A bit late to the party...

[FlintlockJazz]

GOG is fine.  Their primary distinguishing feature is the DRM-freeness so they are not going to ditch that any time soon.  Their early access products are a lot more monitored and restricted than Steam's free for all, they cherry pick them more compared to Steam though I personally don't buy early-access any more since its become a joke. 

[Wormerine]

GOG is fine.  Their primary distinguishing feature is the DRM-freeness so they are not going to ditch that any time soon.  Their early access products are a lot more monitored and restricted than Steam's free for all, they cherry pick them more compared to Steam though I personally don't buy early-access any more since its become a joke. 

I am pretty much there with you, though I do buy early access, if I am interested in providing feedback to the game I am playing. They are not good purchases if you look for entertainment. 

 

So far I had great time with EA. I got Prison Architect, though by the time I jumped unto the wagon it could have been released as 1.0 and no one would complaign. I also played Invisible Inc. which was really fun to see it grow and turn into one of my favourite games of all time. I am currenty trying Oxygen not Included, though I feel couple updates are still needed before I will figure out what direction they are going with it and be able to give helpful feedback.

[daven]

Early access seems to cause a conflict of interests for the developer. If people are already paying for the game what motivation do they have to actually finish it?

[AndreaColombo]

Reputational, mostly. If you pull that kind of screw over with your fan base once, you won't get to make many more games thereafter. If you like what you're doing for a living and want to keep doing it, you've need customers who are happy to return.

[Wormerine]

Early access seems to cause a conflict of interests for the developer. If people are already paying for the game what motivation do they have to actually finish it?

Depends how you market it and why you are doing early acces to begin with. Both companies I mentioned knew what they use EA for. They tested things there. They had self imposed deadlines. The idea of EA is not that you sell incomplete game but that if you are enthusiastic about a project join in and provide testing and feedback for devs who might not have been able to afford wide testing. Naturally EA has been abused throughout the years. But if done right the game can develop and improve in ways which wouldn't be possible otherwise. However, like every healthy relationship in the world, early access most of the times disappoints.

 

And yeah, as mentioned before Klei is able to do 3rd (I think) EA release with much success as they have dilivered previous times. Similarly, Obsidian had success with PoE2 because they dilivered with PoE.

[rjshae]

Early access seems to cause a conflict of interests for the developer. If people are already paying for the game what motivation do they have to actually finish it?

 

If you assume that the same people who would buy the finished product will also buy the EA version, then there is no reason to finish it. However, if you assume only a small portion of the potential purchasers will go EA and if the net cost to finish it is relatively low compared to creating an entirely new game, then you have every reason to finish it. I.e. it's to make a profit. Plus they can then enjoy the pride and satisfaction of delivering a polished, finished game.