I don't think that's really true with early access. I think it's a weird thing to be involved in, but it's not my money and it's not always some scam being run.

With early access people are getting more than a product, people are paying and receiving an experience. They ideally get to be part of something, seeing its faults, making suggestions that could shape the final product, and in the end say they had some small part in the process. These buyers may actually be getting the very thing they paid money for because that's the experience they were asking for. And, unlike pre-orders, they have access to something, and can get some immediate return on their purchase.

In theory it can be used to better the product or create a product that wouldn't exist otherwise.I don't personally get it, and I do think there are times when "in development" becomes an excuse for cutting and running and other shady business. However, Just because it's not perfect and has an element of risk doesn't mean it has no intrinsic worth or that customers can't get get something of value off the buy in.

I think it's a wise idea for consumers to be watching out for companies abusing the system, but I don't think the system should be shut down just because it can be abused. Abuse is a possibility with most things, and reacting by throwing out something that can have value because it doesn't always have value is sticky business.

I guess it doesn't bother me much because people are getting something out of it, and because there are way bigger issues with this industry that early access.

This can be a problem for me. I've beta tested games which is sorta like early access and almost every time I've tired of the game by the time it is released. The experience might be richer but the actual gaming experience is much lesser.
They even have sugar on their monies in Murica?!

EDIT: Nevermind. It's a waste of time.

No, and stop with the "You're downvoting for expressing a different opinion", "I'm being told to STFU for criticizing GOG", "Niemcy mnie biją" rhetoric. There are tons of posts, some of them highly critical of the new move, on the main discussion thread none of which are being downvoted.

It's the same old policy: don't start an asinine whiny three words new thread on a topic that's already being covered in four others.

Just have a gander at section 6.13 of the User agreement:

6.13 Just to be clear, these really are games in development: there may well be incomplete features or gameplay bugs, errors and other problems. These games might also never be finished. Ultimately, you have to accept them ‘as is’ without any liability or additional promises from us or the developer.

So there it is in black and white, the perfect excuse to take your money without any obligation to deliver a finished product!

How is there an obligation if the policy is written plain as day, visible to anyone prior to making a purchase? You can't owe something that you never offered.

That's the point, there is no obligation, DUH!

Then I totally misread your post. :P

I need a V-8! XD

Do they have V-8 in England?

So? This is clearly not for you.that's fine and good. No one is forcing you to buy into any alpha, and if this is how you feel, then my recommendation is that you should not do so and only buy finished games. For those that want to participate is clearly writtwn out there in black and white. I think that make a the case closed?

Edit - actually, from now on I will just copy-pasta my post in the other thread
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_games_in_development_9083a/post658

Self-plagiarism, AHOY!

What? Does rockets make you smarter? Into a scientist even?

I think he means the car engine thingies....

V-8 is a drink!

Gasoline as in a motor drink?

...which makes sense if you consider that (a) the well of easily-accessible classic games -- that are not locked up behind labyrinthine legal issues -- is drying up (if it hasn't gone dry already), and (b) publishers simply aren't willing to invest their AAA releases in GOG for any number of reasons (it's easier/more profitable to go Steam-only, the perception that providing and maintaining DRM-free versions is cost-prohibitive, etc.) That's especially true for companies that have their own established online DRM/DD platform like UbiSoft and EA.

As an entity doing business in a capitalist market, growth is the most important thing that GOG needs to maintain, whether it be through new markets (e.g. movies, and what may also in the future be music and ebooks), or new market niches (e.g. indies) -- so it's only logical that they make a move to go into the Early Access market.

Which makes this a really puzzling move; you'd think they would have launched their In-Development section years ago when crowdsourced games, Steam Early Access and Greenlight still enjoyed a healthy amount of public positivity. Now, Early Access is at best seemingly considered with high amounts of skepticism, and at worse reviled. From what I've seen here on the forums, it'll take a lot more than a 14-day guarantee to get people to buy-in to this, when we've seen so many examples of Early Access being poorly done.

And in the light of that, equally puzzling is their acceptance policy for games that resulted in -- what I think many can agree with -- poor decisions for games being rejected. They may as well start hanging a big sign on the storefront saying, "Just buy the games you really want on Steam or Humble."