Am I the only one who thinks selling games in development is a plain and stupid idea that benefits only those developing the game at the expense of the gamers? DayZ is THE best example I can think of on how wrong this is ... this game has been in dev of ages, is full of bugs, almost unplayable, boring, repetitive, devs have ignored just about all comments and criticism, etc... and you have the "benefit" to pay a great 38.99$ for a product that will most likely never get finished or become even borderline stable and fun.

Now GOG has jumped on this sick boat and it pisses me off, now we get to have unfinished products plastered everywhere on the front page instead of actual finished products ... just Kickstarter you frinkin' games if you need funds and stop this none sense!!! Would you buy a car or a coffee maker in development??? I don't think so, so why try to sell us your pre-alpha versions that may never see the light of day???

</rant>

No, you are not, as is quite evident by looking at the release threads of such games (e.g. StarCrawlers today).
That said, enough people are pleased with this move, as is also quite evident.
Regardless, GOG are not going to go back on their decision.

"Am I the only one who thinks selling games in development is a plain and stupid idea that benefits only those developing the game at the expense of the gamers?"

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe the GOG forum has enough discussions about this topic already?

There are advantages to the "Early Access" distribution/development model, and they do benefit the customers as well. If nothing else, some people just can't wait for the release of a game project they're really excited about. Early Access gives them a chance to try the game, while supporting the developer at the same time.

It's fine if you don't see or care about the advantages, and it's also fine if people want to discuss this new addition to GOG, or the concept of Early Access in general -- But could you guys stop creating your own personal "I don't like Early Access/Games-in-Development" threads, and just post to one of the many related threads which already exist? That'd be pretty sweet.

Nope.... lets add the topic of DRM to that too. It's gotten old real quick.

And we could always use another one about regional pricing and or one about Hatred not being sold here. :P

I'm seriously considering to start a daily thread diary, about what I had for dinner. ( With a new thread for each meal, obviously. A single thread just couldn't contain such quantity and quality of information. )

I'd be game for that.

Games-in-development does not interest me too much either, but there are many people here who enjoy such things. I look at it as another way to compete against Steam, which is not a bad thing, as well as offering another play option for this platform, which is not a bad thing, and as far as the prominence of this new feature on the front page, well, it is a new feature, so it is going to be advertised prominently.

If you feel it is a sinking ship, stay on land, and don't worry about people on the ship drowning, they knew what they were getting into when they paid for a ticket.

So basically, a text version of Instagram?

Agreed.. Rust and other games are in that list too...

However there's also games that are done correctly. Darkest Dungeon, Hand of Fate, Don't Starve, Prison Architect (just to name a few).

To be truthful a number of games shouldn't be using Early Access/Alpha builds. But some do work, and are better for it. Darkest Dungeon for example had a few in game mechanics that were being abused and exploited, meaning they had to add new features to help mitigate them.

Ultimately i think games should only be released as their final version, or with open Betas (which also doubles as a demo) to find obvious mechanic issues. We could then judge the game by what we buy, not by what we think it could be. But as TotalBiscuit says, if you start charging money for it, then it is no longer shielded by being in development anymore and is subject to full criticism. There's games obviously in early Alpha state whose features include working micro-transactions but the rest of the game is missing or broke.

I think carefully selected titles rather than letting the floodgates go open would be the best approach. Valve as we know, really don't care as long as they get their large slice of the pie. Which really is too bad...

And, you get the 14-day return policy on top. So long as one tries it shortly after buying it, the customer is able to make a first-hand decision on whether or not to keep it.

I'd be iffy on the whole thing if it weren't for the return policy.

I see it as an improvement on two models:

1) Many Kickstarters

Here, you get to play the game before the release

2) Self-funded, but rushed to release

Unlike the former *incomplete* type of game that is falsely branded as complete, there is an open commitment here to keep working on the product after it has been made available to the consumer to completely fulfill the devs' vision of the game.

Sure, ideally, all games would be like Blizzard games and be self-funded and "released when done", but unfortunately, not all devs have that kind of budget so some have to turn to models like Kickstarter or this.

I think avid gamers (especially those who like Indie games) are winners with this model as it allows for more original games that might otherwise not have seen the light of day.

I'll counter your DayZ with a Kerbal Space Program and a Prison Architect. Two examples of how early access can actually work out.

I sill haven't figured out why people are so pissed about this. This promotes DRM free - people who want to buy early access games can now buy them DRM free from GOG. GOG has the opportunity to make more money. People who don't want to buy early access games are unaffected. What exactly is the downside?

I agree with you, but it seems to me that some people just are not happy unless they are complaining ;-)