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

×
3 of the top reviews are outright wrong. The latest game version is 1.11.11.11 which is uptodate on GoG. The DLC is available. And the version is supported. Reviews aren't really a place to complain about such things in the first place and now its even worse when they are outright wrong! Buyers on GoG should be aware that we get updates slower than Steam but the benefits of buying on GoG (to me) far outweigh slower updates. Are malinformed review reportable?
So, why wasn't the changelog updated?
avatar
SoulEvans: 3 of the top reviews are outright wrong.
1) It's not possible to edit reviews when facts change.

2) The way they handled the last update was shameful at bestl. Frankly, I expected the game to be delisted. In addition to lying outright to string people along for months, they stated publicly (sorry, I don't have the link any more, and my internet connectivity sucks so badly atm that I can't be bothered to look for it) that it's just too much trouble for them to support gog. This means that we can expect the same sort of behavior in the future, in spite of them finally making the game up-to-date months after the last "tomorrow, for sure" lie.
Okay thats a fair point. But then the reviews should actually state why the game should be avoided instead of misleading reviews that say nothing thats relevant now? Yes its hard to update reviews, but in this case the reviews should be forced to correct their facts, they could simply give a similar argument to the one you just used. Yes it sucks when devs lie, when they are slow to update on GoG, and whatever else they did wrong. Customers should see that as the top review then, not the first entire page of reviews being horribly outdated with GoG making it actively difficult for them to be corrected. It doesn't bother me, I accepted that GoG will get slower updates when I decided to shop here. But that doesn't excuse the devs either and I understand why you wouldn't recommend it on GoG. Again, I'm saying customers should see the correct reasons to avoid the game.
Post edited April 25, 2020 by SoulEvans
avatar
SoulEvans: 3 of the top reviews are outright wrong. The latest game version is 1.11.11.11 which is uptodate on GoG. The DLC is available. And the version is supported. Reviews aren't really a place to complain about such things in the first place and now its even worse when they are outright wrong! Buyers on GoG should be aware that we get updates slower than Steam but the benefits of buying on GoG (to me) far outweigh slower updates. Are malinformed review reportable?
As the writer of one of those top negative reviews I'd like to say that when I wrote that review the game was six months out of date and that that review was correct for another six months. It's one thing for GoG to receive updates at a slower rate, it's something completely different for the game to be one year out of date on this platform. ONE YEAR, that's how long it took them to update the game and give us the DLC. A DLC that those of us that own it here had to buy, so this wasn't charity or anything like that.

Would I change my review if GoG allowed me to edit it? Before I read your post the answer would have been yes, now though, thanks to you giving me the option to think about it some more the answer is a resounding NO. Do I have a problem with the review as it stands considering it's now obsolete? NO. I reviewed the game I bought and played on the storefront I bought it from - and I did so several months after I had bought the game and had been patiently waiting for the DLC. If the situation of the review has changed that's not my problem, it's the developers. If the game had been buggy and I had given it a negative review because I deemed it unplayable, only for a patch to come out that invalidated my review, that wouldn't make that review wrong in any way. Why? because I would have reviewed the product I bought and played. That's what reviews are for after all, for us to tell other people how the product's we buy behave in the long run. The fact that the product is software that the developers can change at will in the future and thus make our reviews invalid is the developers problem not ours.

We - the people that gave it a negative score despite liking it - warned people the product as presented on GoG was inferior to the product sold under the same name, and for the same price, on other storefronts. We didn't do this to spite the developer but to help other potential buyers not make the same mistakes we thought we had made. The reviews might no longer be up to date, but they do are important. They show what the product was and in this case how the developer treated it's costumers on GoG.

GoG did a great thing when they blocked review editing. The real solution wouldn't be to allow us to edit the reviews but have to different scores, one for the game as a whole and one for the latest version of the game. Or a more time based review system like Steam's Recent Reviews/All Reviews scores. This way people would be able to review the game when they play it, but future prospective buyers would also be able to see how the game progressed review wise. Otherwise, the system needs to stay as it is, no edits, just honest reviews given at one point in time.

And make no mistake, if the product is available on more then one storefront, to not compare the same product as sold on more store fronts would be dishonest. We're not just talking price here, we're talking the actual product being different. Same name, same price, DIFFERENT content. That's not OK.
avatar
AlucardNoir: snip
Thats a fair opinion and a fairer review. So if your goal is to inform buyers, then ideally you would want to tell them that this game took an entire year to be updated. Not "it wasn't out of date as of the time I wrote this" and not customers have no idea whether its still out of date, how long out of date it was (I didn't know this myself) or other relevant information. This is a topical review. But just leaving the reviews as is, fails to accomplish the goal you have as a review. Fails to accomplish your intent as you just wrote it.

Now ofc, this is all meta theory because we currently cannot update reviews. I think the best solution would be to have a way for reviews to updated if your review is a top review. Specifically, to allow incorrect information to be corrected so that an actual person would have to moderate it to make sure it isn't abused /and the previous copy of the review would be preserved/. Have another system that greatly restricts how often you can do this so that GoG staff aren't bogged down with requests.

The ideal solution to me, is for people to see the correct state of the game. That doesn't mean I just want you to paint it in its best state either. I'd want potential buyers to see the bad as well as the good. Here the good is its updated /now. The bad is the rate at which it was updated and likely to be updated in the future. The devs messed up with how long it took to update and should rightly lose sales for it. Again, I want the correct information visible.
avatar
SoulEvans: Thats a fair opinion and a fairer review. So if your goal is to inform buyers, then ideally you would want to tell them that this game took an entire year to be updated. Not "it wasn't out of date as of the time I wrote this" and not customers have no idea whether its still out of date, how long out of date it was (I didn't know this myself) or other relevant information. This is a topical review. But just leaving the reviews as is, fails to accomplish the goal you have as a review. Fails to accomplish your intent as you just wrote it.
No, no it doesn't. At the time the review was written the game was around half a year out of date, the dev had not written anything new in regards to the update on these forums in a few months, and the product that was being sold here was a different product then the one sold on Steam at the same price. And that's without taking into account the DLC.

At the time of writing that I couldn't have known it would take another half a year for the game to be updated, nor did I know it would take that long for the DLC to become available on here. I wrote a review that at the time was valid. The review did in fact stop being valid the moment the game updated, but here's the catch: I'm here because I was one of the people still hoping for the DLC and waiting for it to come here. Other people might have already moved on. I know for a fact that because of how some devs treat GoG some people have already stopped buying games on here.

Your idea suffers from one single problem, namely that you think people keep on monitoring the games they reviewed, let alone have an interest in rereviewing the game when a new update comes out. That only happens for the few games we individually care about. There is at least one game I reviewed on steam that I ended up refunding. Needles to say it was a bad review. Does that mean that review will be valid till the end of time? No. The review might have already been made obsolete by another patch. But that's not my problem, it's the developer's.

We review the game at a point in time. We have no obligation to the dev to rereview their games because they fixed the problems we had with their game. If they don't want bad reviews then they shouldn't launch their games in the kind of state that requires repeated patches. But we're around two decades beyond when devs would actually launch complete games. What you're doing with your comment is putting the onerous on us, reviewers who bought the game, as opposed to putting it on the dev for releasing a broken product they had to fix with subsequent patches. We reviewed the product we got, and what we got wasn't what other people bought on other platforms, for the same price, under the same name, from the same game developer.

Writing "this game is out of date" and writing " at the time of writing this game is out of date" are equal from your perspective. Neither tells the new user if the game is still out of date at whatever point in the future they might be reading the review. And as I said, most people don't care enough about a game they've already reviewed, let alone one they reviewed negatively to check if the review is still valid. The problem isn't theirs, it's the devs who'd presumably still be trying to sell new units.

I didn't write the review because I wanted to hurt the dev, no more then I write positive reviews to help a dev. I write reviews for the same reason most people write reviews, because a game really clicked with us, or because we were really disappointed in the game. Just go to the West of Loathing store page and look at the number of games the
reviewers own compared to the number of reviews they left. Most games we own are never going to get a review. Not because we didn't play them, because we don't think they're worth the effort to review. Neither good enough, nor bad enough - or sometimes we just have nothing to say. Your whole point puts the onerous on me, and why? because I tried helping other people? how about you look at how the devs behaved with their clients on GoG.com.

I did my duty as it were. I informed potential clients the game was out of date on GoG. If that hurts the developers then maybe they shouldn't have held the last updates and the DLC from being released on here for a full year. But to dare say I have some sort of responsibility. I'm the fucking client mate, not the developer. I reviewed the game as a service to other potential customers, not because the dev or gog payed me. I payed money for that game, not the other way around. The only "responsibility" I had was to make sure the original review was honest and, at the time, accurate, not to keep my review topica; not when the developers keep shifting the goalpoast via updates.

I'm sorry mate but you're putting this responsibility on the wrong people. The moment the devs embraced update culture, and stopped releasing their games when they were done and good is the moment they accepted inaccurate reviews. The moment they started releasing their games on more then one platform and started staggering their updates on some of those platforms is the moment they made comparing the same game on multiple platforms ok. The developer is the one responsible for those negative reviews, not the people that left them. They should have to live with the consequences of their actions.

PS. Sorry for the long rant, but this happens so often on here. GoG is full of games that are out of date compared to Steam, but which are sold at the same price they are on Steam. Some games are literally years out of date or never got even one patch. We as buyers and reviewers shouldn't be responsible for negative reviews that might hurt product sales when the behavior of the devs is the one causing said negative reviews.
I mean you wrote alot that I am not going to read entirely through. But you are getting 1 thing wrong, I don't think its your /responsibility/ to update your review. But when an entire page of reviews going well into a second or third page are all outright wrong, then the system is no longer informing buyers about what they are purchasing. In such a scenario, there needs to be /some/ system in place to either update a review or to flag a review as out of date. Ofcourse, no matter what system is used, there needs to be more systems in place to prevent abuse. I only care to the extent that people are better informed about their decisions (the purpose of reviews).

As of starting this thread, there weren't any reviews actually worth any value visible to a buyer because so many were just outright wrong. Currently 2 reviews previously praising it have risen back to the front page while past complaints of 'update time' fall, whilst nothing informs buyers have current concerns of future update time. In this scenario, if someone wanted to update a review it would be a valuable review. In this case we would say how it took a year to get a critical update. Thats a good thing to know when buying a game! But even if someone had a top review and wanted to better inform buyers, there is /no way/ for them to do so! Do not misconstrue that as me saying /they have to/ update. Only that it would bring more value to it.

You said yourself that you would have updated had you had the choice. Idc if thats the case anymore, but if the systems were in place then thats already 1 review that could have been fixed and informed buyers. The problem is theres no systems in place. Steam has a system so top reviews rotate in visibility and multiple review search options. Here? We have validated owners.
Post edited May 31, 2020 by SoulEvans