Concerning Fate: Reawakened, the game makes use of AI not only non-English voice acting. Their GOG store page makes no mention of this, should I add that to the list? Technically it's not a missing feature from Steam, but I it's certainly an important oversight to have not mentioned that on the GOG store page.

I don't think so. There's a lot more missing and incorrect than just that. Is AI usage more important that release date? There are hundreds of games on GOG with incorrect or missing release date.

Back in the days of MaGog, I once took a sample of 100 game pages and checked them. More than 80 had at least one piece of incorrect or missing information on the game page.

Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus confirmed. The game only has English installers, and the English version has no language selection setting that I can find.

Same goes for Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee.

Same goes for Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee.

Note: There is no store item called "Pajama Sam Series" and I do not think all the issues are relevant to both games in the series.

Corrected Pajam Sam Series. Must have been a leftover from when there was no Browser extension and there was no need to write the games' names exactly as they are on the store.

With these new editable reviews GOG has added I suggest everybody to post a short review for those outdated games. Let them show that their actions will lead to a certain reaction. If they should decide to deliver the missing updates we can still change it back or delete it.

Wander Stars was just released. If you buy the game on Steam, you can pick up both the soundtrack and the artist's sketchbook as free DLC (until October 2). Those bonuses aren't available at all for the GOG version.

^ Since the game was just released on GOG, I think we could wait a few days, or even try to contact the developers, instead of adding it right away.

I'm not entirely against it but I think, unless a case is particularly egregious, I would avoid going after every single game on the list, especially if we don't own the game and we can't provide a more satisfactory review. I think it's important to write a honest and exhaustive review as well, without writing just a simple "the game is missing X".

Sometimes games are on the list because of decisions of the developers, or because they're stuck in difficult copyright situations between different digital stores. Writing a negative feedback without actually commenting on anything else of the game would create a hostile atmosphere.

I do have some games on the list and I am planning to write a honest review, but a review where I'll point out the shortcomings without half words.

By the way, could anyone check if Welsh (or Cymraeg in its native name) is available on Maid of Sker? Welsh is indicated on Steam but not on GOG, but I compared GOGDB and SteamDB, and it appears that GOG was last updated a few days after the final update on Steam. After all, we already verified that GOG often forgets to list languages, and considering this might very well be the only game with Welsh language on GOG, I wouldn't be surprised they made such a mistake.

Seems to me that Marko's message was quite specific, to use the feature to point out outdated games, so those behind on updates, not everything on the list. And yes, it is generally assumed that lacking updates is a developer decision, but it's also on GOG for not enforcing the update parity requirement that actually is in the contract. And, either way, the fact remains and needs to be known. And the hostile ones here are the devs who want to earn the money here without making any effort for the platform.

I'm sure Marko didn't just mean "let's review bomb every single game on the list", but I needed to elaborate my position on it as well, even for the benefit of those who read this conversation without participating. What I wanted to stress was that it would be ideal if people wrote a serious review, outside pointing out issues of the games like missing updates or build.

Example: Pathfinder: Kingmaker is missing a bugfix in the Linux build which also includes the Japanese localisation. Writing a mere 2 or 3 review with "Missing a bugfix on the Linux version, won't remove this negative review until it's solved" would annoy many cynical customers who have no interest in the Linux version (or may not even care that a bugfix is missing) and would just downvote the review. And wouldn't be fair towards developers, who had no power over the missing update, and who would lose the chance to either see their product appreciated as they desired, or to get constructive criticism.

I'd rather write something like "I must warn GOG customers that the Linux build is missing a bugfix and the Japanese localisation, but the publishers ignored every request to update it..." and then use the reminder of those 7000 characters to write a normal review of the game, outside of the issue in question. This way, the issue is publicly reported to with a clear indication of responsibility, but customers can still benefit from reading a useful review and evaluate whether they'll buy the game or not. And it would be encouraging for developers to see that their product is enjoyed despite the shortcomings of the publishes. This could lead them to reconsider their contracts with publishes in the future. And while it's fair to lower the score because of the issue in question, I think it should also be done sensibly: like, I'd take one star or two off, but not something like "I'd rate 5 but the game lacks a bugfix, I'll give 2".

That's what I meant by "avoiding to create a hostile atmosphere". You're 100% right that those who publish incomplete games on GOG deserve all the blame. But if we want to be successful, unfortunately we also have to be diplomatic on some things.

I don't even care about the circumstances at all. If there are no reactions there will never be any change and this thread will continue to grow for ages. I will stay fair and only do this for games I was able to test myself - meaning those games I own. Why on earth is an outdated game not worth 1 star because the devs had financial trouble btw? If they want to release on GOG I EXPECT them to update their game same as on Steam. If they think they can't do that they should not release here. Licensing issues are also no reason since they were able to update Steam (I am talking about cases in which we have the same publisher of course). I am absolutely done with this second class treatment and I wasted too much time of my life trying to do GOGs work and getting updates here. If others don't share my view that is fine - but I will react to this treatment.
We have been "diplomatic" since I have been registered here. The soft approach is what created the situation in the first place. Think about it. It's also no review bombing anyway. If a game is outdated it deserves a bad review. If I'd bought it on Steam I would get the supported version. If they want to change this impression I have - update that game.I don't have any interest in any game that is out of date - so yes, it is just worth one star for me. If you see it differently - that's fine as well. If it was up to me I would even refund every outdated game I have.

I am well aware you've have been around GOG far more than me and I'm sure your library is far more filled with games that are on the list than mine. I guess for me it's easier to digest the few 2nd class games I own and just think "you got away with these, but it won't happen again". But believe me, I would have demanded to be refunded as well had I known about their issues.

I don't mean we should be "diplomatic" because of some "can't we all just get along?". But my concern is that this could backfire to us if we're not careful. So yeah, that should be the word, "careful", much better than "diplomatic".

Case in point: Desperados III Digital Deluxe Edition. A user left this review "Substandard release - No Mac or Linux support unlike on Steam." It got more negative than positive votes.

The most cynical buyers would read that review and just think "so why did you buy it here rather than on Steam?". Or they would think "Unfortunate, but I don't care because I use Windows so you're not telling me anything useful about the game."

The developers who would have wanted to upload the Mac and the Linux builds on GOG but were not allowed by the publishers will be displeased to see a review that has a fair criticism, but doesn't indicate who's responsible for the situation. And the risk if the game was flooded with negative reviews like this, is that people wouldn't blame the publishers, but would blame the developers and the franchise, because frankly, not many people are aware of how these things works.

Had they wrote a more elaborate review together with "Unfortunately, I have to lower my score because the publishers refuses to update the GOG version with the Mac and the Linux builds", the review would have been rated positively by users who aren't interested in these things, and developers would have appreciated that someone valued their work, took their time to write a constructive review and then, as a different matter, denounced an issue that was caused by the publishers.

Thanks for the example, I just upvoted this review.

All are responsible here: the developers, the publishers, the store. All deserve the blame.

How are the developers to blame?

In most cases developers are hired under strict conditions they have no decision over. What are developers supposed to do beyond voicing their disagreement with publishers' policies? Mass quit the job? Most developers are normal people with normal life who just need to work like everyone else. It's not fair to throw put them in impossible situations. This is the "being careful" and "let's not create a hostile atmosphere" I'm talking about.

The publishers claimed, through a mouthpiece, that they have no plans to upload the Mac and the Linux builds on GOG. So they've taken responsibility already, and they should be indicated as the responsible for this situation.

They chose to work with a publisher who does not want to distribute DRM-free Linux builds GOG. And they obviously are not disturbed by that in any way, as their next self-published game did not include a Linux build at all.

They did not voice any such disagreement. Not even once.

How is that "impossible situations", when literal thousands of other developers do not encourage such behaviours?

I don't remember where I got it from. I do remember that I was searching for a bit though since it was not easy to find.