It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionIntroducing Games in Development(760 posts)(760 posts)
(760 posts)
Pages:
1
10
20
30
32
33
34
35
36
51
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 28, 2016
Excellent hand-picked games, 14-day refund policy, always DRM-free.

We want GOG.com to be the home of games that are both excellent and really worth your time.
In today's gaming world, we're seeing more and more titles that become hits before development dwindles down. We want to give you a way to enjoy what these games have to offer, a way that's comfortable and fair to you — the GOG.com way: that means evaluating each and every game, a 14-day no-questions-asked refund policy, and more.




That's why today, we're introducing the first five games in development:
Starbound (-33%)
Ashes of the Singularity (-25%)
Project Zomboid (-40%)
TerraTech (-30%)
The Curious Expedition (-15%)







The GOG.com way.
First and foremost: we're hand-picking only the games we can truly stand behind. Offering a selection of the most promising titles, and those most highly requested on the Community Wishlist, is our way of avoiding bloat and ensuring that every game will be worth your time.

It takes some confidence to discover games that are still being shaped — and to build that trust, every game in development comes with a simple refund policy: 14 days, no questions asked. It doesn't matter if you're having technical issues, if you don't think the game is sufficiently fleshed out, or if it simply doesn't click with you — all games in development can be returned for any reason within 14 days of purchase.

The GOG Galaxy client should also come in handy for games in development. It lets you control updates manually if you want, while the rollback feature allows you to easily restore any earlier version of your game if an update breaks something or makes unwanted changes. For games in development, rollback will also track and create historical snapshots throughout a game's development. That means you can always revisit any point in a game's history — for fun, or for science.






It's your call.
For those of you who prefer to wait for the final release, nothing will change. Once a game leaves active development, we will be making the announcement and giving the newest release proper exposure. Basically, business as usual.






More info.
Surely you have questions. You'll find many of the answers in the <span class="bold">games in development FAQ, including more details on the new refund policy. Our User Agreement has also been expanded to accommodate games in development — check out sections 6.12, 6.13, and 6.14 to find all the new information.




Enjoy your time with games in development!
Post edited January 28, 2016 by Konrad
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
Siannah: You have the option to skip any early access title, until they're finished and then decide if you want to buy it or not.
Games with DRM remaim with their DRM status, no matter if or when you want to buy or not.
Apples and oranges.
avatar
Breja: Unless they later get released DRM-free. Many games now available here on GOG were first released only on Steam. We are still hoping to see here many games currently not DRM-free. That's no different than waiting for games like Starbound, locked in years of early access limbo, to be finished.

Oranges and oranges. Sorry.

And the "don't like it don't buy/play/watch/read whatever" is never an argument. I don't "have to" play games at all. I didn't have to watch The Phantom Menace, but that doesn't make it a good movie.
I've been reading your comments for a while and I can appreciate and agree with how you feel negatively about early access games. On the other hand, one could easily argue if you will that the argument which asserts you do not have to participate in any of this really isn't the cop out I think you are interpreting it to be but rather an argument that rather than argue about any of it or complain about any of it beyond making a single comment of feedback to GOG, you are free to opt out and no harm is done to you personally.

As for harm done to the games industry, I don't think so really where some excellent titles have emerged from crowd funding that would not otherwise been likely to come into being. A most recent example of this is probably going to be Tides of Numenara when it is finished. I won't invest in games development personally but I am glad enough people supported this one to fund its development and I hope it turns out well. I will certainly buy it then if it does. There is just one example where the games industry and gamers overall are not hurt but helped by crowd funding.

I do personally draw a distinction between crowd funding and early access because one is sold at retail and one is not. As I mentioned in an earlier post I feel this tends to have the subliminal effect on some consumers that a finished game is assured where they bought it at retail but in reality the odds are no better for a good outcome than with a crowd funded project such as with Kickstarter. So that is what i personally take some issue with.

At the end of the day, the thing is a lot of people like getting their hands on games in development that interest them. So I can think whatever I like to but I really don't have any right to expect the system should change to cater to my views personally. Instead, I can just act on them and all is well here. In this case that means as I've said repeatedly at this point - I don't do crowd funding or early access. I did it one time and the game never did release but even that turned out pretty good which is a long story I won't get into here.

My advice would be just skip it and in fact why not benefit from it by monitoring anything that interests you in the game's forum so when it does release you have a very good idea of how it turned out? Turn the lemons into lemonade if you will.

Arguing about arguments for a long time is just frustrating, isn't it? Sometimes it's best to just agree to disagree and let stuff go. Your time is too precious and limited to waste a lot of it on this in my opinion. Consider the outcome. What is going to come of it? Is it worth it? Maybe it is for you somehow. It would not be for me.
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
Artoemius: 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.
People play unfinished games because it gives them an opportunity to help shape that game. They may not be the architect of a project, but they can certainly help influence it in a given direction. Many in-development games have been shaped positively (and yes at times negatively) by ongoing player feedback through the development process. There is a certain prestige element to it as well, to say you were "there" first, and in any game that boasts potential competitiveness or even a learning curve, being able to learn the game early, even in it's unfinished state, gives you an early-start advantage to your skills and knowledgebase.

There's plenty of reasons to want to play a game in active development, and plenty of reasons to want to wait for it to be finished. There is nobody tricking you into playing an unfinished project, it says what it is on the tin, and most devs actively warn you of the game's current state, and it's very easy to get a feel for their rate of updates via reviews and community forums, you will always know what you're getting into as long as you are a smart shopper.
Posted January 29, 2016
I won't buy any of these games so it doesn't affect me but I'm afraid this might delay other releases and fixes though. Gog seems to be struggling with releases, updates, website issues and Galaxy as it is already.
Posted January 29, 2016
Two more points. (I'll start with the tl;dr)

First, almost all titles these days are released "unfinished." Gone are the days of old when you could expect that there wouldn't be patches and updates, when game play stayed the same from day one. Even physical copies of games often require internet connections for patches. Sometimes, free content or add-ons are nice. Sometimes, they're just annoying - like "seasonal" updates that suddenly have all the NPCs dressed in Santa suits - particularly obnoxious when there's no opt-out, or when gimmicky "free content" is churned out instead of bugs being fixed.

Secondly, a lot of value is lost these days with games being released with major plans for "DLC" in the future - they're released unfinished on purpose, driving up the final sales price for the "full" game. Granted, you can pick and choose what DLC you buy, but you're still in many cases buying a hollow shell of a game in the first place. Compared to that "bargain," buying a playable but not fully finished early access title seems like a steal, particularly because you get a say in what the new content will be. (No, not all games with DLC are hollow - I mean specifically the games that are designed to feel lacking, thereby compelling players to buy DLC when they get bored. And there are TONS of games like this being released).

Let's not forget some pretty notorious recent cases where AAA games have been absolute hogwash and not worth a fraction of the $50-$70 they were purchased for on day one, with reviewers barred from releasing information about the buggy state of the game until the pre-orders had been processed and shipped. (Groan).

I've actually gotten a lot more play time and joy out of some early access games, awaiting the patches and developments, than I have out of a few AAA titles that were over-hyped and did not deliver a playable experience (and were non-refundable). Ark: Survival Evolved sets a good example. That game had tons of content and was very playable from its release into Early Access on Steam, it has (in my experience) not had too many bugs, which are quickly patched. Their game development model is not "give me money so I can finish this," it's allowing people to own the game - now and forever - but also have a say in where the development goes, and being able to iron out bugs more effectively. So much has been added to Ark, it has been really exciting to see the changes and be a part of the experience from the beginning (and if you check the patch notes, you'll see just how much has been put in - it's very ambitious). I believe in that philosophy, sharing content as it's ready and seeing how the community reacts. Imagine if some of those AAA titles (which I won't name) had been so widely play tested. They would never have been released with such game-breaking bugs in some cases, and in others, players would have demanded more content pre-release. Lots of people could have saved the money they wasted on pre-orders. The transparency can definitely work to the players' advantage, so can having a team of devs who actually listen and care about their players. Obviously, it doesn't always go well, hence the horror stories, but the good examples give me hope for the future.

I tend to avoid games that have been in early access and haven't been modified in a long time, and a few games have had changes made to them that I disliked. All that aside, though, I've managed to play the games for long enough before they changed for the worse (generally) that the purchase was still worth it, costing a total of a few cents per hour of play time. Reading reviews and following a game for awhile before purchasing can be really helpful. As with any purchase, it's about deciding what the item is worth to you, and whether you're willing to take the risk. I have a number of titles on my watch list that don't seem worth it for the time being, but which I might try out upon release.

Other early access titles that I've really enjoyed include Sheltered, Creativerse (now released), Prison Architect (also released), Lego Worlds, Valhalla Hills (released), and Rising World. The list of games that have continued to change and be developed post-release is much, much longer, including Cities: Skylines, Kingdom, and Thea: The Awakening. It's one thing I love about GOG's classic library - those games don't change. But I've got one foot in the old world and one in the new, so I've had to adjust my expectations to some degree. I highly recommend looking up patch notes for the games I mentioned if you want to see some examples of both early access and "released" games changing over time.

The concept of a game being fully "finished" and having no more patches is becoming a rarity. I am very careful about the early access titles I choose, but done properly, "early access" often feels more honest in a lot of ways. Besides, the more money GOG makes from early access titles, the more money it can devote to releasing finished games that are more in their traditional scope - so long as it keeps its reputation intact by actually curating. That way, folks who dislike games in their libraries being changed will have more traditional titles to choose from in the future as well. I hate the idea of giant whomping companies like Steam getting all this revenue, while GOG would put it to better use.
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
NovusBogus: 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.
So why not just make smaller? Why instead of Dogs_Watch with enough staff to run a small state, make more games like Grow Home? Instead of the yearly NASCAR shlock, Drift Stage instead? Instead of Final Fantasy Anime Wankery, Undertale with its entire deconstruction? Instead of the massive letdown that Fallout 4 was, a nice cup of Underrail, instead? Rather than the glass of concentrated piss that is FNAF, why not Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night?

Rather than play a shuffleboard on a treadmill, why not Slipstream, instead?

Triple A gaming isn't sustainable and we shouldn't be aiming for 7 figure games anyway. Also, PC gaming wasn't really a wasteland from 2007 to 2013.
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
nonsequitur: Two more points. (I'll start with the tl;dr)

First, almost all titles these days are released "unfinished." Gone are the days of old when you could expect that there wouldn't be patches and updates, when game play stayed the same from day one.
Which days of old are you referring to exactly? Gameplay changes were not that common that I remember but there has always been a lot of games that were released broken, even game-breaking bugs that would prevent completing the game. There were patches, but of course everyone didn't have an internet connection so they didn't know about them/couldn't get the patches.
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
Artoemius: 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.
I have stated and others have as well. The only thing that defines a game as finished is if the developer says it is finished. Yes people buy whatever is being sold, hence many "finished" games as you call them are purchased, because they are finished after all; yet, many of these are considerably less finished than the early access games presented to us by GOG.

Whats depressing is a "finished game" Heroes of Might and Magic VII for instance, even after multiple patches, does not run at all for many people.

So again, what is a finished game????

Is Crusader Kings 2 a finished game?
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
froggygraphics: Whats depressing is a "finished game" Heroes of Might and Magic VII for instance, even after multiple patches, does not run at all for many people.

So again, what is a finished game????
Please, do define what 'finished' means to you.

What we don't need are more publishers like Valve who are hell bent on blurring the finish line until gamers don't even understand there is one. :|
Posted January 29, 2016
I don´t really hate the idea of ´Games in Development´..

But i just really do not like some of their choices to include on gog because they are games that already have a bad track record on Steam and probably are a big reason people want an alternative to Steam. If you are going to create an alternative to Steam Early Access and say you are putting the GOG quality system on top of it, don´t pick from among the poster children of what is wrong with Steam to include on your site at launch.

Some of these games have been on Steam for almost 2 years, and are no closer to being released than they were the day they were put on Steam. The developers relish and thrive on the fact that they can always say ´ it is early access´ as if it is a permanent excuse they can give for not finishing things or for jumping around to new pet projects without finishing the last pet project.

I think GOG should require these developers to provide a roadmap or at least rough timeline of when the game will be finished, rather than just allowing the devs to constantly remove and replace parts of the game for 2 more years. There needs to be a differentiation between games that are being developed to be released, and games where the developers just want to be paid continuously for tinkering with the same game forever.

A little more attention should have been given to the track record of development of these games before GOG put their seal of quality on them.
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
Djaron: 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
I think this is why GOG has that "Visit the forums and learn more about this game" link near the buy button on each EA game card. The questions asked of the devs in the "in development FAQs" cover some of those issues. I'm not claiming the answers there will appeal to you (the Starbound answers seemed entirely perfunctory to me) but there's been some effort to introduce the devs and their aims.

A couple of people from the Project Zomboid team are being pleasantly active and open, answering questions in their own forum and the game's individual thread. And one of the Stardock team has answered a question about multiplayer in the Ashes Of Singularity forum. But more people are here, discussing the suitability of early access for GOG than are actually in those forums, showing any interest in the chosen debut games...

EDIT: I should probably mention that by "their own forum" I mean the GOG forum for the game. Obviously most, if not all, of the games would also have "their own forum" on their own website, with presumably even better access to the dev teams, but that wasn't what I was talking about.
Post edited January 29, 2016 by zlep
Posted January 29, 2016
Now I bet the first common comments for game releases will be something like "Not another damn EA game.. pass" and it'll overtake the mandatory "Not another damn regional priced game.. pass."

Out of all the selected titles, Project Zomboid is the most interesting (and full-fledged) to me.
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
HunchBluntley: So, to use your example, if I bought that game only after the third of those five patches had been put out, I would still be able to roll back to the version available just before the first patch?
You'll get access to all versions.
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
Matruchus: Its not a problem. Although I would love a version of greenlight here with countless titles that have been declined here in the last year.
I would love that too. Would give gamers a chance to decide what games they want to have here.

avatar
gameragodzilla: Greenlight's a bad idea, IMO. Most people vote on Greenlight based on what they think sounds cool, not what the final product will be. I want GOG to continue actively curating rather than letting the community do it, as the community doesn't have access to builds of the games to determine how complete and worth it the game actually is.
Greenlight also doesn't really work because votes are not directly convertible into buying actions. I don't fully trust the GOG curating approach since they can make errors. In the end it is not about what they think is good but about what the customers want to spend their money on - and as long as GOG cannot look into the minds of the customers they will make errors. The best is to take the customers opinion into account in the selection process and the very best is to let them participate financially because that is when customers really show what they want and how much they are willing to pay.
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
Djaron: ...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... ....
To be fair, standard and deluxe editions existed for a long time, probably up to 20 years. Also DLCs usually are only minor additions and very seldom bug fixes (this would be patches).

Supporting more than one platform makes sense if you want to increase the potential user base but it is also more effort. Some years ago many publishers would just outright refuse to cater to anyone else than Steam. I'm actually happy these days are over.

I wish patches would arrive with the same speed on all platforms but I also understand that the bigger platform gets priority (this is only logical and the price you pay for being on the smaller one) and as long as the delay is not too large (say one/two weeks at most is reasonable) I would be fine with it.

I personally define it like this:

There is a state of a game when most of the features to make it a sound, fun experience are implemented, all important bugs are eliminated, the experience has been smoothed and the game has been polished. This is then a finished game which people can enjoy.

Properties of a finished game are:
- Runs stable
- Is balanced
- Gives a satisfying experience (no obvious plot holes, no obvious content holes, ...)

Everything that is before is alpha/beta and everything that is after is an extension/expansion.

That's how I define it.

And since I prefer to play extended/expanded games over just finished games I wait even until quite some time after this point and then I buy everything there is of the game and play it.

Often expanded games are way more fun than just finished games.
Post edited January 29, 2016 by Trilarion
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
Trilarion: I would love that too. Would give gamers a chance to decide what games they want to have here.

Greenlight also doesn't really work because votes are not directly convertible into buying actions. I don't fully trust the GOG curating approach since they can make errors. In the end it is not about what they think is good but about what the customers want to spend their money on - and as long as GOG cannot look into the minds of the customers they will make errors. The best is to take the customers opinion into account in the selection process and the very best is to let them participate financially because that is when customers really show what they want and how much they are willing to pay.
Yeah, no kidding Greenlight doesn't work eh? I mean, 50% or more of the games trying to be greenlit massively advertise on forums, and do free game giveaways of popular games etc. and beg people to go to their greenlight page and vote on their game. Lots of people will go there and click "yes" just to be thankful for the free game opportunity without even looking at or caring about the game being promoted. Hell, I've even done that myself. Plus, you go through Steam's greenlight queues and maybe have a look at 40 games in a session or so, maybe you think 15 of them look maybe-interesting or something so you hit "yes", but most yesses really are "maybe" or even "maybe but probably not" and even if you think "there's a chance I might", after you "yes" 50 greenlight games there's no way in hell you're going to go buy all 50 of them later on. :)

I've voted yes on many of them and honestly I don't know if I've ever bought any of them, there's no mechanism to make it easy to find out what you voted on in the past, automatically be notified when it comes to Steam and remember you even voted on it that I'm aware of.
Pages:
1
10
20
30
32
33
34
35
36
51
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionIntroducing Games in Development(760 posts)(760 posts)
(760 posts)