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
33
34
35
36
37
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
Zoidberg: OK, show me a 2D game that isn't pixel. :P
avatar
Matruchus: C&C Red Alert 1, Master of Orion 2, Arcen games AI WAR and so on :)
If it's 2D, it is pixels, that was my point. :P
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
WesleyB: 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.
I *really* hope early access games don't become prolific enough to overtake regionally priced games.

I'm not wild about the idea of early access coming to GOG, and the only things getting me though it without complaint are the hope that GOG will indeed curate this area *heavily* (as they claim), and the fact that The Curious Expedition and Project Zomboid where both titles I was hoping would make it here.
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
Darling_Jimmy: 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.
No. My point is Early Access affects the industry as a whole, and that means it affects even those who do not personally participate in it.

My other point is that the argument "you don't have to buy" could as well be used to justify anything, as I've already explained, including introduction of DRMed games here. After all, no one would have to buy them.

My yet another point, is that this "argument" does not address any of the actual concerns about this new feature, such as the fact it makes GOG's curation sound, shall we say dubious (fully released, well received games get rejected, but things stuck in development limbo are better?), the problem of how is that curation going to work further on for games undergoing changes (will a game be pulled if it no longer is up to a certain standard a year from now?) or undergoing no changes (a year later and with little to no development), or the doubts about what good is a 14-day refund period when the fact our purchase might never actually materialise will come to light much later than within those two weeks.

I have already explained all of this before, as best I could. I'm sorry if it's not "TL;DR" enough for you. With all that said I think I'm done with this issue. I've had my say, we're going in circles, and I have spent more than enough time on this. I would however like to thank everyone here for at least discussing the issue, rather than just downvoting those who don't approve, as is becoming the norm around here.
Posted January 29, 2016
I had hoped never to see this atrocious business model make its way to GOG. As a longtime customer, I am incredibly disappointed.
Post edited January 29, 2016 by Chubz
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.
avatar
skeletonbow: 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.
same here i bought 2 games of 50 or more i voted for, but thats because some guys 'looked' sad so i felt sorry for those 'poor' guys and thats why i voted :D
BUT i will never complain that the things i voted for were crap, and the majority of the steam users (which i think that 80% are kiddies(13-18 years)
Greenlit is only amusing, dont take greenlit serious :D
What is sad is that devs who proved to be okay/very good in the past still need a greenlit for each new game thats ridiculous.

Take alawar, these have been around for a long time, i have drm free cd/dvd games so these guys should not be needing to prove themselves 90% of their games are good games if i see 20 reviews of new games , i have at least 12-15 of these so alawar should not be needing to prove themselves every time .
Finally its also up to the buyer him/herself to be aware of what they buy, they must consider themselves if the game is a game they like, you cant chew every food for these people so they only have to swallow and digest it :D hahaha
A gamer should take control for most part and be the one to decide if a game suits them, you cant protected them using greenlight so that everything greenlit is a good game to buy.
User have to think and decide for themselves, greenlit is just a indication/guide , the rest is up to the gamer wheter to buy it or not.
Posted January 29, 2016
I have to say, I do not know how to feel about this....

There are some Early Access games that have done well, but the business model is so scummy.

I feel so conflicted at the moment.
Posted January 29, 2016
Ugh, one of the blights of the modern PC gaming market brought to GOG.

I'm sad now.
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
Chubz: I had hoped never to see this atrocious business model make its way to GOG. As a longtime customer, I am incredibly disappointed.
atrocity is a bit much to call it like that.
but maybe they did this because there was so much nagging about steam has this, steam got that, why isnt ths title on GOG? it should have at least a ... bla bla bla bla....

So i can understand that GOG is trying this out, so dont blame GOG for anything, because they are listening to what we, the users say and suggest, so i think GOG cant be blamed.

Gog is one of the few if not the only one that actually listens to us , the gamers, cause the rest of the stores, steam gamersgate and more like these only do what they think is best, they think they dont need to listen to users, but GOG does listen to us, GOG is indeed more connected to us then any other community that sells games.

Anyways, GOG is the number 1 in my honest opinion, and steam is not number 1 cause steam dont listen to anyone but themselves, same goes for origin and others.

I think that if there werent so many young gamers (kiddies) around , steam would not be haven those millions of users.
Steam has lots of titles, thats true, but discard the AAA and some decent indie/casual games, and you will see that steam isnt that good, there are tons of bad games: shower with your dad, comeon thats an indecent game
Better to have 500-1000 good games then 15K of games of which only 500-600 are good(like steam has)
Quality always before quantity.
Posted January 29, 2016
http://i.imgur.com/UvVpBCE.png
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.
avatar
froggygraphics: 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?
I have to tell you a secret: Games are never finished. Not one game in existence. You can add more, and more and more features, refining the game to no end. But a game is never ever finished.

I know this from my experience in helping developing the X serie. There is always something to add, to change, to adjust. To get the game as perfect as humans are able to do it. But there is always the limit of time, effort and money. You have to stop. make it stable, and then sell an iteration of your progress.

After that, the work goes on, and on.

Not one game is really ready. Ever. It's always in the middle of the working process;)

BUT, and this but is very important, it has to be stable, balanced and optimized on release day.
Post edited January 29, 2016 by mkess
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
KEV1N: http://i.imgur.com/UvVpBCE.png
Cute cartoon, but not very applicable to the GOG situation.

Here, the people complaining are the ones saying "Don't sell us the book until it's finished."
Posted January 29, 2016
I'll cautiously say this is good, gives people a choice I guess with some potentially less risky games (GOG handpicked = less risky??? maybe / maybe not).

I'll stay clear of pre-order. Only exceptions are crowdfunding backing and you feel a little more immersed in the development with some projects that way so you get some sort of personal added value there. Since I never have time to play most of the finished games. The investment in time for a pre-release in development won't help me much.

But I understand why developers like this. It is an opportunity for more feedback on builds, testing and the all important additional revenue during development.

Well good luck, Developers, Gamers and GOG hopefully you all gain out of this and no one loses.
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
walpurgis8199: Okay when I first saw this new feature I was a little upset. I hate early access on Steam and will not buy early access games. I was always uncomfortable with early access and was proven right when Double Fine just stopped development on Space Base DF-9. They just declared it done and walked away with the cash. It is still for sale on Steam and it is reported to be an unfinished mess.

I did review what GOG has done with "In Development" and I have to give them credit for trying to create a fair system. The system in place won't stop another Space Base DF-9 from happening, but it will reduce the risk. So I'm going to give GOG a pass on this. I still won't buy "In Development" games, but if other people want to I won't try to stop them.

One request GOG please make the "In Development" notice larger and have it stand out more. That is one thing that Steam does well, the notice for Early Access is large and has a different background colour to draw the eye.
Yes, a banner printed all over the picture as warning. "Unfinished beta" or "Vaporware" would be nice.

And give us please exclude filters in any view, so that we are able get these abominations out of our sight, pretending it never happened on GOG. ;)

And while you are at it, any exclude for preorders would be nice, too. The banner on this should be: "Money grab" or "Only for fools"
Post edited January 29, 2016 by mkess
Posted January 29, 2016
high rated
avatar
catpower1980: Meanwhile, GOG rejects many finished games......

Oh well, my wallet is once more safe....
Pretty much. I laughed when I read their bold statement about hand picking their games, the curation, and how they stand by their selections...like how I'm sure they stand behind games that have been basically abandoned by their developers on GOG in favor of their Steam versions.

I don't support Early Access and Greenlight on Steam. I'm not going to support it here either.
Posted January 29, 2016
avatar
mkess: Not one game is really ready. Ever. It's always in the middle of the working process;)

BUT, and this but is very important, it has to be stable, balanced and optimized on release day.
Or, more realistically, it has to be stable, balanced and optimized on release day or be judged for lacking those qualities. That's exactly what makes the "unfinished" state of early access games so annoying to many. They charge money for a product which can never be reasonably critiqued, even if the devs just abandon it in a semi-working state. After all, it's not finished yet, so customers have no right to expect release quality.

Since it's no longer necessary to release the game to earn income from it, and since releasing it leaves it open to be found lacking, there's surprisingly little incentive for devs to ever "let their baby go". Which is probably why so many never do...
Pages:
1
10
20
30
33
34
35
36
37
51
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionIntroducing Games in Development(760 posts)(760 posts)
(760 posts)