Steam version has, why not GOG too?

Achievements on GOG may be something we add in the future.

I HATE gameplay achievements. The time and money spent putting those in AND making sure they work correctly would be better spent working on the actual game.

The game has both achievements and bugs in it? If the dev team had skiped the achievements they would have had more time to get the bugs out!

As Far As I Am Concerened the only difference between Achievements and DRM is wheither or not they restrict my ability to play a game that i purchased in good faith. But what they both have in common is they unnecessarily increase the cost of the game while having absolutely NO impact on the game itself.

I disagree and I ask you to be more open minded about it. Good achievements can serve as another dimension of gameplay. Ideally achievements would be tracked within the game, so you wouldn't be tied to a specific client to track them. However, what I've found is that when done correctly, achievements can enhance a game.

For example, Spelunky is an awesome game, but it only has the goal of winning in one of 2 ways built into the game itself. Spelunky's achievements, however, ask you to try for different kinds of victories (such as not collecting any money), different gameplay styles etc. By introducing small sub-goals that aren't the main goal of the game itself, you drive the player to enjoy the game in different ways that were completely unthinkable. Newer rogue-lites such as FTL and Necrodancer have realized that it's a good idea to track these gameplay styles in the game itself, and contain mechanics built around them.

Bad achievements, on the other hand, simply track the beats along the main path of the game, notifying the player of things he already knows he did. This is especially bad in linear and easy games that have no other choice but to follow the main path.

I don't know what PST's achievements are like, but good achievements can hint to you that there are other ways to play the game, or push you in subtle directions that make the game fun and different. For example, since everyone plays with high INT/WIS/CHR, having achievements that emphasize STR/DEX/CONS would let players explore that part of the gameplay and perhaps find things they never expected.

I completely disagree. Achievements are annoying and completely unnecessary. You don't need achievements to encourage different forms of play. Legend of Zelda didn't have achievements, and people still came up with no sword runs, going to dungeons in different orders, speedruns, etc.

Achievements are cheap psychological tricks to make you feel like you're getting more out of a game than you are. They pop up to encourage you to keep playing even when you're not having actual fun because you get a hit of dopamine for "achieving" something. They're a lazy replacement for actual gameplay. They're also a completionist nightmare. Killing a certain number of a certain kind of enemy, or getting a certain amount of a certain resource does nothing to add to the game except artificially add to the amount of time you need to play to fulfill a completionist run, adding grind to games that don't need it.

Achievements are cheap, lazy game development, and sap the fun out of otherwise good games.

For example, when I was playing A Story About My Uncle the game presented me with a natural challenge (a character in the game bet me that I couldn't do something). It fit the story and the characters. I pulled it off, and felt accomplished. But then the little box popped up in the corner telling me I'd "achieved" it. Thing is, I already had the high from my accomplishment, and the "achievement" did nothing but pulling me out of the game.

Same thing when I went to replay and tried to have runs where I didn't fall, or where I used less "grapples," running the game more skillfully and efficiently. These were things I wanted to do ANYWAY. When I accomplished these things, the little achievement pop up only served to diminish my emotional feeling of doing it well. Borderlands' achievements are merely number grinds that make me feel like I haven't done everything in the game when I very much have. Why do I have to kill a certain number of enemies with a shock weapon? I've killed plenty of enemies with a shock weapon, I know what that's like, I know what it does, I know how it works. I've explored shock weapons. But because I haven't killed specifically 500 enemies with them, I apparently haven't explored all the game has.

Achievements are a cancer on gaming, and you're singing their praises. I don't get it.

Like I said, I think they can be implemented badly and implemented well.

First of all, I do think the completionist thing is a bit of a problem. People are used to getting all the achievements for the games they play, and that nullifies their usefulness to some degree. There's no reason to get every achievement for a game you play, but it's been the norm in many games, to the point that we're used to it. When the players of Binding of Isaac complain about a new achievement that takes some more work to get because it ruined their 100% achievement rating, I think that's a sign that there's a problem.

But there's no reason to think of achievements as anything more than another tool in the game developer's arsenal. It can be used well or used badly, but it's a tool. Unfortunately, too many developers only see it as an afterthought. Of course the result of that approach isn't going to be great.

Like I said above, I prefer that devs integrate the achievement into the game itself. When they do that, they can control how the achievement displays or doesn't, so it doesn't take you out of the experience. But the concept of tracking player behavior and play styles and giving small rewards for sub-goals is one that I think is good in principle, even if it's better to integrate it into the gameplay. I don't see anything wrong with directing people into different corners of the game's design, or rewarding them for doing something crazy or creative.

Even with the bad implementations of achievements in many games, I personally don't find their presence to be negative, though I respect your feelings about it as well. I just see it as as a missed opportunity when a dev misuses them.

I strongly disagree, achievements are for retards and they spoil the fun and in 90% cases they're really, really bad, mostly a checklist of doing something for an n-th time. Even in games where they serve some purpose and are actually hard to get (like in superb Age of Decadence) they're not something you need, they only show how much hidden stuff you've discovered (but that can be done by other means which also results in spoiling the fun).

Way to ensure no one will take your opinion seriously, champ.

Any news on that front?

"Achievements for our Infinity Engine games on GOG won’t be a part of the 2.5 patch series, but the team are working towards them."

http://blog.beamdog.com/2018/05/may-11-livestream-recap.html

15 months later, still waiting.

Oh wait,... no. I've been playing the unmodded original instead. Thanks Beamdog!

I agree It is a big disappointment for me too. I would probably bought it on steam if I knew gog doesn't have them. :/

Beamdog obviously decided to ditch all of this and halt support for the GOG-versions of their games. Why is that?