No, I actually fully agree with this. The key word is "enforce", because unless you're a Russian oil b̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶a̶i̶r̶e̶ millionaire, like me, you can't enforce anything.

Yes. But if unforeseeable things do come up, there will be no money to be returned to the unsatisfied buyers. And no store operating in the current market will be willing to refund the buyers, then go after the devs, because, again, no money. They don't have the margins for this. InDev can work under the terms GOG actually provides or not at all.

And I'd rather have it than not have, because some games are playable and fun in their current state even if the state is nominally "unfinished". Zomboid and Expedition, by the look of them, can slap a 1.0 on the current version and sell the planned 1.0 as 1.3 or something. I'm not interested in Starbound (no proper scale to support a space theme) and I can't run the other two, but I will be buying the former come card rollback. Hell, I'd probably buy the whole lineup, just to have access to historical versions. You know, one of Primordia's best puzzles was cut just before release. ಠ_ಠ

More info on this, please. Link form preferable.

My first reaction was 'NOT GoG too!!!' but this seem to be handled quite nicely.
Sure it will be unfair to some games left out that might deserve to be here too but that is still way better than getting all the junk you can find on steam.

Maybe I'll make use of this and maybe I won't, we'll see.

We want GOG.com to be the home of games that are both excellent and really worth your time.

Sooo instead of giving us great adult games to buy, you give us unfinished kiddy games that look like they were made 25 years ago!

I found GoG.com through The Witcher 3, i love the site its just to bad they dont have many other great games like The Witcher 3 and that most of what they sell are 10 year old games of witch most are made to be played by 10 year old kids.
i ges that dint pay enough to keep the site up, so now you try to scamm us by selling unfinished low quality games but you try to make it sound fair becous players can ask their cash back if they are not happy.

In the beginning, there's a sequence where you have to find "pieces of Gordian conduit" to connect the generator to the UNNIIC.

There was a separate close-up interface to connect the pieces once all five pieces were collected. Each piece had a weird symbol on each end, and you had to (apparently) line up the pieces for the symbols to match -- they'd light up and everything. Now, because I am Good At Math [tm], I figured out it was impossible (see: any number of classic puzzles from before Euler) and spent quite some time looking for the (nonexistent) sixth piece. Other people reported trying to work with what they had, again to no avail. The solution was, of course, to weld the pieces together with a plasma torch. Ultimately, there was consensus between playtesters that the puzzle was fun, clever, and very much in the spirit of the game. One tester wrote, with much praise, "The game trolled me". The writer couldn't be happier.

Then Dave Gilbert sent the RC to (dipshit) reviewers, and they were furious and demanded the puzzle to be cut, or else they give the game the lowest possible rating. And because the game was a commercial project and people had to get paid, the devs agreed to cut it.

edit: link

No thanks, I don't pay for WIP games.

I wonder what happens if you buy the EA game 2 days before release?

Do you still get 14 day refund? I imagine it'll see some abuse from people who'd rather not pirate games (due to fear of hacks etc), though probably not a significant amount. I can see it being relative to the price of the game though, more likely to do it with a $50 title than a $20.

Irrelevant for games that use Galaxy for a multiplayer I suppose as you probably can't play it anymore after you refund, even if you have the downloaded game, pretty sure it requires an active license on the GOG account.

yes, you're right. we need more games like call of duty, assassin's creed, and mass effect. real mature games for real mature gamers. lol

FInished at this point is when the developer stops working on it. That doesn't mean that it is a good game.
Crusader KIngs 2 is not finished if DLC keeps coming out, so that can be good or bad.

My main point was, that if a game is released as version 1.0 that doesn't make it a better game, than a game that is in early access that actually works, has lots of content, and more being added.

One could also argue, early access is a more customer friendly model than DLC where often the develper says its finished, then charges you to add more content.

Shame on you GOG, now you're supporting frauds. What a joke this is, not wasting money on this.

Two of the devs of Project Zomboid and their community manager joined the chat during the GOGcom stream of their game yesterday.
If you install "ReChat for Twitch" you can read what they wrote while watching the video here:
http://www.twitch.tv/gogcom/v/38217672

After that the devs also took part in the GOGcast:
http://www.twitch.tv/gogcom/v/38242643

I somehow must have missed the point, where DRM-free became the new standard. As I must have missed the point, where failed / abandoned / fraudulent Kickstarter / early access titles have become the norm.

Neither does that make it a bad movie (I haven't watched it either). It's all about choice. Early access gives that choice. Your approach doesn't.
If you don't want that choice - fine, don't take it. I however, want it.

Early access jumped on the Kickstarter crazee, with the key difference that you need a somewhat working game instead of just a concept. Which is why I treat them as equal, as both share the same risks.

Checking the frontpage of GOG shows me Order of the Throne (kickstarted as was his predecessor Quest for Infamy), Darkest Dungeon (kickstarted and early access). Weekly staff picks with Pillars of Eternity (kickstarted), Wasteland 2 (kickstarted), Satellite Reign (kickstarted and early access), Legends of Eisenwald (kickstarted and early access).
Your guess how many of those games would exist at all, without Kickstarter / early access? About none would be the correct answer. And that would make a better gaming world with more quality products? Sry, not for me.

If you or others don't want to take the risk of getting burned on early access, that's a perfectly valid approach. There's good reasons to not participate. There are risks involved, no matter what the approach GOG takes and I don't see anyone claiming that it isn't so. Which is why I still stand with my initial approach: Don't like it? Don't buy it. That simple.
Heck, I've gotten burned and wouldn't back up another title from David Braben, Stoic or Double Fine / Tim Schafer. But I'm glad others do, as it gives me the chance to someday play the next Banner Saga or Psychonauts. Adapting your approach, that's pretty much an impossibility.

i read answers, so i'll allow myself to clarify my previous points: (by decreasing order of importance,from 1 to greater)

1) make it optionnal/skippable; allow the user to completely hide everything early access related from his own display of gog website; that way, the previous "gog experience" is kept the same

2) make EA a separate section entirely, instead of blending every EA games into the regular catalog

3) make all of it more visible... so far there is a small "in dev sticker" next to the game in catalog list, there are two pale orange links/lines in product page with same grey background; also if it's not already made, give more clear visibility for gog members that are from the dev teams officially, as well as their messages, in the forum (but i know how forum engine is archaic and lacking).
So I know all the things i mention are already displayed but really in a too subtle way and i wish they would be easier to spot and made more blatantly visible and recognizable

4) some disclosure about the game picking process and the nature of contract between EA game team and GOG 'on points relevant to custogamers)

i'm not against EA Games, in fact i finally gave up resisting on waiting one of them and bought it on steam merely one month before its release, because as it was so good yet even in EA and as most steam games (and EA ones) i thought there was not a damn chance to see it on gog any time soon... It was Darkest Dungeon. And i played this baby something like 70 hours in the few weeks prior to its release on my steam account, and when i saw it on gog for yet twice the price i paid it on EA, i did buy it again even if it sounds ridiculous because 1) drm 2) support the devs 3) i felt it was so good it is bound to later be a classic on its own. and now i'm still playing it a lot, with gog version and i stopped counting the time spent on it, i'd rather just play it and don't care about the amount of time i sink into it.

prison architect and darkest dungeon are for me the way EA concept should work. But lets be honnest, while they just behaved during EA like the norm we should expect, they were rather the exceptions, and we know many projects won't run as well and as smooth or as honnestly toward the consugamer...

some stuff like ash of singularity are another topic, as they are published under the name of a yet trustable company such as stardock, but again, that is not the case of a majority of EA projects

i also saw and heard about all the abuses, issues and problems from the EA program on steam and so i can't help but not be naively, trustingly and blindly welcoming such potential troublemaking thing on gog

Even when I don't participate and don't buy any of the Early Access games I still pay for the development and support of this feature. I pay directly with the money I spend for other games on GOG and I "pay" indirectly for it when other features are delayed or abandoned because of the higher priority of this feature.

I only can hope for GOG that Early Access pays off for them, that it brings more new games to GOG which may bring more customers to GOG which may make it easier to finally bring the best, still missing, old games to GOG. That way I eventually may benefit from it too.