Missing achievs are being listed in this thread:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_broken_gog_achievements/page1

Good point. Nevertheless we are pretty powerless to do anything I think. Maybe GOG should have more of a physical presence when the virus subsides, do more at E3 and other gaming conventions and whatnot, and see about getting GOGcards into stores where possible. Them supporting The Escapist in that "indie video stream" thing is good, as long as they make sure their name is prominent. (And of course work to fix their reputation of unpatched games.)

I don't agree with that devs opinion, or his way to do business.

He *could* have a point if Steam had a DRM free section, with a guarantee that all games bought from that section run without the Steam client even being present on the system. I'd still prefer offline installers, but at least that would be a start.

Now he expects people to spend money on a platform that is known for requiring the client to run.

As an added insult, I checked the Steam store page for his game, and nowhere does it specify that his game is DRM free.

Sorry but yeah, to me he falls in the douche category considering the replies he made on the forums.

You're conflating separate issues. People get upset about games being rejected for other reasons; very few would be upset if it was clear from the outset the developer was not committed to supporting their game. This is actually cause for a lack of faith in curation, if flaky devs like this are slipping through.

While some people may be against any curation at all, it seems to me that most people complain about curation because of lack of communication with it and its apparent disconnect (e.g. games being called "too niche" even when they have hundreds more wishlist votes than quirkier games that do get accepted).

The bottom line is this. If the developer wasn't committed to supporting the GOG version, and this was somehow able to be made clear to GOG users, most users would be understanding of the game being rejected. Similar to users like me in this topic (itself a marker of the uneven treatment towards GOG customers) who want it delisted.

You sure you don't have Humble Monthly? That would reduce the price. Price is the same for me if you ignore the different HM makes.

No, we aren't, We can talk to the devs and tell them how we think. If they don't listen we can and should refund the game. This imo is not an abuse of the refund system it's the result of GOG not DEMANDING what their customers paid for.

We don't know what kind of discussions GOG has with publishers about the support, after all GOG has removed several games from the store apparently because the publisher is not supporting it anymore on GOG. Either way: the refund should come from the publisher, not GOG. And the GOG refund is possible only for like 30 days anyway or how long it was; these "dropping support for the GOG version" may happen much later.

It is not GOG here who is acting bad, it is the publisher (but then I do understand if a publisher is unwilling to support a game on a service where it has sold poorly; in that case he should remove the game and offer a refund to those who want it). It is not a result of "GOG not demanding", it is the publishers not doing what they should do automatically.

I am not expecting GOG to try to track down for hundreds or thousands of games on their service, whether the publishers are supporting them at an appropriate level compared to other stores. It is not like Valve is tracking down the support level of all Steam games either, or Epic for all Epic store games. It would be a humongous continuous task.

Unfortunately the only plausible way to track it at some level is the vigilant customers who notice that this and that game gets something on some other stores that are still missing on GOG. Of course, it should be the developers/publishers themselves who make sure that the GOG version is supported, but as we see here, some of them just don't want to, anymore. There shouldn't be any tracking needed from either the customers or GOG.

Well, we can disagree on this. Of course GOG might miss out on seom missing updates but the moment customers are telling them about those, I do in fact expect them to do everything to get those updates here. IN the past this did mostly not happen at all. It was the customer only who broght missing updates here in most cases. When it comes to updates I don't think GOG is doing enough and I don't think that this will ever change because of fear of losing publishers. The list in the OP is far too long and GOG is know ing about it ... but they don't do anything.

It is still contradictory to demand at the same time that

a) GOG should open the floodgates and accept as many games as possible to the store (yes I have seen this being constantly suggested by people who are angry at GOG for their curation).

b) GOG should track down all the time all their games whether they are getting all the same updates as other stores.

If the floodgates were open, it would be even harder for GOG to try to make sure all their games get proper support from developers. If one thinks GOG should be more proactive keeping the games supported, it makes no sense GOG shouldn't strongly limit the influx of games.

I think it is silly to expect GOG should communicate to all their customers their business decisions, like which games they've rejected and why. For one thing, that communication is extra work, and even more so when customers would start arguing GOG's decisions over and over again, as if they are running GOG's business. No other store generally communicates information like that to their customers.

Many publishers probably wouldn't even appreciate it that GOG would open their email discussions between the publisher and GOG, they are expecting those negotiations to be confidential. How would a publisher feel if GOG openly told all their customer base "Yesterday we rejected Boozaman's Adventure because, well, frankly, it sucks donkey's balls, the music is atrocious and the graphics the worst we have seen whole week. Oh and the gameplay was gimmicky.".

Or, there might be some other reason that GOG just doesn't want to disclose, like "That game could have affected negatively our Cyberpunk 2077 sales, so we felt better not to take it to the store at this point."

If someone wants the power to control GOG how to run their business, they should buy their stock, becoming owners of GOG.

First of all, a clarification so that we are talking about the same thing: naturally it is GOG's job to tell the publishers to bring updates and content to the store, if they've found out there is something missing from GOG. So I am not disagreeing with you that GOG should try to get the missing content/support to the GOG version, after they are aware of it.

However, expecting that GOG would constantly track down all their games, daily and weekly comparing how those games are updated and supported on other stores (like Steam and Epic)... I have no idea how anyone could think that is even possible. It isn't. The only reason it is partly possible for the customer-base is because there are so many of us doing it, and I am sure even we are missing many. We read different gaming publications of new DLCs or remakes or whatever, with thousands of pairs of eyes.

Valve isn't constantly going through all the games on their Steam store, inspecting whether they are supported correctly and whether they are getting all the same updates and content as in other stores. Steam customers are not expecting that from Valve either.

Primarily it is publishers' job to make sure the GOG version is up to date and receiving proper support. When GOG finds out that is not the case, then of course it should be GOG contacting the publisher about the (lack of) support.

Yes, that is what I meant. So we don't disagree :)

Yes, it is not and I don't expect this.

Contacting and demanding if they don't comply. Only nice asking sometimes don't cut it.

You're right about that; they are basically incompatible positions for practical purposes at least.


But if GOG doesn't communicate with the customers, then we have situations where the developer communicates to the customer anyway about GOG's business decisions. Hence how we learned of the "too niche" reasoning, iirc. Customers' power is, supposedly, "voting with their wallet". It is helpful to both customers and GOG if the customers also voice their concerns such as they do on this forum, so that GOG is clear what the customers' "votes" or lack thereof, are in reference to.

You can try that , it would just show devs that gog store is not only small but volatile .

That's complete nonsense.

That would just show me that it's actually such devs who are not only small but volatile.