Just for interest: What's the issue with Dracula: Love Kills that the Steam version is better...?

The Steam version is the Deluxe Edition with bonus gameplay content and other things while GOG is only the regular version. I asked the publisher and they told me that they don't plan to add the Deluxe Edition on GOG as well. After I told them how I feel about this they said "maybe we will find a solution". Reminded them about this "solution" yesterday - waiting for reply.

Well, it’s quite a big thing if the original is so grindy and boring as to stop the game being fun.

Anyways regardless, if they sell something here then it should be the same content as elsewhere, otherwise why would you buy here? Do you prefer a lesser product?

hopefully the 2nd-class citizen list grows so big there'll be more on the list than stars in the sky, YES! :D

The DLC is sold separately, therefore the base game build is the same either on Steam or GOG.

I can understand not having all DLCs available might be annoying, especially if you have the collector fever.
But, personally, I don't buy all DLC from games I own, only the ones I find worthy.
Like... I love Thimbleweed Park, but didn't buy the Uncensored DLC because it adds nothing to the game.

I was wondering if this was some sort of Darkest Dungeons with a viking theme, I probably got it wrong, but really the half backed release gives the idea the the devs are lazy and don't care about their own game. So why should I?

This game never had client-less multiplayer. The fact that you expect it to be specially developed by gog to add a feature that never existed in the game to begin with is just ridiculous.

After reading the description of the DLC on STEAM:
"As promised, this DLC is free for everyone who bought the game during Early Access..."
I think what they meant is that they are not sure GOG is able to identify the people that bought the game during the "in development" period, so that they can get the DLC free.

I don't think they were referring to just adding the DLC to the GOG store.

Regarding the game and DLC, I've also read through some of the reviews on STEAM, and a lot of people are complaining that the game is too much of a grind. Requiring long periods of gathering food items in order to progress the game, so the DLC might be needed for a balanced gaming experience.

Having said that, the game looks really good, and is quite cheap, so I'll probably end up getting it, especially considering the ridiculous discount.

What's with the hate train for this game?

For the GOG release, they've implemented multiplayer tied to the platform-client, just like it has on Steam. It's missing one DLC (which is understandably annoying), but it's a pay-for-easy-mode DLC, which GOG-ites generally abhor anyway. Although "grindy" is a common mention in its negative reviews on Steam, reviews overall are "mostly positive", both for recent and all time. So it's not as if there's consensus that the game is worthless without an easy mode... They've even released it with a launch discount of 75% (!!) which has barely attracted comment.

I understand that people get upset when games release here without all the DLC they have on Steam (Party Hard's lack of High Crimes DLC after *years* still infuriates me), but the amount of vitriol on show here seems out of proportion to the crime...

I have only dipped into the thread a few times but my impression was that the thread is mostly made up of a limited number of people dripping vitriol. You know, that group of people that always seems to be there when there is hate to pour on something...

Where is this hate of which you talk? The game is ok. It is however Extremely grindy far and away beyond the point at which it ceases to be fun for most people. This is a completely valid point, and one echoed on steam. Secondly the game is lacking the dlc which changes this into something more palatable for the people who don’t like the grind as mentioned above. Again, this is not hate, simply pointing out something which is present on steam is not present in this version. I have played the game, and honestly it’s a good looking game, which is, for me at least, ruined by the endless grind - a point even the developers have picked up on and released content to cover. So why should I pay for a product which is inferior to the one on steam? Again, no hate, a simple question. Why the need to automatically defend something against people raising reasonable questions against a product?

I expect this store to be DRM-free, as it is advertised. It sounds like this game is yet another violation of that principle, which has already wreaked havoc on GOG's brand identity since the actions here are the equivalent of talking out of both sides of one's mouth. That, to me, is what is really ridiculous. Customers having to check gamepages and rely on each other to know if a game is actually DRM-free in all aspects. No one said anything about GOG "fixing" the game. If anything shouldn't they have just rejected it? People come to GOG for DRM-free games.

GOG's sister site, FCKDRM.com, details the difference between DRM-free and DRMed games. DRM-free games do not require online authentication. The standard on FCKDRM.com is "100% DRM-free". Not "singleplayer DRMfree", not "oh come on all games use clients now". 100% DRM-free. Examples of DRM-free multiplayer would be hotseat, splitscreen, LAN (without artificial restrictions), direct connect/PBEM (again without artificial restrictions like having to sign up with the publisher first).

If there is no way for the game to be DRM-free, what business do they have selling it on a DRM-free store?
Yeah, how great that the DRM-free store is able to double-down on selling games with DRMed multiplayer (at least according to my plain reading of FCKDRM.com).

Well at this point that's not going to change, GOG is having to adapt to stay competitive in the marketplace.

Precisely why many of us offline-installer folks continue to place next-to-no trust in the proclamations that Galaxy will "always" be optional. That is not cool, and the "have to adapt" rationale could justify any number of other anti-consumer practices. My account may be on the newer side, but I thought the original idea of GOG was to be competitive by offering an alternative to such practices.

The DRM-free part has always be only be for the single player part of games, not for the multiplayer/online part should one exists. And it's nothing new you have older game sold on Gog for years, long before Galaxy, that requires either a third party account or even an online activation to be played online (e.g. Two World)