The TL;DR version of your point (as I understand it) is you, personally, don't like crowdfunding games, therefore nobody else should have the option to choose for themselves whether or not to support indie developers either.

Wait! Do people read things other than their own posts and replies to said posts? Is that a thing?!

Some people do that, as strange as it may sound.

i recently heard on youtube someone having a point that i do share...

i can be very forgiving with games "in developpement" or "early access"... within some reasonnable margin.
i can tolerate bugs because it's beta/in dev
i can tolerate some promised content not implemented yet, because it's beta/in dev
i can tolerate a game having great ideas or ambitions yet falling short to them for the moment; because it's beta/in dev

so, a game that clearly "shield" itself (and any potential problem compared to officially released one) behind the fact it's still in development is ok when it's clear about it... hell, tbh some big publishers/company games are releasing full price with huge marketing hype while stripped of some yet-on-disc/day 0 content, and with major bugs and being unplayable at all with various tech issues (what are those guies using beta for ?)

so, said game seems nice, promises to be greater, still lacks many things yet... but it's ok, because it's beta/in dev

BUT the moment you are CHARGING people for expansion, DLCs, or "deluxe" edition, that makes NO SENSE with the concept of "in development". A "deluxe" edition means something, a dlc too... they means they are upgrade or variations of a released product. And then when you talk about dlc or deluxe edition, you ain't in development or in beta anymore... you are "released".

if you are yet bad, lacking many stuff, not living up to your promise and hype, then you are just a bad game, no matter your discount. If you have TIME to make and sell a DLC it means you are done with working on the game, else why the hell aren't you still working on base game instead of adding expansions to an unfinished game ?

it's like: ok lets build a house. ok lets build a second wing or an additional floor, and it's not that important if we didnt even yet finished the basement and fundation upon which said additional floor or wing or yet the base house are supposed to stand upon

TL:DR:

packaging your EA game in standard and deluxe edition doesn't fit the core idea or an "in dev" game
selling a DLC means the same

(and i dont even mention having two different platforms of EA games will be another source of problem: for devs to keep in touch with users communauty and getting their feedback ! we already see how finished and released products often get WAY LATER patches and updates for the GOG version than steam main occurence of said game... EA means getting involved with your users communauty. DO you think it will be either easy or done at all here ? do you think devs will bother getting feedbacks or make announcements on multiple platforms ? no, they will use steam as the main place and gog users will just be additionnal and muted/ignored cash-ins)

i'll consider seriously any EA game dev if and when they'lll come here to introduce themselves and their game to GOG communauty, and explain why, and disclose their goals, past landmarks, difficulties and the reasons why they choose to spread their user base among two different platform, why they choose or accept the DRM-free policy, how they expect to gather feedback and deal with the communauty (and without just links or cut/pastes from their main twitter/fb page/steam page or whatever)
the day an EA game dev does that, i'll listen with interest and fairness

One does not miss three release dates scott free.

Nifty. I get the point of those saying an early access program is dangerous, and I totally agree that the development model's mixed reputation is problematic. But some of the biggest successes of the last few years have come from crowdfunding, and EA is a more moderate approach than "give me money and maybe in a few years I'll have something for you to download." The reality is that the traditional retail-box type game industry is run by MBAs who would rather ignore big chunks of potential customers than risk losing money in front of their liege lords, and these alternate financing models are the only way we're going to see activity in less-mainstream genres like RPG, RTS, citybuilder, etc. It sucks, but them's the breaks and it should be clear by now that no amount of whining or boycotting is going to change the status quo.

In other words, I'd have one Pillars of Eternity and 5-6 RPGs stuck in development hell than no new RPGs. Hopefully EA will make the river wider.

This has always puzzled me. Why would anyone play an unfinished game? Would they also read an unfinished book or watch an unfinished movie? Would they eat food that is literally half-baked?

I think I know the answer, but I don't like it. People buy whatever they are being sold. If you can think of an advertising spin that turns playing something unfinished into a "fun" experience, you are guaranteed to make some sales.

That's depressing.

Just weighing in for what it is worth. I trust GOG would do this the right way with careful curation of titles. Of that I fully support.

However, even if it IS done right I am not a fan of early access at all. In fact I tend to hold off on playing most triple A titles for about 1-2 years after initial release knowing full well that there will be intended continued development, and if I am going to play a game, I want to play the complete game. As I get older my time is no where near as free as it used to be to squander on playing the same game multiple times.

Then there is the way that indies have been approaching it. For a glaring example look at Darkest Dungeon. Crowd funded successfully with a great deal of support (and thus capital), and Red hook used early access as basically a means to A: get out from under the "release" obligation with an unfinished product, B: used that unfinished product to get onto early access in order to start generating more money which effectively paid for the continued development required to finish the product. I don't speak for anyone else, but to me that seems rather uncouth and pretty unseemly to me.

It certainly not as if Red hook is somehow the only one guilty of it, just one that comes to my mind for A: having its release finally get to GoG, and B: simply being a game I was keeping an eye on through its development. What I feel it is, is simply a symptom of the state of the industry. My position is though that we know what problems this causes, we know what this does to the industry, so I am at a loss to understand why we would continue to support detrimental practices.

Its completely understandable why GoG would be getting in on this. For all its warts, there is a certain degree of logic to it when viewed in the reality of the world we live in rather than trying to look at the way things SHOULD be. Again I have every confidence that GoG will handle this in the best way it can be handled, but I still feel that as good as that might be it really is not something that should be happening at all, regardless of platform.

Again, just my 2cp. as always take them for all they are worth.

This would be a really good thing, I agree. It would do a lot to separate the ones who truly need the money to make the game and want early user involvement from those just looking to cash in on a half-baked alpha build.

On each of the game cards, there is a link to the forums, and in each forum is a little Q/A with each dev regarding some of these things:
http://www.gog.com/forum/ashes_of_the_singularity/ashes_of_the_singularity_in_development_faw
http://www.gog.com/forum/curious_expedition_the/the_curious_expedition_in_development_faq
http://www.gog.com/forum/terratech/terratech_in_development_faq
http://www.gog.com/forum/project_zomboid/project_zomboid_in_development_faq
http://www.gog.com/forum/starbound/starbound_in_development_faq_1

I like the idea here and I totally trust GoG with the refund policy and everything...

But I think I'll be one of those people who'll stick to the traditional 'wait for release'-mentality, just because I enjoy playing a finished game and knowing that I've got the full package :)

Still, this is great news, I am sure lots of developers are happy about being able to share their vision here on GoG, and the games being 'hand-picked' is great because it ensures that no shady business will be going on.

Not a lot of alternatives, unfortunately. Ubi/EA/T2/Actiblizz are the only ones willing and able to pay those 7+ figure game development costs 100% upfront, and they've made it pretty clear they don't give a shit if PC gamers aren't giving them their money anymore. Some lesser European publisher-owners try, I suppose, but those games tend to get lost in translation and suffer from crippling bugs and hokey technology. So the gaming landscape was a total wasteland from about 2007 to 2013ish when the first wave of crowdfund projects fueled by gamers desperate for something not a COD clone or sports game began delivering playable results. Like I said, it really sucks but this is what the PC game industry has come to.

Early access has a horrible track record on steam. Games being 1/2 finished or abandoned completely.

Starbound is a prime example for why this system is horrible. If you pay for a game before it's even finished what incentive do the developers have to work on it? Basically 0. The fact the game has been in "development" (in which time the company that has been making it has also conveniently become a publisher) for something like 2-3 years with the devs being careful to make sure they never announce a deadline should be warning enough.

Horrible customer screwing practice on steam, I've no doubt it'll be exactly the same here. Services like GoG and steam are companies and obviously want money; but seriously, get some ethics and stop encouraging devs from this sort of customer cheating behaviour.