It's the very first thing in the description, and it's bolded. Only way to make it more visible would be using colour letters (which are never used in GOG gamecards), all caps (which is seen as bad form), or put it in the freaking name of the game (which won't be done for obvious reasons.)

I think they did a fair effort to warn their customers here. Especially since the "DRM free edition" reference will draw attention to the fact there is a difference, and thus encourage people to actually read the gamecard.

So has it been like what a week ? since a official reply from gog or log on this ? is this how things get done from now ?


go radio silence ....

I'm surprised more people haven't commented on the last bit.

Honestly, I could give a crap about the microtransactions, skins and paid-for cards.

If one of the "features that best suit a DRM Free experience" is a single player campaign I'd jump back on their bandwagon in a heartbeat.

They did stated that you can get a refund for this game for any reason.

God forbid they signed some kinda exclusive deal that they cant back out of

well, they may have, the only people who know for sure are gog and log. and sometimes parts of those deals include non-disclosure agreements, hence the non-response. not saying i agree with that kind of thing or anything, just saying that id bet stuff like that is pretty common in the gaming industry even amongst smaller outfits like gog and log.

and yes, i'll very much be avoiding anything that might come down the pipe from this dev.

Exclusive footage from their latest business meeting!

brothers and sisters!

keep those votes coming on the wishlist.

it might not "help" at all. but at least it'll display how we feel in a visible way that has a number attached. [we are in the minority, of course, but there's nearly 700 of us so far.]

https://www.gog.com/wishlist/games/remove_armello_drm_free_edition_from_the_catalog_please

while it may be enough for you, it's not enough for me, i'm afraid.

this is not the product that had been advertised for a very long time. now, admittedly, as i mentioned, log has been /very/ bad about that kind of thing, anyway, but removing the game from the store [unless they actually take the time to fix the problem: offer the whole product] - would have repercussions for log. less money. and maybe that's the only way that they will "listen."

[not that they are, anyway.]
sounds about right, sadly.

I think its far more productive to make a WL voting about getting the other DLCs here or a less lazy version instead of the removel of a completely functional version (I guess) of the game some ppl might like or at least prefer to no version.

i wish i could +1 this more than once. well said.

this is one of my two preferred solutions:

either we manage to vote it off the island [not really likely, but eh. at least there are numbers showing we're not happy]

or

it is presented in it's proper form [not likely at all, since the developer has shrugged and abandoned ship.]

i would STRONGLY prefer option 2. i might even give log money for that.

but since they're not interested...

Thanks for using the proper first person singular here. I'll say, your whole pluralis sociativus vibe with all the "we" and especially that desperate boycott organisation attempt with the "brothers and sisters" address above creeps me out. The wishlist isn't the place to organize protest. And reposting the link every other day doesn't summon more people to this hasty hyperbolic cause – it invalidates the cause as it distorts the actual interest in it.

If GOG becomes the platform where developers get booed off stage, the only thing they're going to sell for the years to come are indie games from devs who didn't afford an artist and, of course, Witcher DLC. Frankly, they've been just that for the past months already.

Man, I wish more gamers were diplomats instead of 24/7 mindless protesters. As if LoG would reconsider DRMfDLC after being "voted off" the platform. They'll never make the mistake of publishing via GOG ever again, and so will other devs.

On the other hand, accepting this kind of thing is still likely to ultimately lead to developers deciding not to release their games here, because fewer people will be willing to buy the crippleware versions here and that in turn will lead to developers being less likely to release their games here, on the basis that "GOG versions don't sell enough to be worth it".

In fact this is even worse, because it'll be detrimental to other games here too - people won't want to take the risk of buying a game here and then finding out later that it's not going to be fully supported (and we already see this happening now... if this keeps happening it's going to become even more of a problem).

Personally, between having developers decide not to release their games here because of their own unwillingness to properly support GOG & treat GOG users fairly, and having developers decide not to release their games here because of other developers' unwillingness to properly support GOG & treat GOG users fairly resulting in poor sales, I'd prefer the former.

I see your point, of course. Either way, this whole thing is a PR nightmare for GOG and doesn't bode well for future games. In how far an inferior version of Armello on GOG is detrimental to GOG and LoG's reputation remains debatable. To my knowledge, e.g. Daedalic hasn't felt the crushing pain of diminished GOG sales just because their Dark Eye games don't feature their native language voice files on GOG.

All that wasn't part of lonewolfe's argument, however. We're supposed to believe that kicking up a lot of stink and getting Armello removed from GOG would cost LoG a whole lot of money so they would "learn their lesson". But that's, of course, ridiculous bullshit. Armello is on Steam, PSN, Xbox Live, iOS, and Android. The GOG version literally makes them a penny out of their paycheck. Heck, if they're getting kicked, you could possibly hear their sigh of relief with windows closed. Maybe they're begging GOG for it right now. That would be just about the greatest excuse to e.g. their backers for not keeping Kickstarter promises.

The reason why they should deliver DLC to GOG customers isn't and will never be a financial one. It's a moral one. Naturally. And LoG can't be pressured to see moral reason. Reasonable debate has ended for the time, sadly. After this kind of outrage, LoG can not possibly step back in and say "well, OK, we will sell that DLC on GOG, just because you were outraged that much", because, what message would that send?

In other words, the nature of this organized protest absolutely strengthens LoG's resolve to "not be interested" in DRM free DLC for Armello. I'm not proposing to cuddle developers just because they're willing to deliver the most elementary of DLC updates to their games cross-platform, but there's a definite limit to the ostracism/outrage a developer should reasonably face when pulling off this kind of shenannigan.