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

×
Becoming a slightly different beast.

<span class="bold">Armello</span>, the digital tabletop/role-playing/strategy game, has now been updated and renamed to Armello - DRM Free Edition. It includes the latest fixes and updates, plus all these lovely animals who will eagerly stab each other with pointy things in order to become rulers of the land. Oh, and it's 25% off for six days!

This edition is a complete strategic experience and will keep receiving updates that are unrelated to DLCs or online features.

Here's what League of Geeks have to say about it (full version <span class="bold">here</span>):

"We want to ensure that whatever platforms Armello is on, we're providing the best experience that we possibly can. As Armello moves more and more into online services (like Steam inventory and more multiplayer features) and as we begin to roll out our plans for DLC, we've been working closely with GOG on an edition of Armello specific to GOG. [..]
We've had fantastic meetings with GOG about the future of Armello on the platform and although there's no way for us to provide DLC for DRM-Free users or to attempt to retain parity with the Steam version of Armello, Armello DRM-Free Edition will see features that best suit a DRM Free experience. [...]."

Get ready to join this new era of colorful animosity with <span class="bold">Armello DRM-Free Edition</span>, exclusively on GOG.com.
The 25% discount will last until September 5, 9:59 PM UTC.


https://www.youtube.com/embed/o4e5s28x7Ps
Post edited August 31, 2016 by maladr0Id
high rated
avatar
bevinator: If you read the entire text of the "closing the thread" post that Vainamoinen excerpted, it's abundantly clear that it's not actually a technical issue that's preventing them from offering the DLC here. They don't want to offer it here because it's contrary to their business model. That's what all the deflections about the "direction of the gaming industry" are about. Why they're so opposed to this (seemingly simple) issue is up for speculation, but I have a few theories of varying levels of cynicism.
avatar
Vainamoinen: Here's the respective quote again.

Now, of course it's theoretically possible to have DLC on DRM Free, I mean, there's a robot taking selfies on Mars right now. So sure, given infinite resources and time we could undertake the task of rewriting the underlying architecture at the core of this decision, but that's straight up not feasible for a vast number of reasons that are unique to LoG, Armello, where we're standing right now and where we see Armello's future.
avatar
Vainamoinen: Now, at the most basic level, this contradicts something else the developer said: That DRM wasn't the issue or the problem, and that they did not believe in DRM. Here, the developer explicitly says that DLC on DRM free is impossible for them; hence DRM free is their problem.

Both statements can not make sense at the same time.

The DRM'd platforms (much like Galaxy) offer to update a game (e.g. with DLC) by checking the purchases of the individual updating customer. That's the functionality that Armello devs seem to miss on GOG.

In my opinion, that means they're missing a form of DRM.
Yes, they clearly don't understand what DRM is, or how to develop game content that doesn't rely on it. Which makes me wonder about their technical knowledge, without even getting into the their-business-plan-contradicts-itself nonsense.

On another note, cheers for GOG for handling this efficiently and professionally in the face of the developer suddenly behaving a child! This support is why I buy games from GOG - I know that I'm getting a game AND the backup needed in case something goes wrong.
Post edited September 06, 2016 by Gilozard
high rated
So, where's that update? Or was it the refunds announcement?


avatar
Tyrrhia: So GOG prefers to keep the real money to give store credit instead (by the way, it's now called "Wallet funds" :P) in order to avoid paying credit card fees? Is that right?

If so, this is really, really confusing me: If a user buys a $10-game and then refunds it, GOG will give them $10 worth of Wallet funds but keep the original $10 (not accounting for all the publisher and / or developer interaction to make it simpler). That means that the Wallet and GOG's bank accounts are one and the same (i.e. nothing happens when someone buys a game with just Wallet funds since the money was already transferred to GOG the moment the Wallet funds were purchased), and also means that Wallet funds are just a virtual variable with no real-world value. Am I understanding this correctly? Or am I just putting way too much thought into it?

(I love the Wallet, but it's way too complex for my simple financial mind. :P)
Well, wallet funds certainly help with avoiding the cost of any fees that such transactions introduce.

As for the rest of your post, it's clearly stated that wallet funds have no real world money value, and that you can't get your money back once you've purchased them. Purchasing wallet funds certainly means giving GOG a sum of money upfront without immediately getting something in return, which in turn means that GOG doesn't have to give out cuts from that amount until you actually load your cart with games, and hit that checkout button. So yes, you're loading their bank account for a period of time; the longer it takes you to spend those wallet funds, the longer GOG can use the amount you paid however they see fit.


avatar
murcielago: A transcription of one of the "fantastic meetings" LOG said they had with GOG: [....]
That was hilarious, cheers a bunch!


avatar
Djaron: [...] Hey, sheepy sheepy, don't buy here, i cant strip you off all your whool !
You're cracking me up!
avatar
Tyrrhia: So GOG prefers to keep the real money to give store credit instead (by the way, it's now called "Wallet funds" :P) in order to avoid paying credit card fees? Is that right?

If so, this is really, really confusing me: If a user buys a $10-game and then refunds it, GOG will give them $10 worth of Wallet funds but keep the original $10 (not accounting for all the publisher and / or developer interaction to make it simpler). That means that the Wallet and GOG's bank accounts are one and the same (i.e. nothing happens when someone buys a game with just Wallet funds since the money was already transferred to GOG the moment the Wallet funds were purchased), and also means that Wallet funds are just a virtual variable with no real-world value. Am I understanding this correctly? Or am I just putting way too much thought into it?

(I love the Wallet, but it's way too complex for my simple financial mind. :P)
avatar
HypersomniacLive: Well, wallet funds certainly help with avoiding the cost of any fees that such transactions introduce.

As for the rest of your post, it's clearly stated that wallet funds have no real world money value, and that you can't get your money back once you've purchased them. Purchasing wallet funds certainly means giving GOG a sum of money upfront without immediately getting something in return, which in turn means that GOG doesn't have to give out cuts from that amount until you actually load your cart with games, and hit that checkout button. So yes, you're loading their bank account for a period of time; the longer it takes you to spend those wallet funds, the longer GOG can use the amount you paid however they see fit.
Oh, I didn't know it was clearly stated (I just read the part of the FAQ where it's mentioned). But thanks for confirming what I thought!
I hope the refunds thing was not the update....this is a slap in the face get rid of it or provide the equal version.

i will tell you a story of second hand treatment done right or at least decent way.

most people know there exists a yearly release series of wrestling game (aka wwe2k series), recently 2k took over the rights to it from thq.

Before the series was console only exclusive , now what they do is release the game first on the consoles with the later releases of dlcs but the pc version is released a bit later as a complete edition with all dlcs.

The real penalty is waiting for the pc release but the gamers do no miss out on anything.

What i am saying is Armello could have been released on gog as a complete edition later with everything instead of a half baked version that no one wants now.
adding my voice to the pile.

both gog and log let gamers down here. removed from my wishlist and log are completely blacklisted. i will never buy any titles they put out, going forward. but sadly, the signs were there from the start:

delayed drm-free release.
delayed patches to the drm-free release.
now this fiasco.

shame on both your houses [gog for even allowing this travesty in the first place and log for treating paying customers assecond class citizens.]

gog: i understand that you /won't/ do this, but really, the classy thing to do in this instance is to tell log that they have failed their userbase and to remove the game from sale, here and to be VERY wary of log going forth.

log: three strikes, you're out, i'm afraid. it's too bad, too. while i wasn't entirely on board with the board game aspects of armello, i loved the universe and the little, animated bits you had in there. could have been a great adventure game. i understand that you are probably reading this thread, shrugging your shoulders and saying, "oh, those pesky second class drm-free guys. boo to them." well, unfortunately, we're customers and you're losing us. that hurts you. we like your game and we'd love to give you money, but you need to meet us half-way by treating us with a modicum of respect. your actions here suggest a lack of - if not respect, then care.

please reconsider your stance and fix this mess.
avatar
lostwolfe: please reconsider your stance and fix this mess.
Uhm, why would they reconsider if GOG removed their game from the catalog... sounds more like extortion to me.

A clear warning that the game won't receive DLC right on the product page is enough for me.
avatar
lostwolfe: please reconsider your stance and fix this mess.
avatar
Vainamoinen: Uhm, why would they reconsider if GOG removed their game from the catalog... sounds more like extortion to me.
http://www.dictionary.com/
avatar
lostwolfe: please reconsider your stance and fix this mess.
avatar
Vainamoinen: Uhm, why would they reconsider if GOG removed their game from the catalog... sounds more like extortion to me.

A clear warning that the game won't receive DLC right on the product page is enough for me.
Its such low expectations such as this is why we get treated like second class , people are just happy with anything as long as its drm free
high rated
avatar
liquidsnakehpks: Its such low expectations such as this is why we get treated like second class , people are just happy with anything as long as its drm free
I think my posts in this thread have made abundantly clear how inacceptable I find the developer's actions and how unconvincing their arguments. Evidently my expectations have been much higher than what the developer aims to offer.

Gamer gratitude isn't the only trap to step into though, gamer entitlement and outrage are others. Sure, pour out the child with the bathwater, no problem, but in my opinion, there's no need to piss and crap in the tub so the child never returns. :)

The "DRM free revolution" isn't a tale of blood and revenge, and it isn't a battle of gamers vs. developers. It's about making clear to developers what they do to themselves when their vision encompasses only Apple and Valve, plus maybe one or two other massive and unacceptable monopolies. If there's no cooperative vibe there, forget about the revolution. :
Post edited September 07, 2016 by Vainamoinen
Just sent them a tweet that they lost out on a lot of money from these shady business practices (LoG, that is)

Seriously, if you're a dev and you're reading this right now, it is NOT ok to tell GOG'ers that "DRM-free DLC cannot be done" - seriously, that's just bullshit.
high rated
avatar
lostwolfe: [...] i understand that you are probably reading this thread, [...]
Pretty sure they're not, never were, and never will. They locked the relevant thread on Steam shrugging their shoulders, and saying "tough luck, get a refund on GOG if you're so inclined, we couldn't care less".
Post edited September 07, 2016 by HypersomniacLive
Sat on the news for a while, read this thread and the one on Steam, and finally requested a refund for both the game and the soundtrack I bought.
If you (LoG) want my money, you know how to get it.


Frustration side note: This is the only reason I dislike Steam - lock in and the many levels of "rationalization" that come with it from both customer and developer.
avatar
Phaedrus567: Frustration side note: This is the only reason I dislike Steam - lock in and the many levels of "rationalization" that come with it from both customer and developer.
Agreed. I hate how many features denied to non-Steam users because developers choose to lock themselves into whatever Steam provides.
high rated
avatar
EuroMIX: I hate how many features denied to non-Steam users because developers choose to lock themselves into whatever Steam provides.
If it was JUST Steam, I would have a tiny spark of understanding for League of Geeks.

But they sell that DLC for PS4 ...
... and they sell that DLC for Xbox One ...
... and you can bet your sweet asses off they'll also sell it for iOS and Android.

Evidently they're flying to the moon on a daily basis.

The ironic thing is, now that I'm reading so much about the game, I'm actually quite certain I would have liked it.
this is should be pretty ackward for gog having completely misunderstood their users and agreeing to this horrible release plan with log haha.
Post edited September 08, 2016 by liquidsnakehpks