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

×
Ready to play dirty?

<span class="bold">Gremlins, Inc.</span>, a fierce digital board game where you must outmanoeuvre other gremlin businessmen at every turn, is now available on GOG.com with a 50% launch discount.

This is a gremlin eat gremlin world of ruthless capitalism, political power struggles, and opportunistic moves. Use cunning, subterfuge, and your conveniently maladjusted moral compass to navigate a steampunk universe of cut-throat profiteering, both in single-player and multiplayer.

Expand your experience further with the <span class="bold">Digital Artbook</span> or <span class="bold">Soundtrack</span>, plus the <span class="bold">Uninvited Guests</span>, <span class="bold">Astral Gamblers</span>, and <span class="bold">Automated Competitors</span> DLC.

The 50% discount will last until May 18, 13:00 PM UTC.

NOTE: The game supports Galaxy/Steam crossplay, GOG Galaxy achievements, and a fully functional mod Workshop, among other things.

When you buy this game, you get 2 products in your GOG Library: Gremlins, Inc. – playable online in single-player and multiplayer modes, with item drops; and Gremlins vs Automatons – playable offline in single-player mode.

Tinker with the trailer.
Post edited May 12, 2017 by maladr0Id
avatar
eiii: If we actually would have one game for offline single-player mode and one game for online multiplayer mode that would be okay for me. But Gremlins, Inc does have a DRM-ed single player mode too. Why is it there? What's the difference to the single player mode in Gremlins vs Automatons?

There would not be a need for two different single-player modes if there would not be a difference. This very much looks like a "when you accept DRM you get more features in single player mode" to me, which clearly weakens the "DRM-free single-player mode" stance of GOG.
They developed Gremlins, Inc first and made Automatons later on after users were complaining about it being online only. The difference I've read is the Gremlins, Inc has I believe item drops while online in single player like the online MP has. And there is some cosmetic DLC that isn't in the offline version.
Post edited May 12, 2017 by user deleted
avatar
BKGaming: The difference I've read is the Gremlins, Inc has I believe item drops while online in single player like the online MP has. And there is some cosmetic DLC that isn't in the offline version.
So exactly what I thought, a basic single-player mode in Gremlins vs Automatons, DRM-free, and an extended single-player mode in Gremlins, Inc, with DRM, making the DRM-free version a second-class citizen.
avatar
eiii: So exactly what I thought, a basic single-player mode in Gremlins vs Automatons, DRM-free, and an extended single-player mode in Gremlins, Inc, with DRM, making the DRM-free version a second-class citizen.
Item drops typically involve being online as that is usually handled on the server... it's really no different that what Victor Vran does and it's on GOG, also your not really missing much. As far as the actual content, it's the same in both games minus the cosmetic stuff according to dev.

But to each there own... I think this was bad way to design their game, so I can't really defend it. I don't like the dev either. xD
avatar
BKGaming: I think this was bad way to design their game, so I can't really defend it. I don't like the dev either. xD
There we agree. xD
avatar
eiii: There we agree. xD
I knew there had to be something we could agree on... :P
high rated
avatar
eiii: Why is it there? What's the difference to the single player mode in Gremlins vs Automatons?
One would be the chests. When we decided to add them to the game, we wanted them to be available in all modes that the game has to offer, so even if someone doesn't like multiplayer, they will be able to have access to this feature. But this system must be protected from hackers and cheaters, which is done through the server-side distribution of all in-game items.

Leaderboards. Each challenge has its own list of players who did really well in that challenge. We don't want them to become meaningless because cheaters would hack the client-based single-player mode, change their resources or cards and achieve some ridiculous results. So again, in order to protect this part of the game, all calculations must be server-based.

avatar
eiii: There would not be a need for two different single-player modes if there would not be a difference. This very much looks like a "when you accept DRM you get more features in single player mode" to me, which clearly weakens the "DRM-free single-player mode" stance of GOG.
It is impossible to create the same experience as we have in Gremlins, Inc. but without the online connection. Not in the world where people hack the games just to ruin other players' fun.

If you want features that in our opinion are important for a healthy gameplay and therefore must be protected by the necessary online connection, you should accept the fact that the Gremlins, Inc. demands online connection. Not for the single-player mode in particular, but for the parts of every mode that we can't leave on the client-side because in that case the game and its players would be at risk of being damaged by cheaters.

If you don't want to accept the necessity of the online connection, which is understandable, you might use Gremlins vs Automatons that exists as exactly what you want – as a single-player mode with no connection to any server. Chests are literally useless there so they don't exist in GvA, and the leaderboards are slightly different but other than that it offers the same functionality as Gremlins, Inc.

avatar
BKGaming: They developed Gremlins, Inc first and made Automatons later on after users were complaining about it being online only.
This is partly correct. Gremlins, Inc. was the first, followed by GvA about a year later. Why GvA was developed at all if at the beginning we had no plans for any offline mode? This is simple – we didn't expect that the single-player mode would be as popular as it became. We thought that the majority of players will be playing with the real people, not with the bots. So the whole game was designed to provide best online experience possible. Safe and protected, with the features that only an online game might have.

Instead, with time we discovered that almost half of all in-game sessions is played in the single-player. It is obvious that for the single-player an offline mode would be more convenient even without some of the extra features like the chests. So, when it became obvious that there is a demand for the offline mode (and half of the sessions being non-multiplayer is a clear demand) we managed to find time and resources to create it. At that point, it would be too risky to add such drastic change to the same client that we already had, so the new product was created – Gremlins vs Automatons.

You can call us stupid or arrogant for not listening to you from the very beginning if you like. But believe it or not we actually always watch and listen to what our community does and asks – there is no other way for us to know how to develop the game and keep that community alive and active. So far we are doing pretty well I would say but we have no intentions to stop the communication, this is why we are on this forum.
avatar
Qfasa: You can call us stupid or arrogant for not listening to you from the very beginning if you like. But believe it or not we actually always watch and listen to what our community does and asks – there is no other way for us to know how to develop the game and keep that community alive and active. So far we are doing pretty well I would say but we have no intentions to stop the communication, this is why we are on this forum.
It has nothing to do with that, I just have a long memory, (and yes I was the dude being argued with) GOG users didn't seem all the important back then. But hey lets not drag up the past.

Communication is indeed good, props for that...
Post edited May 12, 2017 by user deleted
high rated
avatar
BKGaming: It has nothing to do with that, I just have a long memory, (and yes I was the dude being argued with) GOG users didn't seem all the important back then. But hey lets not drag up the past.

Communication is indeed good, props for that...
Not dragging the past is good and all, but that thread was very much relevant now. And enlightening.

I love how you said an online game like this would not be accepted on GOG, and his reply was basically "oh, it will". And here we are.

It was nice when you could just buy GOG stuff without having to read long complicated texts to see if you could actually play the game offline, and the store would save me the time I wasted looking into this one.
avatar
P1na: It was nice when you could just buy GOG stuff without having to read long complicated texts to see if you could actually play the game offline, and the store would save me the time I wasted looking into this one.
Gog's reason of existence it kinda defeated now, isn't it?
avatar
BKGaming: snip
avatar
P1na: Not dragging the past is good and all, but that thread was very much relevant now. And enlightening.

I love how you said an online game like this would not be accepted on GOG, and his reply was basically "oh, it will". And here we are.
Be fair: GOG acted appropriately and rejected the game until the developers created an option for offline play.

But yeah, the devs' arrogance in that thread, especially the dismissal of game preservation and those with limited internet access, is off-putting. They do seem to have (at least somewhat) improved their attitude towards and understanding of single-player gamers and the DRM-free crowd since that time.

avatar
P1na: It was nice when you could just buy GOG stuff without having to read long complicated texts to see if you could actually play the game offline, and the store would save me the time I wasted looking into this one.
It would have been nice for the GOG news post to contain a clear and concise description of the situation:

"Purchase includes two versions of the game: Gremlins vs. Automatons is the offline, single-player version of the game, while Gremlins, Inc. requires an internet connection and GOG Galaxy for all modes and offers multiplayer and the ability to find and use some multiplayer items in single-player mode. The available DLC packs containing cosmetic enhancements for player customization are compatible with only the Gremlins, Inc. version of the game."
avatar
SeduceMePlz: It would have been nice for the GOG news post to contain a clear and concise description of the situation:

"Purchase includes two versions of the game: Gremlins vs. Automatons is the offline, single-player version of the game, while Gremlins, Inc. requires an internet connection and GOG Galaxy for all modes and offers multiplayer and the ability to find and use some multiplayer items in single-player mode. The available DLC packs containing cosmetic enhancements for player customization are compatible with only the Gremlins, Inc. version of the game."
This information is available in the gamecard(s) but I've also now added the meatiest part to the newspost for extra visibility.
avatar
SeduceMePlz: snip
avatar
maladr0Id: This information is available in the gamecard(s) but I've also now added the meatiest part to the newspost for extra visibility.
Cool. :)
Read through the whole thread and I'm confused. What is the connection between this game and Armello, or between the developers of the two games?

Read news about GOG offering refunds for Armello last year and the removal in April. Found http://steamcommunity.com/app/369990/discussions/0/412449508278477740/, however I haven't read it yet. Is that what I need to go through to understand all this?

There's a decent number of vague passive aggresive posts about events in the past. Can someone get it out of their system already.
Post edited May 12, 2017 by Luc2k
avatar
Luc2k: Read through the whole thread and I'm confused. What is the connection between this game and Armello, or between the developers of the two games?
None.

The Armello devs initally supported a full DRM-free version of the game but later stopped updating the DRM-free version and did not make the DLC for the game compatible with the DRM-free version. It upset people who bought it expecting full support, and GOG offered refunds to those folks. (all of that is iirc)

People mentioning it here probably fear/expect a similar situation.

avatar
Luc2k: Read news about GOG offering refunds for Armello last year and the removal in April. Found http://steamcommunity.com/app/369990/discussions/0/412449508278477740/, however I haven't read it yet. Is that what I need to go through to understand all this?
Short version: Devs were dicks (subject to opinion of course) about offline single-player and DRM-free at first but have since come around somewhat. Some are willing to forgive, some aren't.

The current situation with the game is described in the suggested blurb I previously posted.
Post edited May 12, 2017 by SeduceMePlz
avatar
SeduceMePlz: Be fair: GOG acted appropriately and rejected the game until the developers created an option for offline play.

But yeah, the devs' arrogance in that thread, especially the dismissal of game preservation and those with limited internet access, is off-putting. They do seem to have (at least somewhat) improved their attitude towards and understanding of single-player gamers and the DRM-free crowd since that time.
I believe I am being fair. Yes, they did indeed do the right thing in the past, and this release might technically qualify to be here. I maintain that not having to worry about this stuff was GOG plus that is quite questionable now.