I spent some time reading the latest posts in the forum, when this thread came up:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/games_at_risk_of_being_removed_from_gogs_catalog_tracking_thread

I read some of the "newer" posts therein...then I came to this post:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/games_at_risk_of_being_removed_from_gogs_catalog_tracking_thread/post128

According to that post, the self-publishing developers behind the game "P.O.L.L.E.N" are bankrupt.

Especially this sentence: "Game hasn't been on sale for 2 years now in any of the stores", made me check the price of the game, both on GOG and on Steam...

And lo and behold: Steam asks for €9,99 (base price!) - GOG asks for €22,49 (base price!)

That doesn't make any sense.

According to most user-reviews, that I've read, the game works best (or should be played preferably) with a VR headset.

Going by the fact that VR is still a niche inside computergaming, and considering the fact, that GOG has only a fraction of the reach Steam has (thus, GOG very likely has even less customers with a VR system at home), it should be GOG who is undercutting Steam - not the other way around.

The popularity/monopoly/monopsony of the Scheme DRM client accounts for the difference, even when it comes to games that can supposedly be made "DRM-free" after download (not sure if Pollen is one of these or not). The general principle is that Scheme can afford to undercut GOG (and other DRM-free stores) the same way that Walmart can afford to undercut the local mom and pop store.

For many developers, it seems exposure and statistics from Scheme are more valuable than maximizing profit. As a recent example, the developer of Legends of Amberland (fun old-school first-person dungeon crawler RPG rejected by GOG curation even before release) only released the game DRM-free on his own site, for a higher price, after numerous users requesting that they didn't want to use Scheme at all to buy it.

My point is that whenever devs/pubs are making agreements with Scheme to sell there, Scheme seems to have a decided advantage in the negotiation since they are starting from a much stronger position, as, among other things, the devs/pubs have much more to lose by not having the game there, than Scheme has to lose by not having the game there. Myself, I will gladly keep paying the "DRM-free" fee.

What likely happened:

1) The game was released three years ago with a base price of 20+ bucks on both stores.
2) The game received a VR update and a permanent price drop only on Steam, shortly before the developers went publicly silent.
3) GOG did not receive the update and the price drop, because the developers likely didn't make much bank here.
4) GOG itself hasn't delisted the game, because they had no contact with the developers.

Possible. This is a quote from GOG's store page:
"ONE GAME, TWO EXPERIENCES - Get ready to play P·O·L·L·E·N in two uniquely different ways; a captivating first person exploration game on a traditional monitor, or a fully immersive virtual reality experience that transports you to the surface of Titan." See above. The game isn't delisted on Steam either - yet on Steam the price got lowered, but not on GOG.

https://steamcommunity.com/games/393750/announcements/detail/666939043336475748

Some choice quotes: GOG didn't receive this update. It's even mentioned in the "Second Class Treatment" thread. I was referring to how GOG has at times (though, not consistently) removed games from the store for being out-of-date here, but not on Steam.

Just checked and the UK prices are £6.99 and £20.49 respectively - almost a 300% price hike on the GOG version.

Price decrease on Steam in April 2017...that matches with what I was able to sieve out of some reviews.

Quote: "Alles in allem nettes Game, das sich gut anfühlt. Ich war gute 4-5h beschäftigt, was für 15eur durchaus ok ist." (translation: 'all in all a nice game, which has a good feel to it. I was occupied for 4 to 5 hours, which is absolutely ok for €15' - review from May 2017)

From this, it looks like the base price "only" dropped to €15,-...so the new base price of €9,99 must have been established at a later date.

By whom? Steam? And if so - then why can't GOG do the same?

Of course: if Steam got the developers' "ok" to decrease the base price by that amount, but GOG did not - then the devs suck...yet, I have the feeling, we haven't heard the whole story to this.

And to reiterate your claim that GOG hasn't (officially) received the VR version (tough claim, since verified buyers on GOG allegedly played it this way in July 2016 already - so, maybe GOG got the VR version first?) - it would make even less sense to sell the inferior version for more than double the price of the superior version that is sold on a different store. Yep - that's not cool.

Edit: just looked up the "second class citizen" thread...something can't be right here:
Quote: "edit: Make that five open tickets. Not Linux related, but I've filed another one for the missing updates and missing price drop for POLLEN (price for the game was permanently dropped from 25$ to 10$ on Steam two years ago, but it's still 25$ on GOG) https://www.gog.com/forum/general/games_that_treat_gog_customers_as_second_class_citizens_v2/post763

If the base price was lowered to $10 (€9,-) then why would the Steam user write "game ok for €15,- (~$16)?

Isthereanydeal mentions July 2017 as the date that the price fell to 10. On Steam, developers can set the price directly. Here, they would have to contact GOG. Hence, why quite a few games from uncaring developers are cheaper on Steam. The latest update is called "VR Update", not "VR Addition". The game launched with VR support on both platforms, but only Steam received the latest update with support for Vive and Touch. GOG only got (1.01) and afterwards a big, fat nothing.

A lot of things on GOG don't make sense. Just look at:

Shadows: Heretic Kingdoms (2014), €44.99 (Steam: €36.99)
Shadows: Awakening (2018), €39.99

Then look at the description on the game page of Shadows: Heretic Kingdoms. Not a single mention that this game is actually just the first half of an abandoned project that was replaced with of Shadows: Awakening. Actually, the German description still says this on top of it:

"Shadows: Heretic Kingdoms besteht aus zwei Teilen. Der erste, Shadows: Heretic Kingdoms Book I: Devourer of Souls, ist bereits erhältlich. Der zweite, Book II: Age of Demons, erscheint bald. " (two parts, first part already available, second part will be released soon)

No, it won't be released at all, because now there is Awakening, which contains part one and two in an enhanced version. To still sell both versions of the game - the outdated abandoned one that only contains part 1 and the finished and enhanced one that contains the full story - without even mentioning anything about it, and for more or less the same price, is seriously misleading and could even be seen as a deceptive practice. Admittedly, apart from the slight difference in price, the same is true for Steam, but GOG is the one always associated with customer friendliness despite this.

My guess is they don't really have a good overview of what they're selling and how it's described in the store anymore and they don't compare prices for every single product themselves, so they can easily get the short end of the stick if publishers don't care or even have dubious intentions, without GOG even noticing. At least that's what I would like to believe, because the alternative would be even worse.

I think the problem lies with whoever sits on the rights now having no interest in lifting a single finger for anything under $100,000.

Ok...and since the devs are defunct...no one left to contact GOG - that sucks.
But then GOG should do the legwork and contact the ex-members of the company...someone still holds the rights to the game...somewhere GOG still sends the money to, that they make with the game (if they make any money with it, that is) Well, going by that review, it looks like the game played (still plays?) well enough without that update... Yeah, with GOG the old saying always comes to mind: "gut gemeint, ist nicht gut gemacht" (translation: 'well meant isn't well done')

Your example of the difference between German and international (English) storefronts is - well - a prime example for this.
It seems like they have different work groups sitting in different corners of their cubicle farm - and these different work groups never talk to each other (or - maybe in some cases - even literally can't speak to each other...due to the language barrier.
But the rights should still be with Mindfieldgames, no?

And who owns that? If they went bankrupt, probably a bank or risk investment company.

Might be...but is not necessarily so.

Going bankrupt doesn't mean you have to sell everything you own.
It just means, you are unable to fulfill your ongoing financial responsibilities, and you make that inability "public".

And if you have filed for bankruptcy, the money that you make (be it with your game or with any other job) will be used to pay off all of your debts over time.
Well, or if not all your debts, then at least a certain amount of your debts, over which was priorly reached an agreement with your creditors.

But you still receive 'enough' of the money for yourself, to finance your (non-luxury!) life.

Well, that's how it is in Germany, anyway...Mindfield Games are/were Finnish, and I don't know how bankruptcy is handled in Finland.

The only case in which they would have to give away their rights to their game/IP to the bank would be, if they took up a loan in direct connection with the production of the game and if they would have offered their game idea/IP as an insurance/mortgage.

I'd really like to know the bank, that gives money in exchange for an idea.