It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
NoNewTaleToTell: Serious Question: How many of those old DnD games is GOG missing? Anybody have any idea?
http://www.mobygames.com/game-group/dungeons-dragons-dd-add-licensees
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/11/study-most-steam-early-access-games-have-yet-to-see-full-release/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Steam_Early_Access_games

Neat. A list.

Lots of games on there for 2+ years.

Also, a fair number of them completed. I suppose the important question is what ratio are you willing to accept, and how long until release is acceptable?
Post edited February 11, 2016 by Wulf2k
I'm not opposed to the whole thing, but I think we should reserve judgment until at least a few of these games make it to "complete and retail" status. At that point it'll be fair to judge the process and the promises.

And even then, each project and developer needs to be considered as its own entity. "Remember what happened with game so-and-so? Disaster!" "Yeah, well, we're not those guys and this isn't that game."
I hope that GoG will make a clearer system than Early Access.
Like maybe making a limitation by month to the number of the in-dev games released.
What i don't like with the SEA system is how crowded and a mess it is,
you should only allow to this system those worthy of it.

If i were a GoG manager (which i am not), i will make a limitation to Max 5 granted "in-dev" project by month.
Which doesn't sound much but it means 60 in a year, it's enough. You can easily be drowned if you don't make a limitation, there is too much shit half finished out there..

I would also propose each month a list of the in-dev project chosen (like the 20 possibility this month)
and propose a poll to see which one GoG users want to see on GoG to Elect the 5 that would get on GoG.
Post edited February 11, 2016 by Dawn_
avatar
Wishbone: Okay, I'm obviously not getting through here, but I'll keep trying:

Will everyone please, for the love of GOG, stop referring to early access titles as EA Games!?!

I cannot stress this enough. Seriously, it will make future discussions about games so confusing, and people will have no idea what other people are trying to say. It's like lazily deciding that steampunk is too long a word to bother to write, and start referring to all games with a steampunk theme as Steam Games.

EA Games is a huge game publisher, people! The name is already taken! Granted, they evoke many of the same reactions and divisions in the gaming community as early access games do, but that doesn't mean the two are interchangeable in a discussion!

If you cannot be assed to write out "early access" in full, adopt GOG's expression of Games In Development, and call them GIDs instead, not EA Games!

I reserve the right to mercilessly mock and deliberately misunderstand anyone referring to early access games as EA Games in the future.
Same deal with FPS (first-person shooter) and FPS (frames per second). Though that situation's even dumber, as there's a perfectly good (and much older) term, frame rate (or framerate), that can be used instead of the needlessly-confusing FPS.

On the topic of what to call GOG's early access equivalent, I hope "InDev" (which already appears as a little visual tag on the appropriate game tiles in the store catalog) catches on -- "GID" sounds kind of dopey. :)