timmy010: "publicly name and shame". is this really the way to attract developers and publishers to support gog?
It is to attract them to support their GOG versions properly, no "fire and forget"-releases. You could just as well say that user reviews (of games) should be disabled because they publicly name and shame certain games and their developers.
Also this is a good checklist for us customers, in order to see that we don't accidentally buy games that are known to be abandoned.
Last but not least, this should be also good input to GOG staff, for games that they should really concentrate on (getting missing updated from the publishers). It is not to the best interest of GOG itself either that their version is e.g. buggy and not maintained, but many times GOG might not be even aware that is the case. This list should guarantee that GOG staff is aware, so this is also a service towards GOG staff.
If some publisher goes "Oh, we will end up on a wall of shame if we don't provide updates to the GOG version? Forget it then, no GOG version!"... that is probably for the best of the potential GOG customers too, not accidentally buying games that the publisher possibly has no intention to support on GOG.
Grargar: I personally think you should stay away from this, if for no other reason that it would drive you insane having to check each game for different price points across the regions supported by both Steam and GOG. Not to mention that prices might suddenly change across either store, making said information potentially outdated.
Lucian_Galca: I agree. Just stick to missing bug fixes and features.
I agree too, but now that some are complaining of GOG versions missing "Galaxy-features" (like achievements, possibly cloud saves...)... should such games be added to the list too? E.g. the Steam version has achievements while the GOG (Galaxy) version doesn't?
I personally say no, but someone who cares for Galaxy features might feel differently. Not quite black and white.