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

×
I sure hope GOG isn't ever letting this guy on their platform again in the future. Someone who can't commit himself to a release here, whatever the sales are, is just not professional enough to be worth their time and ours.
And there you have it. Better GOG stopping aping account bound online features of Steam and become a platform for DRM free games again.
avatar
Breja: And yet, no matter how many games get abandoned, people still refuse to learn a lesson about buying unfinished products.
I intentionally avoid unfinished products.

As for steam vs gog... wouldn't it mostly be the API? I've seen gog games with the steam.dll and it basically (logically) ignores calls that would go to steam, thus there's no big problem... If you ignore the steam API as well, then you can have the identical version on both platforms.

So i don't see why they have to favor one platform over another...
avatar
kohlrak: Very likely. I imagine some devs don't want their games to land on that infamous list of games that treat GOG customers as second class citizens, just because an update is a few days behind Steam's, just because of GOG.
avatar
timppu: There is no fear of that, the maintainer of that list has made that clear.
If i'm aware of the list, and I haven't see the maintainer say that, then it's safe to say that perhaps the devs haven't, either. This is neither their fault, nor the maintainer of the list's fault. This is why this lands at GOG's feet. Honestly, I think there should be a "beta downloads channel" that is "unsupported" and "you use it at your own risk." Updates should land there and be available while GOG's QA either clears or rejects them. For the sake of enforcing the rejection, if QA rejects, the update should then become unavailable. If a DEV puts the exact same update back up (passes the checksum) then a notification can be posted.

avatar
kohlrak: I love when people make this argument. If steam did this, devs would stop publishing on steam. Guaranteeing constant support for any product, let alone a software product, is insane. I've even watched big companies crushed under the pressure of trying. Everyone wants that back door, and rightfully so. There's an old software adage that no software can be free of bugs, and everyone who devs knows this. Guranteed support contracts usually are't given, and when they are, it's directly dev to customer, not through a publisher.
avatar
HereForTheBeer: That's not what Crosmando is saying. This is in the context of 'abandoned' games on gOg, where the version here lags greatly behind the version available elsewhere. He isn't saying that the developer must eat / sleep / breathe bug fixes 'til time immemorial. He's saying that if Steam customers get version 1.71 then gOg customers shouldn't be left sucking wind with version 1.28, which is several updates behind 1.71 (made up numbers to make a point).
This still is an issue, because, especially given the arguments we have, we don't exactly see GOG as a perfectly benevolent party in this. Just as we have our problems with gog, so do the devs. The devs aren't going to want to sign a contract that sets them up to be forced to deal with GOG if GOG is acting like fruit cakes.

avatar
ChrisGamer300: Good riddance, we don't need more of this bullshit anyway.

GOG should take a look and and maybe try to make the updating process easier however if that's the problem to some developers to avoid more of this shit happening in the future, still it's no excuse to abandon their updating/games once they decide to release it here, see it through !
This does seem to be the universal complaint. Some day that making gog builds similar enough to seem builds is the problem, some seem to suggest the QA, while other seem to suggest, perhaps, some sort of technical problem altogether. GOG seems to be focused on the galaxy issue, which seems to be the hardest to fix. Recently, though, the QA has been seemingly working overtime, so i'm thinking GOG is trying to solve the issues, but they might have a bit too much on their plate. GOG needs to let go of focusing on the promotion of galaxy (trying to get those of us who don't want it to get it) and focus on QA and making galaxy actually work. I understand that it has cut down on the number of support requests, but, on the other hand, there has to have been a better way to go about it than what was done.

avatar
MacArthur: I sure hope GOG isn't ever letting this guy on their platform again in the future. Someone who can't commit himself to a release here, whatever the sales are, is just not professional enough to be worth their time and ours.
Put the pitchforks down until a few people can independently verify the steam keys are being release (in other words, that this isn't some sort of troll trying to change the controversy). If this is real, i'll pick up a torch, myself.
avatar
Breja: And yet, no matter how many games get abandoned, people still refuse to learn a lesson about buying unfinished products.
avatar
rtcvb32: I intentionally avoid unfinished products.

As for steam vs gog... wouldn't it mostly be the API? I've seen gog games with the steam.dll and it basically (logically) ignores calls that would go to steam, thus there's no big problem... If you ignore the steam API as well, then you can have the identical version on both platforms.

So i don't see why they have to favor one platform over another...
Hence the theory of promotion of gog galaxy being the problem.
Post edited April 18, 2018 by kohlrak
Thank fuck for the game being in-dev, thus i avoided it, looked pretty good tho, oh well.
avatar
timppu: Anyway, it is understandable you pull the game from GOG if some other GOG users consider them sooooo important. I personally feel they don't really deserve a refund unless the GOG gamecard lead them to believe GOG version would support those additional "features".
avatar
kohlrak: Beware, we have no way of knowing this is the actual dev. It does certainly seem to be, but let's be clear on this, just in case. Only when these comments become true will i believe.
I'm fairly sure its the Dev.
I tweeted him, he replied via twitter, then the replies appeared here.
avatar
Breja: And yet, no matter how many games get abandoned, people still refuse to learn a lesson about buying unfinished products.
avatar
rtcvb32: I intentionally avoid unfinished products.

As for steam vs gog... wouldn't it mostly be the API? I've seen gog games with the steam.dll and it basically (logically) ignores calls that would go to steam, thus there's no big problem... If you ignore the steam API as well, then you can have the identical version on both platforms.

So i don't see why they have to favor one platform over another...
Yes some games can do that, But when buyers are calling for functions that are currently unsupported bu GoG's API,it puts the Dev in an awkward position
Post edited April 18, 2018 by mechmouse
avatar
mechmouse: Yes some games can do that, But when buyers are calling for functions that are currently unsupported by GoG's API. It puts the Dev in an awkward position
I would think the simplest solution is to implement them, but none of them are required... so 'gets achievement #12' gets sent, regardless if anything receives/processes it.

But then again i prefer not using either client, and any game that requires it gets an instant seal of disapproval from me.
So... an In-Dev game hasn't a big user base on gog? Now that's a surprise - not. And there were too many refunds, of this In-Dev title, which has a 14 day no questions asked refund policy? Who would have guessed.

Edit: And the reviews are off putting and there's a 20% regional pricing discrimination.
Post edited April 18, 2018 by Knochenkratzer
avatar
Knochenkratzer: So... an In-Dev game hasn't a big user base on gog? Now that's a surprise - not. And there were too many refunds, of this In-Dev title, which has a 14 day no questions asked refund policy? Who would have guessed.

Edit: And the reviews are off putting and there's a 20% regional pricing discrimination.
Yes in deed. just goes to show he should not have bothered with gOg to start with. yeah? Even though he likes gOg, he should just have used Steam only (where it currently have a Mostly Positive rating and as I look 250+ players playing it right now). It just shows how the gOg community is not very receptive, high demand and that the marked is too small. Is that what you are trying to say?
avatar
Knochenkratzer: So... an In-Dev game hasn't a big user base on gog? Now that's a surprise - not. And there were too many refunds, of this In-Dev title, which has a 14 day no questions asked refund policy? Who would have guessed.

Edit: And the reviews are off putting and there's a 20% regional pricing discrimination.
avatar
amok: Yes in deed. just goes to show he should not have bothered with gOg to start with. yeah? Even though he likes gOg, he should just have used Steam only (where it currently have a Mostly Positive rating and as I look 250+ players playing it right now). It just shows how the gOg community is not very receptive, high demand and that the marked is too small. Is that what you are trying to say?
If you're on gog, you're likely very different from normal. Normal has a habit of not questioning things. Different people have a habit of questioning things, which is usually what makes them different. Different people would likely question those things he mentioned, and said that they're not up for those kinds of shenanigans. We use GOG because our standards are different from normal: We don't like DRM. It's safe to say we don't like alot of other business practices.
GoG is a nice place for old/finished games, but when it comes to ongoing titles that still actively receive updates - there come issues.

I've used to talk with some indies and they said that there are 2 problems - slow patches acceptance and overall old infrastructure: each patch require manual upload with FTP (I dont know how it happen on steam, I cant compare. But they said that steam's update system is WAY easier and faster to use), then It takes about 2 weeks to get manually verified by one of few gog's employers.
I understand, that manual verification was one of things, that made GoG popular back in times - guarantee to get working game, all that. But it simply dont mix well with games, that receive updates monthly, if not weekly.
Imho, GoG should rather manually verify only original uploads (release versions without any patches) of new games (to something, released years ago, current policy will still apply well) or, well, decline their "improvement" plans and come back to original concept of "good old games"
Post edited April 18, 2018 by Gekko_Dekko
avatar
amok: Yes in deed. just goes to show he should not have bothered with gOg to start with. yeah? Even though he likes gOg, he should just have used Steam only (where it currently have a Mostly Positive rating and as I look 250+ players playing it right now). It just shows how the gOg community is not very receptive, high demand and that the marked is too small. Is that what you are trying to say?
avatar
kohlrak: If you're on gog, you're likely very different from normal. Normal has a habit of not questioning things. Different people have a habit of questioning things, which is usually what makes them different. Different people would likely question those things he mentioned, and said that they're not up for those kinds of shenanigans. We use GOG because our standards are different from normal: We don't like DRM. It's safe to say we don't like alot of other business practices.
so, yes then, message to devs - don't bother with gOg, it is too much hassle

and no,. most users of gOg are 'normal' (what-ever that may be). You have a few oddballl vocal users here in the forum, but they are far from being representative of the median gOg user.
avatar
Gekko_Dekko: GoG is a nice place for old/finished games, but when it comes to ongoing titles that still actively receive updates - there come issues.

I've used to talk with some indies and they said that there are 2 problems - slow patches acceptance and overall old infrastructure: each patch require manual upload with FTP (I dont know how it happen on steam, I cant compare. But they said that steam's update system is WAY easier and faster to use), then It takes about 2 weeks to get manually verified by one of few gog's employers.
I understand, that manual verification was one of things, that made GoG popular back in times - guarantee to get working game, all that. But it simply dont mix well with games, that receive updates monthly, if not weekly.
Imho, GoG should rather manually verify only original uploads (release versions without any patches) of new games (to something, released years ago, current policy will still apply well) or, well, decline their "improvement" plans and come back to original concept of "good old games"
This seems to be the big issue. The logical conclusion i've come to, though is "unsupported updates." While an update is getting reviewed, or is waiting to get reviewed, you can have it live as a "beta" or "unsupported" update. That is to say, the QA team is the only one that hears the request if anyone does. The reason for QA is so GOG can support the game, which is a service we pay for at gog, and apparently one we take for granted. With "unsupported updates" we can limit this.

The NDA and Galaxy questions still remain, though.
avatar
kohlrak: If you're on gog, you're likely very different from normal. Normal has a habit of not questioning things. Different people have a habit of questioning things, which is usually what makes them different. Different people would likely question those things he mentioned, and said that they're not up for those kinds of shenanigans. We use GOG because our standards are different from normal: We don't like DRM. It's safe to say we don't like alot of other business practices.
avatar
amok: so, yes then, message to devs - don't bother with gOg, it is too much hassle
Well, that is precisely what the devs are saying when they're being vague, so... Looks like we finally figured out what that means.

and no,. most users of gOg are 'normal' (what-ever that may be). You have a few oddballl vocal users here in the forum, but they are far from being representative of the median gOg user.
Not just the forums, the reviews often reflect things, too. If there's anything funky going on, it's either in the gogmix or review, which the dev's going to see long before something on these forums. I see alot of overcritical reviews for some games, undercritical reviews for others. This is a thing all over. GOG doesn't seem to let devs delete reviews like steam does, though. Surprise, another major difference.

EDIT: 3 out of 5 on votes alone. What do the reviews say?


2 star:
Game is just too fast paced. All you do is click your axx off. Might be OK if you had time to think about it.
2 star:
From side game looks exactly what it should be some software tycoon. Uses a lot of proper and fancy words, mimics different problem areas & so on. But after trying to explore it you understand, that there's no any depth in game beyound this words. Advanced levels do not differ from the beginning except in terms on numbers.
You get some abstract programmer, which creates "portion of work". Hire sales manager, it takes contract for specified number of such "portions", and close contract with profit once you have enought count of it. That's very simple. Very exploitable, within hour you won't have any money limitations. But this infinite cycle is so explicit & so short, that it ultimately kill all the process filling.
Once you have enought money, you can play with another model - "create a startup". But here you just invest work into some profit-generator tool. Not really different, nor interesting.
Developing software (and especially startups) is a risky & interesting thing, know it myself. But game does not bring any of it.
The other 3 reviews are in german, which are 4 star, 5 star, and 2 star.
Post edited April 18, 2018 by kohlrak
avatar
kohlrak: This seems to be the big issue. The logical conclusion i've come to, though is "unsupported updates." While an update is getting reviewed, or is waiting to get reviewed, you can have it live as a "beta" or "unsupported" update. That is to say, the QA team is the only one that hears the request if anyone does. The reason for QA is so GOG can support the game, which is a service we pay for at gog, and apparently one we take for granted. With "unsupported updates" we can limit this.

The NDA and Galaxy questions still remain, though.
Its called "experimental". And I agree that it could work too.

Technical side (about usage of FTP and such) still remain questionable, but I ll leave it to people who know differences between steam's and gog's updating better.

As for galaxy... Oh, galaxy...
My personal issue with it isnt in its less optionality with years, but in realisation of "optional" features

But thats kinda offtop anyway
Post edited April 18, 2018 by Gekko_Dekko
avatar
kohlrak: This seems to be the big issue. The logical conclusion i've come to, though is "unsupported updates." While an update is getting reviewed, or is waiting to get reviewed, you can have it live as a "beta" or "unsupported" update. That is to say, the QA team is the only one that hears the request if anyone does. The reason for QA is so GOG can support the game, which is a service we pay for at gog, and apparently one we take for granted. With "unsupported updates" we can limit this.

The NDA and Galaxy questions still remain, though.
avatar
Gekko_Dekko: Its called "experimental". And I agree that it could work too.

Technical side (about usage of FTP and such) still remain questionable, but I ll leave it to people who know differences between steam's and gog's updating better.

As for galaxy... Oh, galaxy...
My personal issue with it isnt in its less optionality with years, but in realisation of "optional" features

But thats kinda offtop anyway
The dev i got the most info out of was playing the lame galaxy game himself, so he couldn't tell me how pushy they are about implementing galaxy features. That's my concern: do you get slow laned for lack of galaxy support? As long as i'm not forced to use galaxy, and devs aren't turned away from not using galaxy, I don't care. As long as galaxy is optional for me and devs, without any "punishment" (removed features from users, or slow laning devs) i couldn't care less about galaxy. I have bigger fish to fry with other companies i interact with on privacy issues than worry about the privacy issues of an optional product that I don't use. As galaxy gets more and more pushed on me, i start to care more and more about what's in Galaxy. As long as Galaxy is not on my computer (or active for the things they're embedded in) and everything still works, it bothers me as much as the telemetry in brony porn (hint, i'm not a brony).