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

×
avatar
Point_Man: According to GOG updating at least the Galaxy version is just as easy as updating on Steam. The extra verification they do afterwards is to add the update to the downloadable installer version.
avatar
nasKoo: Doesn't mirror our experience.
It's currently awaiting approval. The conversation we had was that once this is out, we can publish updates to the master branch as they come without waiting for approval.
So you don't have access to a devportal with tools to update your game like the linked post said?

we do have a devportal open to all our partners, not only for those who are implementing Galaxy features. Within this portal every developer can get a hold of our build delivery tool that works exactly like steampipe - updating a game on GOG is a matter of executing a single script.
They also did say "Just to be on the same side, not every partner has switched to this system, but the ones who did are in the grand majority, and we are strongly encouraging all partners to use it."

So maybe it's an option not every developer is aware of? It's strange because you're not the only devs to say this yet GOG claims they have a system in place that works just like Steam... Don't know what to believe at this point.
The part that doesn't mirror our experience is this:

What's more, after the build gets published on GOG via devportal, we test every single one of it - the reason for that is that we want to able to provide our developers with feedback regarding their games to maintain the quality of our products.

Even update builds or just new builds to GOG? The latter is fine but the former isn't because this slows down updates. We have a rollback feature for this reason. Or do you allow the updates to show on Galaxy immediately, but still test them after?
The developers publish them independent of us, we simply test them afterwards in case a regression is introduced
Meaning that so far, our updates had to be approved before being published, IIRC, same as the current build.

Wording of conversations we've had also made it seem like albeit we're going to be able to not have to wait for approval for future builds, eventual beta channel updates might still have to be - which would be of little use to us in terms of bringing our beta branch over to GOG and getting timely feedback.
Currently trying to get more clarification on that.
Post edited June 06, 2018 by nasKoo
looking forward to this when it all gets worked out, cheers to you enigmagrey for always being here to let us know whats happening.
avatar
nasKoo: The part that doesn't mirror our experience is this:

The developers publish them independent of us, we simply test them afterwards in case a regression is introduced
avatar
nasKoo: Meaning that so far, our updates had to be approved before being published, IIRC, same as the current build.

Wording of conversations we've had also made it seem like albeit we're going to be able to not have to wait for approval for future builds, eventual beta channel updates might still have to be - which would be of little use to us in terms of bringing our beta branch over to GOG and getting timely feedback.
Currently trying to get more clarification on that.
With regards to the beta branch feature, we don't test or approve those builds. We're aware that they are beta builds and are going to have issues or bugs.

In short, developers can publish public betas and distribute them to users without waiting for our approval.

Since I am the contact person for The Indie Stone, allow me to clarify one more thing:

The reason we had to test this update is to make sure that if there were any build issues that would need to be addressed then they would be handled before being published on the Master branch (this is the stable build that everyone gets access to, for those not in the know). Now that the tests are done, you can publish updates to the Master branch without waiting for us to test them :)

Let me know if there's anything I may need to clarify :)
Build 39.66.3 is out and I think we have the issues sorted now.
avatar
JudasIscariot: In short, developers can publish public betas and distribute them to users without waiting for our approval.
Can developers / publishers create beta branches using the dev portal on their own without input from GOG in addition to the master branch.

avatar
JudasIscariot: The reason we had to test this update is to make sure that if there were any build issues that would need to be addressed then they would be handled before being published on the Master branch (this is the stable build that everyone gets access to, for those not in the know). Now that the tests are done, you can publish updates to the Master branch without waiting for us to test them :)
This is a bit confusing. Why would this one upload to the master branch or the first upload need to be tested but subsequent uploads to the master branch would not? Is it just to confirm it works or some other reason?

If this is confusing for us, then I can't help feel bad for developers / publishers who also find this confusing.
Post edited June 13, 2018 by BKGaming
avatar
BKGaming: Can developers / publishers create beta branches using the dev portal on their own without input from GOG in addition to the master branch.

This is a bit confusing. Why would this one upload to the master branch or the first upload need to be tested but subsequent uploads to the master branch would not? Is it just to confirm it works or some other reason?

If this is confusing for us, then I can't help feel bad for developers / publishers who also find this confusing.
Yes, developers can create and upload builds to public or private, if need be, beta branches without waiting for our input since beta builds are by their very nature known to be unstable. In short, we're only concerned about the master branch, the one the average user has access to when they click that "Play" button in Galaxy.

For the second question: we need to test the first upload to the pipeline so that if there's something a developer needs to change, we can find the issue and help the developer fix it without any potential breakage happening for the user. Once we have a developer all set up, we hand over the pipeline to them completely.

Yes, testing that initial upload may cause delays but it's best to help a developer deliver builds properly first before handing over the reigns.

Please let me know if I need to clarify anything :)
Post edited June 13, 2018 by JudasIscariot
avatar
JudasIscariot: Yes, testing that initial upload may cause delays but it's best to help a developer deliver builds properly first before handing over the reigns.
Sure I get that. But that is also a bit concerning, only because we know GOG has a tendency to shall we say fail to follow up with developers. So it's a bit concerning that we could end up in a situation where developers send their first build and GOG fails to approve it keeping the build in limbo. What kind of systems are in place to assure that doesn't happen?

Does GOG get some kind of notication when that intital upload is done or is there some kind of queue that GOG checks to approve the intitial upload?

I'm pretty sure if something is broke in that initial upload, you would hear about it pretty quickly either via support or the forums. And I assume GOG would still put up the very first build when the game goes up for purchase, giving us at-least one good build we could rollback too with Galaxy or is that the initital upload you are reffering to (and not the first patch).

Thanks for the info though. Sorry for all the questions, but this is interesting and I would be interested to know.
Post edited June 15, 2018 by BKGaming
I know this is off topic but I just wanted to say that I am really enjoying Build 39.66.3

Way to go Indiestone! Nice job!

Eldergamer
avatar
JudasIscariot: Yes, testing that initial upload may cause delays but it's best to help a developer deliver builds properly first before handing over the reigns.
avatar
BKGaming: Sure I get that. But that is also a bit concerning, only because we know GOG has a tendency to shall we say fail to follow up with developers. So it's a bit concerning that we could end up in a situation where developers send their first build and GOG fails to approve it keeping the build in limbo. What kind of systems are in place to assure that doesn't happen?

Does GOG get some kind of notication when that intital upload is done or is there some kind of queue that GOG checks to approve the intitial upload?

I'm pretty sure if something is broke in that initial upload, you would hear about it pretty quickly either via support or the forums. And I assume GOG would still put up the very first build when the game goes up for purchase, giving us at-least one good build we could rollback too with Galaxy or is that the initital upload you are reffering to (and not the first patch).

Thanks for the info though. Sorry for all the questions, but this is interesting and I would be interested to know.
We get notified of everything a developer does on the pipeline whether it's a build that gets uploaded, published, or even gets its version number changed. We also have automated a lot of systems when it comes to the testing of builds after they've been uploaded on the master branch so as to mitigate as much as humanely possible any issues where someone doesn't follow or is not notified of a new build of the game.

As for the initial upload being broken: that is why we test it first before it gets published on the master branch. Any uploads made by the developer and published on the master branch are done by the developer without waiting for our approval.