How about this: Steam is in the business of selling games, game developer is in the business of developing games. Asking the other for tips on improving sales sounds like a very sensible thing to do. Does it really speak? Maybe, just like me, you're wholly unaware of the vast majority of small indie titles out there.

Or maybe you know them all but not this one. In that case: how do you actually learn about new games?

Well firstly I appreciate you completely IGNORING my criticism of the fact one of their trailers, meant to advertise and uploaded to YT 2 YEARS ago, does not list GOG at all within' the available platforms. That looks bad on the dev.'s end.

You forgot to mention the publishers. It is their job to advertise their games.

Look at the publisher's website:
https://hitcents.com/games/get-to-the-orange-door
If you go to the archive, you'll see that nothing has changed here.
The abandoned Twitter page for the game https://twitter.com/GTTODGame
also doesn't mention the GOG version.

Similar to the developer of Supraland they don't mention the GOG version on their own official channels. They just dump the game here and expect that the game is a sure-fire success. Then there is the point where they realize that the sales are low. They question the extra work for a GOG version and delist the game. Before they update the game with new content like DLCs they finally abandon the game on GOG and leave an incomplete version for their GOG customers.

A general problem for GOG is the lack of information on gaming websites with news and reviews. Usually, the EGS or Steam versions get mentioned, but a GOG version is omitted. If the developers and publishers themselves don't mention the GOG version then nobody really should be surprised that a GOG version doesn't have enough sold copies.

Because I find it irrelevant criticism for two reasons:

1) This is true of a lot of games. There are so many games whose trailers never mention GOG yet the games arrive here, and nobody is up in arms about it. In fact, it's so normal I've totally come to expect it -- whether we get any given game on GOG at all tends to be something you could gamble on. It may be that most devs and/or publishers treat GOG as a second tier store, but that generally hasn't prevented games from being discovered by and bought by the GOG audience. So if someone failed at marketing, that's not it, a logo in a trailer isn't going to do much.

2) I have no idea whether it was the dev or their publisher who made the trailer. If it was the dev, did they know that the game would be on GOG when they made that trailer years ago? Without facts at hand, it is unfair to blame the dev.

And you ignored the question I presented so whatever. Have a good one.

I didn't really want to mention them. Yes, idelly the publisher would. And if the publisher insisted on releasing the game on GOG (despite dev not wanting to), then surely they could also help with managing the GOG release by keeping it up to date, getting the money & handing it to the dev, etcetra?

Whatever their deal is, it sounds like the publisher isn't doing much and the dev has tried to do what they can to improve their situation. It didn't pan out. Can't really blame the dev too much.

Well GOG has "Deal of the Day", that's more or less the same thing, so GabeN's advice would work here too, unless those can only be set up by GOG too.

There is literally a "Changelog" section on both the website under "more" and within GOG Galaxy as "View Patch Notes". While not necessarily good for news, it certainly would satisfy the need to know why and what has been updated.

Fair enough, though he should consider re-releasing it once it reaches 1.0 or whatever the last version is going to be.


You are making less and less sense with every post.

Not updating the trailers and the official channels shows an attitude towards this platform. Look at the Twitter page from above. It was updated (and abandoned) by the developer.

I think the minimum what publishers and developers should do is to update their channels and trailers and mention the GOG version. Or they should at least use the neutral logo for PC games and not just the Steam logo. I think every developer and publisher not doing these basic things should be blamed.

I'm not a fan of this kind of thinking. No game stays "new" forever. It almost seems like some people consider everything post-2005 to be unworthy, regardless of whether they're making that comment in 2008 or 2045.

Also there are plenty of new games here that work just fine. I pre-ordered and played Syberia 4, I pre-ordered and played Medium, I pre-ordered and played Scorn, I own just about everything from THQ Nordic, who release almost everything day one on GOG too, and they all manage it fine. Indie games, like the Forgotten City also work fine here. In-development games like, Subverse are doing fine on GOG too.

There is absolutely NO REASON why the PC gaming community should be robbed of modern DRM-Free games, from kind publishers, just because some people prefer to get old games here. Old and new games are not mutually-exclusive. We can have both and we do have both.

Sadly, to a majority of game developers/publishers, Steam IS PC gaming. And to a significant majority of game purchasers/players, as well. No Steam, no buy is a real mentality for a lot of gamers.

it depends on when that video was made, and what you mean by 2 years ago. GTTOD has been (sold as) in development since May 2019, but was only on gOg since Dec 2021 (so thats less than 1 and 1/2 years ago). So if the video was made before Dec 2021, then the answer is that gOg is not mentioned because they where not on sale here then.

Very well-put! That last paragraph highlights a long-running issue of opportunity cost. Think of how many DRM-free games we could have had over the years if not for the Scheme platform lock-in and dev/pub myopia.

Ok let me pick two examples, indie and AAA... first, Skyrim. I look at the trailer. GOG logo, nowhere in sight. I look at their official page. It offers places for purchasing Skyrim SE, but no GOG in sight. No GOG logo in sight. Par for the course.

Now which indie game should I pick? Indies make platformers and I'd like to pick one that was received well by the GOG community, so let's say Shovel Knight. I look at the trailer on youtube. No GOG logo in sight. I look at their official website. No GOG logo in sight.

Do you understand the point I'm trying to make? Yes it sucks that devs/publishers don't even mention GOG, but that's so normal that it doesn't make any sense to pick on this one dev (or their publisher) for not going back to update some old trailer. Look, nobody gives a fucking shit about a fucking logo on a fucking trailer. In the normal world, it is in any case normal for products to find new retailers and nobody's going back to update all materials to mention every retailer ever.

If a game sells poorly on GOG, it's not because someone didn't go back to put a logo in some old trailer. Plenty of games are easily discovered and sell well without such logos.

So I just don't see any reason to bring that up in the context of this discussion. Yea. I don't know, I don't go to twitter for game updates. You know, I kinda get the vibe that if GOG users aren't aware of the game (and thus wouldn't be aware of their twitter), I'm sure GOG users would continue being equally unaware after some pointless twitter updates. So, doesn't really matter.

Do you go to twitter to learn about games? Does Sarang? Or just don't mention any version at all. The trailer should be about the game, not about the store or platform it's sold on..

But anyway, nitpicking about the logo is pointless. The logo is not the issue here.

I am not really nitpicking about the logos in the trailers. I think you are too focused on it. It is just a part of the problem. It shows a certain tendency and bias. As I said before, developers or publishers could just use the neutral PC game logo:

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pc_game_logo.png

instead of the Steam logo.

Every publisher and developer have different channels where they share news and informations about their games, e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Discord, the own website, a website for the game. I consider it as basic information where a game is released. If you as a publisher or developer are releasing a game on a specific store then you should update ALL of your channels with this information. It just doesn't make sense to release a game on a certain store and not even mention it on your own websites. There is a bias towards Steam (and the EGS). People, usually assume to find a PC game on Steam (or the EGS).

I am not surprised that gaming websites usually mention the EGS or Steam in their news articles or reviews. This basically what they read on the official channels of a game or what the publishers are giving them. The absolute minimum is to list all stores where people can buy your game.

Having said this, look at the banner of the Larian forums:
https://cmsapi.larian.com/cache/forum.jpg
This already makes a huge difference. I've read on German gaming websites that this game is also released here on GOG. Have a look at the news article of one of biggest German gaming websites:
https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/early-access-baldurs-gate-3-release,3360993.html

"Auf welchen Plattformen läuft der Early Access?

Baldur's Gate 3 erscheint nur auf dem PC. PS4 und Xbox One oder gar PS5 oder die Series X sind bislang nicht eingeplant. Auch der Early Access wird erst mal nur auf PC starten.

In Sachen PC-Store könnt ihr bei Baldur's Gate 3 zwischen Steam und GOG entscheiden. Wie bei Divinity: Original Sin 2 gilt das nicht nur für die Vollversion, sondern bereits der Early Access funktioniert via GOG."

(The first version of this article was released in August 2020)

They mention GOG as one option for the PC version. Usually, they only mention Steam or the Epic Games Store in several news articles there. If they don't know about a GOG version then they won't mention it.

Or look at another German news article

https://www.pcgames.de/Baldurs-Gate-3-Spiel-18525/News/Uhrzeit-Start-Early-Access-Download-1359341/

You will also see GOG there. One reason is that Larian mentioned it on their Twitter page before they started the Early Access:

https://twitter.com/larianstudios/status/1308781954012246018

Interesting. I substitute "Windows" for "Steam" and "anything other than Windows" for "GOG" and the exact same arguments, from all sides, were done to death decades ago. Support the popular stuff, because it's popular. It's the most profitable, it's the easiest, and it provides the most "features" (even if those features are implemented in a vendor-locked manner, in spite of available non-vendor-locked alternatives). End users don't care; in fact, they will go to bat defending the monopolists because they don't see why anyone would want to do anything different. Somehow, being supported almost exclusively isn't enough: they are offended by the mere existence of alternatives. It's a no-win situation. The attitude of this dev is depressingly common, and often when devs do throw stale breadcrumbs at the other people, they expect praise worthy of throwing gold nuggets. Even more depressing is that the other people often do exactly that.

The fact that this dev says I should shut up and join the cult if I actually want to play games I didn't already buy 20 years ago just pisses me off, even though I know nothing will change this kind of mindset. It's a good thing I never wanted the game to begin with (FPS, parkour, "rogue-like" that is as much like rogue as Tetris is), so I wasn't screwed over by buying the game on GOG, only to be offered a cult membership card in response.

GOG is a store, not a platform. It tries hard to become a platform, which worries me, but so far the only vendor lock-in is Galaxy support, which offers features I don't care about (on-line achievements and vendor-locked multiplayer). If I wanted to support a "platform", it wouldn't be Steam. I'd prefer consoles, as I did for almost a decade after the first "PC" game I bought in a store with a "here's your on-line activation key, required to play the game at all" note inside a store-bought DVD case. At least with consoles, I got physical media and didn't need a network connection.

You say I'm too focused on it, and continue another full post going on about the logo.

Yawn. Yes, there is bias, yes it sucks, yes there are counterexamples of games that do mention GOG somewhere. None of this justifies on picking on this one particular dev given that countless other games have the same "fate" of not ever mentioning GOG anywhere in promotional materials. That was never a major problem for the users and also doesn't explain why the game is selling poorly here; plenty of games sell just fine despite lack of a mention of GOG.

Can we actually talk about something relevant for once? If not, let's just move on.

I quite liked Wednesday, though Uncle Fester - and the whole episode he was in, was pointless. But then, I am a Tim Burton fan.