel like some people might get lost in the early hours of this game and I wanted to pitch my two cents worth of knowledge. Pros: - Fluid Day and Night Cycle. - Dynamic Weather System. - Temp/Food/Water/Oxygen Management. - Extensive Talent Tree. Cons: - A Few Bugs on Release. - Difficult to Find Fallen Loot and Objective Locations. - Combination of Certain Elements Makes Gameplay Difficult. Tips: - Always carry x2 floors and x4 walls to build a temp shelter to protect you from storms. - Always carry 1x bedroll if you need to place down an emergency spawn point. - Always carry 30x Oxite so you don't run out of oxygen. - Set up camp near sources of water. - Invest in bone weapons and medical equipment as soon as you can. Hopefully this will help some of you in the opening days of playing the game. Let me know if you found this review helpful and offer any other tips I might have missed. Have a Good One!Show moreShow less
EDIT: One of the developers surprisingly took the time out of their day to comment on my review today, which I honestly would have never expected. First, I never intended for this review to get so much attention, and honestly did not consider the possible effects it could cause for new individuals looking to purchase this game. When writing this review earlier today, I was coming fresh off of having Steam deny my fifth refund request for Battlefield 2042, and also attempting to play WW3 for the hundredth time without stuttering/rubber banding... so I was obviously a bit more heated than usual. Icarus is a complex game to review in its current state. I actually spent the money to purchase their Supporter Pack earlier this year, and played through a good number of their Beta weekends (having fun nonetheless). Somewhere towards the end of their Beta Weekends I stopped because it was becoming very repetitive. When I remembered that Icarus had recently launched, after the new Battlefield launch was completely ripped to shreds, I was really looking for something new to sink my teeth into and I wanted it to be Icarus more than anything. I expected quite a bit more content after playing through the first two missions, and maybe its only me, but I felt like the only 'new' content I saw from the Beta was different flora scattered around the world. Because of this, I left the terrible review below and really let my anger out. I am leaving the review up, because I won't now go back on my original opinion, but I have made some small changes to slightly lessen the blow of pure rage. If you're a fan of Survivals, and you're willing to stick this one out, Icarus really has the potential to grow into something incredible, however, there IS ALOT OF WORK TO BE DONE, that is the honest truth. To the Developers: I agree. I don't truly believe Icarus will be microtransaction ridden, but I do hope that you guys are able to continue building onto this current base, and really make Icarus into a new Survival that everyone wants to play. I wish you guys only the best, and I appreciate you taking the time to comment here. ORIGINAL REVIEW: This game is a prime example of exactly what is wrong with the gaming industry + development companies today. Releasing 'full titles' that are clearly still in Early Access, hoping that the player-base will continue to support your shady business practices + continue to line their pockets with micro transactions while they actually 'try' to complete the game that was promised to their customers AT LAUNCH. It's sad.. that the majority of PC Gamers are continuing to allow publishing/development companies to get away with releasing games in this type of state, after hyping up 'nExT-gEn' features.Show moreShow less
For those who are complaining about bad graphics turn off DLSS...Show moreShow less
I rarely write reviews for games. I've spent a little over 30 hours in the game at the time of this review, because I really want to give this game a fair shake and I respect the fact that Dean Hall and RocketWerkz are trying to expand the Survival genre here. I understand launch difficulties and server issues that come up around them - none of my beef with this game has anything to do with that. The game is intentionally tedious and obtrusive in the worst possible ways. There are four talent trees, Survival, Construction, Combat, and Solo. The Solo tree makes no sense and forces anyone who wants to take points into it into a Solo-Only mindset, as these talents *do not work* if you are in a multiplayer game. This is a completely baffling design decision that blows my mind. The tree shouldn't exist. There's no respec functionality whatsoever, and talent points stop at level 40. If you want to try different builds, the only solution is to make another character, which seems like an absolutely bizarre design decision without any real thought put into it. Characters are not disparate enough in terms of their talent selection to warrant alt characters, so you don't get enough of a meaningful gameplay experience change by rolling a new character to try different talents that might make your life easier. If talents were so impactful that they made the player's character feel meaningfully different from others, then I could maybe see a degree of permanence being important - but there isn't, so it makes no sense in my eyes. Most missions follow a set formula. Land, spend 60% of your time in the mission teching back up to whatever level of technology and assets needed to complete the mission, 20% of your time completing the mission, and then anywhere from 10-20% of your total time in the mission is spent trudging back to your dropship. None of the mission timers we had ever felt like we were 'under the gun', with most missions giving anywhere from 3-7 RL days to complete, while the mission themselves took anywhere from 3-4 hours of playtime to complete. There isn't any way to facilitate faster travel aside from movement speed talents, so these last 10-20% of missions are actual wastes of time as you run through the landscape as fast as you can to get back to your dropship, so you can leave and go somewhere else - these trips can easily take up to 15-25 minutes, depending on how far the objectives are from your drop. There is nothing challenging about it - it is simply more tedium tacked on that doesn't respect the player's time. The missions themselves are usually cased around a biome, which is a set map that you'll complete multiple missions on. This sounds fine - except for the fact that each individual mission requires you to leave the planet at the end of it. When you return to that biome to tackle a new mission, all of your building progress is gone, but the map is the exact same otherwise. On the first winter biome, we had to build virtually the *exact same base* in the *exact same spot* no less than four times because we had multiple missions for that biome. This feels incredible repetitive, doesn't respect the player's time, isn't challenging and just feels lazy. Death is a mechanic that also makes no sense to me. In a multiplayer session, if you are killed, you drop to the ground and can be revived by a teammate. The only penalty for death in this instance is a reduction of Food / Oxygen / Water stats, which can be easily remedied. The only time you have to actually contemplate a respawn is if nobody can revive you, which in the majority of instances where you have 3 or more players, is exceedingly rare. In solo play, this is an entirely different animal. If you are killed in solo play, you *must* respawn, and take an XP penalty as well as lose all your equipment. The dropping of the equipment is fine and understandable, but the XP penalty boggles my mind. As of the time of writing this review, the XP penalty is scaled to the amount of XP you are currently into a level. So if you're 90% of the way from level 9 to level 10, the XP penalty is HIGHER than if you were just 10% of the way into a level. If this is a bug, I'm glad to be proven wrong. Even if it isn't, the penalty is staggeringly high, and massively disincentivizes solo play. There are other issues as well, many of which are covered in the other reviews plastered here. The Mixed aggregate of reviews is fair - the game itself has some good moments and the framework of the game is interesting. As it currently stands, I'd highly encourage prospective buyers to wait and see what RocketWerkz does to address everything. If you do still feel inclined to buy it, make sure you're playing with friends - as with most games, it's better when you have buddies to play with. Edit: I will say, I've given this some thought and there's a few things right off the top they could do to make things immediately better. For those of you who have upvoted and brought attention to this review, I appreciate it. Edit: 8 June, 2022 I give Dean Hall and RocketWerkz credit - they are listening and trying. Most of my initial suggestions (which I had to delete to conserve space) have been addressed to a reasonable degree. The new map, Styx, looks to promise some actual continuity between missions in some context (according to their devblog, missions now can change the map in between missions). The timer change to RL time makes sense, and the hardcore mode added alleviates any remaining concerns I had on that front. I still cannot recommend the game, but I'm a lot closer to it now than I was six months ago. It's very obvious at this stage that the staff is very committed to turning this ship around, and I've kept quiet tabs on it as they've progressed. Most of what they've addressed is core functionality of the game that was just unfun - and rightfully so, that stuff needed to be addressed first. I do think if you've read the progress and see potential with the title, it's worth investing in - but you should see it as an investment, not a game really ready to sink a ton of hours into right now. I think they also realize that there's just not enough interesting and exciting enough incentives to actually play currently beyond chasing exotics for gear. What will get me back into this game is a sense of persistence. I personally want to be able to be able to land on Styx or Olympus (the two current maps) and complete *multiple* missions before returning, so I can get the benefit of not having to rebuild the same base over and over again in the same general area. Good luck, guys.Show moreShow less
Source: original Steam user reviews. Helpful votes are an archived snapshot, not live data. Last collected: 08/15/2026.