I don't really know the answer to that question but I would do anything for C&C series and whole Total War series. Not to forget Supcom which doesn't seem to be getting here out of some strange reason. It all depends on gog if it want's to rapidly expand its catalog with potentional early access sucesses/disasters or if it want's to bring more finished games here. At the end it all comes down to where they cash in the most.

Well, the one I'm talking about actually bites. Makes me wonder if they even buy games here, with the way they're so persistent at dropping the "Steam > GOG" lines.

Really? Point me out to him if he shows up. I'd love to join you.

He'd like to not buy different games than the ones that GOG currently doesn't sell him.

Anybody using a GOG controller?

Sooo what's wrong with that?

No, that's Crosmando. I think.

I was wondering what this was about and saw Ashes of Singularity on the front page. That's a step forward after so many steps back. ^^

Early Access gives developers alternative avenues to get their games funded, some of which may not exist without the support. Early Access has been used before steam adopted it, the most well-known example being Minecraft. I doubt The Project Zomboid developers in particular could have come this far without it. They were on the verge of eviction, and suffered through burglary and frozen paypal accounts. One time a car exploded right outside their house and they were evacuated. If anyone needs the money it’s these guys - exorcists aren’t cheap you know.

My point is, you should not dismiss an entire business model because of its abusers. I know that’s kind of what we do (what with DLC being an equally dirty word), but resist that urge. Steam’s example of it is one of the worst, with no oversight or curation (and until recently no refunds), but they don’t own the concept of Early Access. GoG is offering a 14 day no-questions-asked refund policy to give you the protection you need, and of course anything that wants to sell on the site has to go through their rigorous application process.

GOG is awsome

I'm thinking it's a tool to help get more developers onboard with DRM-free: "Look, you can offer your stuff through a client without the need for DRM." If that's the goal and if it succeeds without causing too much of a mess otherwise, then I think it will average out to be a good thing.

Time will tell.

It might work out, but it's current implementation is wrong.
Let me explain why.

First off these in progress games have no transparency as to the future state of DRM on them.
If you do not think this is a problem then take a look at the game Dungeon Defenders which is the 'best' example of a mixed DRM policy gone wrong.
Simply put Dungeon Defenders split their community by micro updating steam (with cannot connect due to .ver multiplayer issues); it also had a steam only multiplayer ladder (DRM free had less of a game) and lastly when confronted with the legitimate concerns of it's users basically went you only represent 10% of our sales who cares (feel the love).


Secondly GOG has really been letting their standards drop and I should not have to link individual pages for common users of the site; a quick search of titles with bad reviews will dredge that up well enough.

That in itself is not really an issue, aside from the fact things that were not WIP (work in progress); i'm looking at you Mount & Blade Vikings are released in clearly a non-functioning state.
Every pre-order like this that customers waste thinking 'it'll get better' is anouther day closer to GOG keeping money from a substandard product; & the fallout to this when customer service fails as it does to satisfy the consumer is to change consumer behavior.

If the product cannot be returned and is defective the consumer no longer purchases pre-releases or WIPs, even when unknown to them a developer might really need that extra boost to finish a product and be one of the few actually good developers out there.

GOG therefore risks harming further consumer confidence in it's products and of course the good will towards its brand (If consumers look at the website and go this is just a shoddy site for abandonware & AAA flops you cannot say the brand will not fail).


Lastly what it's attempting to do is a copy of a copy.
Greenlight only exists as steams cherry picking of the kickstarter market, and GOG is trying to make it seem like they are cherry picking from the cherry picked pile and deluding themselves into thinking they'll have a say over the developed product while a) not being the largest contributor of funds & b) not having specific rights over the product being developed.
If it had specific rights it'd harm the developers ability to access the market FOR funding (You know the ones that kickstart, then humble bundle & also get funding from their website [Neo survivor by Blue Bottle Games])

It is true that these start up developers need funding to get finished products on the market, but the fact of the matter is it should not be done with the expectation that they in fact 'will'.

Having investment tacked onto the end cycle of development most people would say is a good thing, it certainly seems less risky to the lay.
Having investment on the front end (obviously not pre concept & without a 'rep sheet') is a better thing as it encourages start ups thus creating new developers ingratiated by their existence to the DRM-free community, It allows funding (& more time equals more funding) at the most critical stages of development when it is 'actually' needed (instead of for polish) and better serves the interest of GOG in consumer relations.
Simply put if you know the premise is that your doing a charity by trying to give a leg up to a project, you can't get butthurt if it fails; and on top of this it increases the fostered sense of community already present here on GOG (something that sets it apart from steam).


In short the current WIP backing scheme they have will hurt consumer confidence, undermine the brand and community; if it we're to be successful it would require front end investment instead of treating these titles like pre-releases.

Spell my name correctly at least. Are you capable? Guess not.

Which discussion again? I forgot since I am trolling stupid people way too much.

Because it's plain stupidity. GOG's early access is curated, unlike Steam, yet people are still complaining.

They're business and not catering to stupid point of view randomly.

nvm... gotta stop wasting my time on this shit.