I don't think DRM is that important, but potential user base. For example Birth of the Empire (my game), has 27000 downloads and 6000 active players on Google Play. On Amazon it has maybe 700 downloads. So where do you think I focus my energies first to provide a better experience?

As a developer I can understand the need to manage limited resources and funds. However, speaking as a consumer, I would say that you need to fully support your product in whatever marketplace you release it through. Going "well, I'll drop support on these platforms and only update it where it sells well" is a shitty attitude. Unless you let buyers know up front that they run a good chance of getting support dropped, or you offer no-questions-asked refunds when you do drop them, then you need to provide the same support across the board. Otherwise, stay off a service you have no intention of treating as equal to all others. It's unfair to the consumer, and also unfair to the service, which then has bear to the brunt of that frankly assholish behaviour.

Did you decide to release it on Amazon? If so, then regardless of how well it does or doesn't sell there, you've entered into a contract with the vendor and the customers there to support the product they purchased at the same level you support it elsewhere.

To be fair it's free everywhere. And i do update core features on Amazon too, but on Google for example I've added Drive backup and online achievements tracking, both of which I don't intend to support on Amazon. And 2 years ago at first release I had no clue where it would have more downloads. Anyway I'm just trying to put it from the developers perspective. Now i don't know for example how straightforward is to release updates for a game on GOG. On most other platforms it's little effort, many times it can be even automated using scripts. So it can be that a developer decides that it's to complicated to do the process for every minor change and release here only major updates.

And the news are out on TechRaptor.

Frequent customers of Good Old Games...

Sigh...

Ah, yes, freeware is a special beast. My own games are free and I make no promises as to support. :)

I think making certain platform-specific features available is fine when it's something unique to that platform. It's more egregious when done in the case here, where they devs could easily provide DLC and multiplayer, but have decide instead that their game is to be a microtransaction DLC machine and that they are only supporting it in one place. It is a naked pursuit of money, with no integrity on their side and no faith kept with their customer base.

I totally understand that devs would need to do triage and might roll up patches in one place where they dole them out more frequently on another. But this here is purely "you bitches ain't making me the Benjamins, so laters, but thanks for the cash suckers". Crudely put, but then, crudely enacted.

It's the gift that keeps on giving...

On that front i agree. This is why Armello was removed from my wishlist... there are enough games out there.

I'd like to note what everybody is complaining about in this thread has been happening
in the gaming industry for years. The idea of splitting a game's content across many
platforms is infuriating, especially when that content is exclusive to that platform. Take
for example Need for Speed 1-4. To access certain content (some hidden), you had to
own the PS Versions. Meanwhile, if you wanted better graphics or custom cars and
mods, you had to go PC. Admittedly, this thing was most problematic during the 32 bit
console era.

Now it's happening again. With all the advances learned of how plan the development
of games, you'd think developers would be able to avoid this. It's really infuriating and
disappointing to think that I might have to buy more then version of a game's certain
iteration for it's content.

i do understand the simple concept of priority, that is ok...
what couldn't be tolerated, however, is if you were bluntly implying/saying to the 700 amazon customers that, well, if there is a gamebreaking bug or severe issue that prevents them from using the product that you won't bother the trouble of giving due support (i'm not speaking about adding bonus functionalities on par with larger client base, just making the thing to work...)

if you don't want the trouble of prodiving basic tech support to a store and its customer (speaking rethorically, i dont imply that it's what you're doing) because of sell scale/size compared to main actor in the market, maybe you'd rather not bother puting it in the catalog out there in first place.

Free products are a different matter yes... but there is really free product, and not that free (i mean when you have a free base product but with micro transaction and IAP, well, you are getting money from customer, and when this happens, there is a commercial and contractual relationship starting onward)

@indygo indeed, what you are saying is as old as the market of video games. but i think i wont be wrong if i say that what is infuriating most of us here is not that, but the blatant lies and hyppocrisy and bullshit excuses/false reasons they dare to throw at our face with a disgusting mouthful smile as if we were complete dumb idiots
of course, you can't prevent for sure someone to come and urinate on your very shoes... but there is a limite crossed when they finish wanking up their dripping meat over your feet while staring at you with a grinning smile.
(sorry, where did i left my shovel and crowbar already ? they soon may come in handy)

I've requested a refund, explaining the reason was having a product that turned out to be inferior, and it was granted by GOG. On my GOG wallet instead of a cash refund, but that is good enough as I'm still planning to buy many games from this store.

It's the very first time in my life that I'm asking for a refund. Heck, I didn't even ask one for No Man's Sky ;-)

Good idea, abrahel, the entire cost of the game is better invested with other game(s) of devs. more trusthworthy.
Maybe we should request that our money come to GOG wallet in order to buy other game, not the game of League of Geeks.

League of Scoundrels..., they shouldn´t seek money here. No with that attitude.

See you, people.

Good for you and expectedly decent behavior from GOG as well, who has to cope with the consequences of someone else's fault.

Me ? I intend to keep using the previous version of armello i purchased here but i dont give a damn about LoG, their PR craps, or any of their future product either.
I wont get the "Armello version carefully rebranded and crippled for us only, with love XOXO" at all and keep my installer files of the pre"Armello DRM-free version" (which, surprisingly, was drm free TOO before this new version was released... sorry for the sarcasm)

I wont ask a refund, i'd rather KEEP the game in my library as a battle scar to remember the dirty move of LoG and never forget, and raise a more vigilant and defiant mind for future.



For me the ONLY acceptable resolution of this issue would not have been GOG having to REFUND us who ask, but LoG to spontaneously provide a armello steam key to EVERY GOG customers who purchased the previous version here, and not having GOG to endure this cost all alone.
They didnt do that, they just hurled shit at the fan and ran away with maniacal laughter ? ok, fine... They will be remembered.

on some forums i see people who intended to get it on steam (cause they are not that much concerned about the drm free credo) but as fellow consumers, they just gave up getting the game anyway because of LoG move

Be aware, steama users, tomorrow, you could be in our seat and shoes when developpers will favor win10 store versions and won't get bothered anymore aboutsteam version of their games. Join our fight, we are all customers and gamers.