at least they cant blame on the DRM-free platform to be responsible for the DLC to get pirated then... oh wait, i'm sure they could find some magical logic to proove it right

The sad part is your probably right.

All of this honestly just makes me wonder whether that team of 30+ people is 29 artists, and one intern programmer. :P

Even for those that the DLC is working for, it turns out one of the heroes available from the DLC pack is terribly unbalanced, and because they can be used online against people who don't have the pack, it's kind of ruining things for some people while they wait for him to be patched and fixed. I guess the deal with his is that he lowers the cost of playing a spell card by 1 for every forest tile around him. So, people pick him, and then hang out in large forest areas all game while chucking lightning and comboing into other nonsense that makes it hard for other characters to properly do quests and gain the attribute bonuses that they need to properly counter him. People were saying that what he does at the beginning of the game is what one of the starting four characters available with the base game is able to do only by the end of the game, and by then you're better able to deal with it. It all seems like something that would have been very easily picked up on if they'd properly tested it.

Come oooon...

they are experienced developpers actually in serious business of making CASH MILKING MACHINE...

They can't afford wasting time in trivial and gross things such as "properly testing" something they could simply sell the counterbalancing stuff already :)

In this case, I'll wait for the game to go really cheap when it's on sale. That's when it is worth buying compared to the DRM version.

So still not a word from GOG? Has anyone shared this with them via Twitter or Facebook or something?

When there's a news that is good for them and that led to new purchase, you usually read many blue comment replying to users.
It's not that they are not reading, they are simply not engaging because they have nothing to say (for instance a decision that don't fall in that particular employee competence) or they cannot (not allowed to). As a company they usually wait for people to cease discussing the matter on their own so that the discussion became less relevant..

Do you mean the entirety of this thread? I'm sure that the GoG staff know. The community response has been consistently un-approving since the very first page, and I have a feeling that GoG knew exactly what the community reaction was going to be like to LoG's decision. With lines like "we've been working closely with GOG on an edition of Armello specific to GOG. [..]
We've had fantastic meetings with GOG about the future of Armello on the platform...", I'm sure that GoG knew what was coming, knowing their own community.

I get that they wouldn't want to publicly and openly bad-mouth a partner that they are selling a product for, so they're probably just leaving the community to say our piece in their place. This is all just speculation, but I doubt GoG wanted this. You can only push a developer to do so much when you're not the biggest store-front, and when LoG are as lazy and uncommitted as they are. Had this been a new release, and LoG told GoG that the game wasn't getting any proper updates in the future, maybe this game would have gotten rejected, which probably would have been for the better. But, I doubt that GoG had advance knowledge when they first approved the normal, launch version of Armello to appear here way-back that it was going to some day be abandoned by the developers on their store. They've been shafted just like we have, because they know it's not going to be a game that sells well here anymore to people who know that it's an inferior version, sold at the same price as the full versions.

If anything, I'd say that GoG's silence means that they're probably not surprised, and the fact that this was a main-page announcement tells me that they wanted to draw attention to it, not because it's something special and wonderful for us at the GoG community, but entirely for the opposite reason.

The only thing that we can really do to make any sort of impact on this is up-vote the well-written reviews that make people in the future aware to stay away from the GoG version of the game, so that future visitors to the site don't have to dig through threads to find out for themselves what they're getting into.

GOG has felt the need to react/reach out to the community on prior occasions.

Cool thanks for the link I'll check it out. I fear you won't get all the +1 you should for letting people know with all the backlash against the developers. Lost in a sea of unhappy or confused gogers.

Messy situation and the messaging is really putting people's backs up.
It's DLC that I wasn't going to buy before hand and certainly won't now. I like mine in Lossless FLAC or WAV files and MP3 just isn't going to cut it for me. I'm sure there are other like minded folk on the forums.

I don't think that fear of piracy is their issue. I think they simply regard GOG as a to small market. This is why I was never fan of the move to release new games on GOG.
Give me 5 years old complete editions with all DLCs that I know that have all possible patches, and I'm happy.

Having to be DRM free to be on GOG is an incentive for new games to be DRM free. That means that when the games that are new now become old, the proportion of old games that are DRM free should increase. GOG needs to become a major player so that development studios and publishers are persuaded to release DRM free games. That doesn't really work to the same extent if GOG is limited to old games. Besides I don't think new games should be kept from the DRM free revolution. Anyone who thinks that it is ideal that all games should be DRM free ought to welcome new games on GOG.

Steam gave me a refund, so it all worked out ok in the end.
Add the devs of This War of Mine, they pulled the same bastard move: treating GOG customers like they're third-class.

i understand your point and partly agree with it

but it's also a bit sad and a way to give up, to me... i'd rather have devs work along side with gog to ease their workload about providing drm free support and updates.

Back in time, inserting a drm solution in a game costed a licensing fee to the drm seller, and work for the dev team to implement it in the game also to deal with bugs and issues caused ONLY by the drm itself (neverwinter nights 2 case for example)

Steam made a cheap and easy to use drm package to the devs, and it seeems to be coded in a way that doesnt raise the number of bugs caused directly by it. So it's no additional workload for devs to put DRM
And as the drm comes bundled with other "ease your pain" features (such as netcode for multiplayer, etc, so that devs never again feel the need to make an online netcode or even a LAN code...), they become dependant of steam for such ingame core features they avoided to handle themselves

if you ask me, drm-free should be "natural" choice for devs, and at least a basic TCP/IP LAN netcode should be expected and required by players in any game they feel would need it
Perhaps if gog dev teams were proposing a non-galaxy dependant LAN netcode to license for cheap (or as an incentive to come here) along with a galaxy-dependant online mode... it could turn the wheel

(btw a LAN code is way enough to play online at least with trusted friends as long as you can make 4 mouse clicks in any VPN wizard included in your OS)