Developer saw it as *disrespectful* most likely because Steam didn't care to ask for this. I can see the other option: GOG is too small and have to be picky for what games they get. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding due to bad communication on GOG's side.
Not hard at all, I would state something like "it's subject to change" and can't be decided before sales figures are known.
GOG staff stated a few times that GOG Curation process will never be discussed in any way. So I would not expect anything.

I have no idea, some backers will get early Demo access, highest tiers will even get access to Pre-Demo playtesting. Current builds they have playtest by development team only, those builds will never get to backers anyway. I'm a backer and I don't feel *disrespected* by that query. Steam didn't ask for it, so GOG is bad. Well there is some definite logic in that, however I don't feel that great that soon after we get GOG's attention the game is postponed by the decision of developer.

To me it looks like an ordinary question. Yet again Steam don't ask questions so there goes nothing...

Very sensible, thank you for insights. Hope the other games you've advertised before come on here. I've already added in my votes for them too.

Are you sure about that? There were some games I advertised actively on GOG but it was long ago and they were released here. If I may ask, what are those games?

Which does not sounds like they are good developer.

Steam sells all kinds of shirts. Including broken games which when compared to cp77, make cp77 most complete and well developed game.

Seems like game is garbage and the extra curation performed by gog scared the developers.

Gog making sure the release on their platform is what is advertising and that it works is a minimum i would expect from a shop.

Steam does not give a f. They are big enough to absorb any issues when companies release terrible broken games. Like Gary incident or revolution 2012.

How can anyone side with the developer after their response is something I don't understand.

Gog requirements are simple and should be industry standards.

Sorry, mixed you up. Definitely need to recheck my memory.

Thank you for your dedication. I really would have liked to see this game on GOG. Here's hoping that, in the fullness of time, the devs will reconsider and jump through GOG's hoops after all, especially when said hoops seem to be nothing more than sound business inquiries.

I'll up the ante of my previous post: If this game eventually finds its way here, I'll buy 3 copies.

I wonder what will you do with those 2 extra keys, giveaway maybe.

OK, I call your bet, I'll buy 3 copies as well, but I'll reserve 1 for my GOG account.

Brilliant. Yes, I was thinking along the same lines: One for me, and two on giveaway.

Keep in mind that Steam accepts almost everything to its store, even games which doesn't meet any quality requirements. I'm not trying to say that Selaco will be a bad game of course, but I just want to show the differences between the two stores. I don't think that a request for a playable build in this situation is something inappropriate. What more, I don't see how sharing this build with GOG would be unfair to the backers. There's zero chance that this build will leak, so no one from the community will have access to this game before the backers. I think it's an overreaction from the developers. If they fear that it'll be unfair to give GOG access to the game before the backers, they should wait with it until the demo is released for the people who funded the game. This will solve all of the problems.

I don't want to defend either GOG or the devs in this issue so I'll remain neutral. Personally if the game's good then it's a shame if it doesn't get here.
But personally I think the devs probably overreacted concerning the issue of submitting a workable build to GOG. Or maybe they're aware of certain issues that we're not.

Still... having a game available on steam isn't really a thing nowadays. I could be mistaken or maybe the rules have changed, but I seem to remember that not long ago you just needed to pay 100$, fill the digital "paperwork" and upload the game files in order to have your game sold there. Then... assuming that the game doesn't have any illegal content, it's all set to go.
Hence the reason why there's so much trash on that store. And increasing.

https://www.alphr.com/how-to-sell-a-game-on-steam/

What kind of clown developers :D.
Them not getting the necessity of providing a playable build to a curated store really really makes looking the devs bad and unprofessional and kinda clueless.

The part where GOG apparently expects them to peer into the future with psychic skills of divination or some such thing, in order to have a firm answer about whether or not they will be releasing DLCs in the future...that is certainly not a simple or reasonable requirement.

That is of course, presuming the devs' account of these events is accurate. I presume it would be, because it sounds like the kind of thing GOG "curation" would do. And GOG is not going to tell their side of the story, so that lends more credence to the devs' side since they are at least being semi-transparent about what happened, unlike GOG.

And that transparency from the devs vs. the complete lack thereof from GOG is one of the reasons to side with the devs instead of GOG.

Besides that, GOG "curation" has never been a good thing. They reject good games for no good reason, and let in crap games all the time. And they don't even consider most AO games, which are banned off of GOG for no good reason.

GOG would be much better with no "curation" than it is with "curation," even if that means there would be some more bad games on GOG as a result of them abolishing "curation" (which they certainly should do, since the benefits of doing that far outweigh the drawbacks).

Yeah, I know about Steam situation, some games are not even games at all. And I understand that Steam is too big to notice it or to remove *inappropriate* games without a second thought.
I don't think Selaco is a bad game, videos, showcase limited to patreons, and frequent communication from developer team all are very convincing that it'll be something spectacular, it even have the RTX (I have no idea what it is, but it sounds cool). I agree about build and like I stated a few posts above that build should not be disrespectful to backers since they will get more polished version anyway, even the pre-demo playtesting phase is not active yet. I have no idea why that decision was taken so swiftly (several hours), and I don't know how I would react in their place in case of GOG's requirements and prior ignore for 2 months when Steam with more projected sales don't give a dime about my builds of plans for DLCs but accepted it nonetheless. But I see that other publishers / developers worked their way to GOG anyway, so...
Yes, developer should have waited for a demo indeed, even the early access demo would not betray backers since it's only 1 month period difference at best, maybe some would feel betrayed I can't speak for them of course.

I hope that one day developer will resubmit the game again, this time with playable demo.
The question is when demo will be ready, my guess in 2 months (it's only my speculation).

I think that one is more a misunderstanding between the Developers and GoG; I think that GoG probably weren't as clear as they could have been and that the Developer thought that GoG is asking for more than they actually are. Of course, we're never going to know for confidentiality reasons.

My suspicion is that the Developer did a flat "no" to the providing playable code, and then decided it wasn't worth pushing or clarifying on the other items when they saw that GoG weren't moving on the code item.

I think most people agree that it's reasonable for GoG to want playable code to assess the submission if they're asked to accept pre-release (and a retail copy if it is already out there). I think it's also fair for a Dev to be asked to provide a roadmap to release if it's in early access (i.e. all being well, we want to be in early access until September and have a full release on 1st October type thing). While Devs shouldn't have to pre-commit to releasing DLC, I think that it would be fair to insist as a condition of listing that DLC released on Steam should also be released on GoG and that if DLC is currently planned, an indication of proposed release date (e.g. Q2 2023) isn't that unreasonable.

I blame communication and wrong assumptions all the way. I can't deny that GOG have issues, and that I'm unhappy with developer's decision.