No but they did have OLD as part of their name.

While I understand that it's annoying, if they want to grow, they need to expand. There's only so much room in the classic games scene, and the biggest issue there, is that other stores were bound to (and started to) sell them too eventually. Sure, GOG may have an edge in quality/support, but if the same games eventually get put up on Steam as well (by the publishers, sometimes even the GOG enhanced versions) then GOG is just going to loose out.

I dont see whats wrong with them doing it , GOG has a better screening process of games that release here than steam , so they will only carefully consider what games to allow for early access .

and i hope they provide proper warnings for the purchases of the risks of early access clearly before purchase

Is that something within the scope of a digital store? I doubt that any of the devs/ pubs would agree to it, but I wonder if they could (legally) demand and enforce it.

Yeap. Which means 2-3 year old games were amongst those they would release. As was 17-24 years old games as well.

The biggest issue there is whether Steam EA requires it or not. If they don't, then GOG asking for that kind of stuff will simply mean devs forego bothering with GOG EA at all and let GOG wait for the finished version of their game.

That's certainly a question worth bearing in mind. It doesn't entirely look like Steam demands legal assurances at this time, but with the way certain projects are going and the way people are getting rather suspicious of EA following the Towns and Earth 2066 debacles, I wouldn't be surprised if that changed.

Frankly, things might be different now. I used to be of the camp that "Early Access" and "Kick-starters" were great ideas, and unfortunately, voted "yes" in that survey, but I've completely changed my tune now. GOG has to do a poll again if they want a more accurate and updated picture.

--

On the topic, Early access is almost worthy-sounding on paper, but in practicality, is tittering to one big scam, due to a line of abuse by game developers.

These days, "Early Access" is a code word for developing a game up till the tutorial, but with the audacity to ask for payment of a full retail price game. This is done by hoodwinking through clever marketing spin and pretty phrases, which highly attracts the "hope and dreams" crowd. Then after milking the cash cows till they run dry, abscond with the money, and more or less abandon the game. If the developer is receiving a cushy pay-check every month for doing nothing, why should he continue developing the game?

Some people say to exercise the choice of discretion and just not buy if one doesn't like. However, ignoring wrongs do not make them a right. While it isn't all developers, there are clear cases of dishonesty, with the system itself ripe for abuse, and I'm of the opinion that something should be done about the matter to bring fairness to both sides of the fence.

It's up to GOG, whether they wish to implement "Early Access", but if GOG does, I would want these check and balances instilled.

1.) Let the system be without a time-line. Payouts to the developers are done on a quarterly basis with the money held by GOG. During the quarterly periods before the payouts are handed out, all customers that paid within the time-frame are entitled to a refund, if unsatisfied with the "Early Access" state of the game.

Or

2.) Institute a mandatory time-line (The developer has the choice of how long they need), so the game can't be in pretend "Early Access" forever. Developers will get direct payouts in exchange. If the game isn't completed within the time-line agreed upon, then the game is pulled from Early Access permanently. No refunds shall be given to the customer, as they will need to be responsible for their own purchasing decisions, now that security is ensured.

Extra) Create an FAQ section, explaining what Early Access is without marketing speak. And, either put Early Access games in their own category, or institute filters for account holders to filter them out.

As someone pointed out, if GOG tries to be fair and stand up for their customers, a lot may be turned off from joining GOG's Early Access program. Because, you see, most game developers (non triple As) who are honest, disciplined, hard-working and are people with integrity, aren't using Early Access in the first place as they complete their games on their own. Imagine that!

Keep that trendy unfinished crap out of GOG for the love of God. It's great that GOG acquired newer games but atleast make sure they are finished first!!!

Then i guess Tim Schafer, Brian Fargo, Jane Jensen, Harebrained Schemes, Richard Garriot, Obsidian, Larian are not "honest, disciplined, hard-working, people with integrity" since they couldn't complete their games on their own and had to use either Kickstarter or Early Access (or both). What a bunch of crap.

You're exaggerating. Yes, there are a few dishonest developers out there abusing Early Access (like Town and Earth: Year 2066), but that's the exception, not the rule. Just like there are dishonest developers out there releasing unfinished games as finished products. Remember Dark Matter? Even GOG sold it.

"Then after milking the cash cows till they run dry, abscond with the money, and more or less abandon the game". All the Early Access games i know are being constantly updated.

Nicole28 did say most, if you'll notice. Was that last sentence necessary?
And as far as I know, Tim Schafer, at any rate, has yet to complete Broken Age despite breaking the game and using Early Access on Steam.

Firstly, I was talking about Early Access for that context, and not Kick-starter. Even though, I do not have the most positive opinion of Kick-starter, they have better guarantees attached, like the part that it is considered conning the people who gave money to you, if you do not deliver a product at all.

Secondly, "on their own" also means personal leverage for funding that requires equal effort on their part. I consider investor funding, for example, "on your own". Because you are under a contractual obligation to deliver your product, or you will be in legal trouble. It isn't a free ride. Borrowing money from friends or family isn't free either, you have to pay them back.

My reasoning is also, what about the days before "Early Access" or "Kick-starter"? I suppose, not one person or company, who doesn't have a board of investors sitting on it, never made games ever? Also, I don't know, but I don't see those developers you mentioned, champion or speak out for more honesty within the "Early Access" or "Kick-starter" system. Although they will be delivering/have delivered their games, they also are happy to just quietly take the money and let things be.

I just feel that people who very honest as well as a giant fan of delivering results, are extremely accountable. And thus might refrain from using a less than accountable system or would be comfortable being more outspoken, if issues about accountability arises, because of their upfront principles.

I'm actually supportive of Early access/Kickstarter in theory and charity in general. I do think a kinder and more sharing mentality could be used all round. But be more honest about what you want and fair when dealing with others is my point.

Thank you, I do appreciate it. :)

[blue text]
OK
[/blue text]

Yes, they did make games WITH PUBLISHERS giving them the money and having complete control over the game making proccess. Can you see the difference there?

Most developers turning to Kickstarter are the ones making niche games. Publishers don't want to take risks anymore. Making games is too expensive nowadays and publishers will never fund a niche turn-based RPG. THey want COD clones, mobile games and F2P, because these are the games making the most money right now.

Do you think Brian Fargo would just come up like "Hey, let me get a U$1 million loan so i can make a NICHE turn-based RPG that will be the sequel to a game no one remembers anymore". Yep, sounds reasonable. Kickstarter was the only way to make these niche games viable. It's too risky to do it all by yourself. Kickstarter/Early Access takes away some of the risks and lets developers concentrate on delievering a good game.

" They also are happy to just quietly take the money and let things be". What exactly do you mean by this statement? When you make accusations, the burden of proof is on you, you know. I can't talk for every Kickstarter/Early Access project out there, but the ones that i did get involved with are going well. What i see on the Kickstarter/ Early Access games that i pledged to is that developers are 100% commited to making the game. I haven't seen anyone "happy to just quietly take the money and let things be". Maybe i got lucky, then?

Of course there are dishonest developers out there abusing the system, but that applies to pretty much everything. Remember Dark Matter? It was sold here on GOG as a complete game.

And what about The War Z, Alies: Colonial Marines, Day One Garry's Incident? Again, incomplete games being sold as finished products. Dishonesty is not exclusive to Early Access or Kickstarter.

Yes, he did. However, if you didn't know, "most" means the majority, and i have a hard time believing that "most game developers (non triple As) who are honest, disciplined, hard-working and are people with integrity, aren't using Early Access in the first place as they complete their games on their own" when there are WAY too many examples of famous and respected developers that can't "complete games on their own". Good developers turning to Kickstarter/Ealry Access is not exactly the exception nowadays.