Well it's specifically a free game charity drive. Free games and 100% to charity. I just wish it wasn't Child's Play...

I wish they'd just bundle all the free games together for $10 or PWYW. The "one game a day" thing ends up being way too expensive if you're planning on paying BTA.

Well they are free, there are links for nearly all of them on that page I posted.

It is. It's also insanely hard, being a spiritual successor to Ghosts 'n Goblins. Nevertheless, I fully recommend it.

I know, I'm saying it would be more sensible to pack them all together and offer it as a one time deal instead of having to go through this for 2 weeks. If you're paying for something that's free for charity, I doubt you'd have an issue with paying $10 at once, but the way the system is now doesn't really work for me.

I agree. I am happy to give ~$2 to charity for one game / for a bundle every four days, but every day, I would be spending more then $30 at the current minimum rate. IGS have rather messed this up in regards to daily deals.

Current game is Desktop Dungeons. Nowhere do they mention that it's the alpha and not the current version though...

Disclosing outdated alpha build status might betray Indie Game Stand's scheme of requesting payment for free games in the name of charity.

Well all the other games were inherently free, there was nothing dodgy about what they were doing before (unless they were doing it without the dev's permission). This is a very early and free version of a commercial game and completely different. It kind of sounds like you have a problem with the whole thing in general.

To be fair, they wrote "Desktop Dungeons (classic)", and anyone familiar with the current promo concept and the screenshots will recognize that it's the free version only. I also don't see a problem with promoting the freeware version of a commercial game (especially since the money is going to charity, not the devs).

You're right though that this could easily lead to misunderstandings; but personally I think that applies to the whole set up. It's not just that they don't explicitly mention that there's a commercial version of this specific game and that this is not it - they also don't explicitly mention on the store page that all games in the Christmas Charity are freeware. You'll only know if you're familiar with them or if you click on the promo banner and read what it's all about on a different page.

Which they've added since I mentioned this, so to be fair, no they didn't write "Desktop Dungeons (classic)".

I guess they're reading this thread or perhaps someone actually complained. I still had the tab open so I took a screenshot before refreshing just now:

I visited the page before they added the "classic", and I would definitely have thought they'd be selling the new game instead of a free old version. In fact I didn't even know that an old version of this games exists. I only noticed that because I knew beforehand that the site was selling free games these weeks. Without having that context information, I would have been tricked.

I think this sale is damaging to IGS' reputation. Customers simply do not expect that a store would be so brazen to ask for money for a free game. Doing so in the name of charity does not justify tricking customers into buying something that they could have gotten for free. But the worst effect is imho that I don't know how far I can trust them. They are already selling free games without making that clear to their customers - can people who resort to such practices really be trusted to give the money to charity just because they say so?

There's also the question of whether or not the devs of these free games are actually involved. The fact that the developer is listed as being the name of the sale makes me suspicious.

I have to agree that this sale is not doing IGS's reputation any favours in my eyes.

Ah, I see. They were quite quick to add it then. All in all I concur with your criticism regardless.

They probably are reading this thread. I saw your post when it was "Posted 30 minutes ago" (more-or-less) and wondered what you were on about because I had just come from IGS and by then it already said "(classic)". The screenshot certainly clears things up. Without the "(classic)" it would have been misleading.