Humm.
Huge discrepancies in comparison to the most updated version, I assume?

I looked through my twitter account to see if he had mentioned the inferior build to me when I asked him for an updated build, but he only replied to me that he had a new build on Steam, including Mac version, and didn't know whether he would put it on GOG.

He has not.

You can read the relevant part here .

The summary is: no OS X build, no leaderboards support, no latest patch (1.31 vs 1.41).

I think it's a pretty good game, though, which is why I bothered to email the dev in the first place.

I'm not sure I agree with budejovice on this, or rather, I'd prefer a more principled approach to it: as we all know, LP is not the only game that hasn't been updated, that is missing features or builds for other operating systems. Just recently, GOG admitted Nuclear Throne, despite Luftrausers still being broken, for example.

I think his point is as much about how the dev dismissed GoG and basically admitted he had not intention of updating the game rather than solely the fact it has not been updated.

It might be more complicated then some of you think. Does Lovely Planet use Steamworks for the leaderboards? If it does, that would mean the dev would have to make separate PC and Mac builds with Galaxy integration for each iteration.

Yeah, I just ran that OP off at the end of the day. I would prefer the dev to get his game up to date here, like yesterday, and then let the negotiations on further games commence after that is done and involve a clause stating that there should not be inferior builds on a storefront where he is selling his game. Don't really see it happening, but I am certainly open to seeing it happen.

Does the game cost the same on both stores though?

It might not be contempt of GOG and their customers that's keeping the updates from coming here, but lack of time and money.

So, they charge the same for a version they call and regard as inferior, and have no intention to patch up to the latest version at least?
Very classy.

That is how it appears to me. I wouldn't partake in any leaderboards anyways, but Barry thinking it could be linked to Steam may be correct - I haven't had any reason to look deeper regarding that. It still doesn't jive to me to advertise the same product while selling different ones.

EDIT: (And it likely doesn't jive with many that prefer GOG of course...)

Any new PC or Mac build has the Steamworks leaderboards getting in the way. Whether they include them with Galaxy integration or remove them altogether, it would necessitate separate GOG builds, which takes time and money an indie developer just might not have to spare. Hopefully in the future, GOG makes it easier and easier for Steamworks games to just plug into the Galaxy client to stop the disparity from happening.

I would posit that if he doesn't have enough time to spare for GOG, he shouldn't seek to sell his games on GOG. Just my opinion.

Trouble is, as you said yourself, the game was released before Galaxy was in beta.

These kinds of build disparities aren't usually GOG's fault, but they certainly are their problem. It would be ideal if they could come up with a way to streamline the process for developers, so that they could upload the same builds to GOG as they do to Steam. Any client extras would work in both seamlessly, including crossplay.