MikeMaximus: I'm sure there are legal issues preventing them from dealing with it for games they are currently selling, but they need to address this in future contracts.

They've been hemorrhaging customers for years due to slow patching or complete lack of support from certain publishers. I'm no business man, but I can't believe that the sale of a few tinyBuild games is worth losing any customer over, especially loyal and long time customers like OFG.

MikeMaximus: You're right that this issue probably can't be addressed with games currently being sold. But I hope they are taking this seriously and will communicate to their customers that they are trying to do something about it. I've had my issues with GOG in recent years, but I still want them to succeed.

I've personally found this problem to be much less an issue in the last couple of years, most publishers have been great with keeping their games up to date on GOG (Paradox, Owlcat, Obsidian, Night Dive, Warhorse etc). This problem seems to be with certain smaller publishers that feel GOG is a dumping ground and isn't worth supporting. GOG should have more than enough negotiating power to enforce some kind of policy on them. Especially when other storefronts like EGS are even more heavily curated or over-saturated wastelands like Steam.

GameRager: This is good and to be expected but that doesn't mean GOG should foot the bill for Tinybuild's faux paux.

GameRager: Sadly though the site might have a bit in their contract about not negatively talking about any devs that have signed up, and that might included saying or hinting that a dev might not be totally trustworthy. I am not saying I know this to be the case here but it can be for some legal contracts.

lolplatypus: Doesn't it?

If the expectation of getting a supported game is a valid one, you're not getting what you're paying for. That's not a faux pas, either, but incredibly shady.

lolplatypus: Personally I always considered it the stronger play to show someone the door in silence, anyways.

GameRager: 1. I'd rather the ones responsible pay the bill, not the middleman, if we;'re being honest here. Also I said faux pas because if what their rep said lately is true then that one other employee wasn't being truthful to people and thus(if true) they are a bit less shady imo.

GameRager: 2. As I said above they might not be able to do that legally, and i'd rather GOG not try to do such and risk a legal battle tnat might affect the site somehow to the negative just to make a point.

lolplatypus: I would absolutely prefer that, too, but if that's not an option, too bad. I just don't see how the customer's the one that has to get screwed here. Doesn't make sense from GOG's standpoint, either.
=========================================

lolplatypus: Well, apparently this situation is in the process of getting resolved, so thankfully that's not going to be an issue in this case.

Though I don't think it's about making a point, but the bare minimum expectations related to a store.
Abandoned games are not an isolated incident. In some cases like this one the users have to make noise before something's done. There are no viewable version numbers before buying a game. A feature for users to track this themselves was removed with the mixes. And if the game runs, no matter how outdated it might be, you're not getting a refund, either.

Maybe I'm setting some unreachable standards here and I could be in the wrong, of course, but I think that situation in general needs to be adressed.

But that's not going to happen, so whatever. I'm just going to be happy that some games got up to speed.

GameRager: No one is saying anyone has to get screwed. I just think GOG should only give refunds to those who truly want/need them....preferably AFTER seeing what efforts TinyBuild makes with their new promises.

That way the dev is given time to prove it is trying to do right and GOG has to issue as few refunds(and foot said bill for such) as possible while giving them to those who want/need them most * not being legally liable to give everyone a refund(which would hurt them way more).
================================
1. True.

2. It might not be totally isolated but it doesn't happen way too often either. Also sometimes they give refunds if people ask nicely.

3. I agree it should be addressed...just that rational and reasonable methods should be tried first before going all scorched earth on a dev/their games.

4. Agreed.

paladin181: You seem to be stuck on GOG having to pay the refund cost. Absolutely. It is the cost of doing business with a company that wont treat GOG's customers fairly.

GameRager: I still think one should only "hurt" those that do the wrong, not those who work with them and are not as involved. To me that;d entail starting a stink or movement on social medfia like some did. That is much more effective imo and doesn't hurt gog's pocket.

As for being stuck on it: I'd rather gog not have to keep fielding such costs and possibly suffering as a business as I really like the site/community/etc.

MikeMaximus: Users shouldn't have to research who actually keeps their games up to date on a platform before making a purchase.

paladin181: Then they shouldn't engage with businesses whose practices hurt them. It's common sense. They should be punished for stupid actions, especially when that company releases unfinished versions, doesn't support a game, and the GOG agrees to release the sequel, which, surprise!, also goes unsupported.

GOG absolutely deserves to bear the brunt of that.
It goes back to "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, then strike 3."
-Michael Scott

GameRager: 1. It is common sense, but you make it sound like they are supporting scammers who give people viruses instead of games or something equally bad. Also they are a business, and as such they need as many devs/etc here as possible to generate revenue.

And they should be chastised maybe or similar, but punishing them to the same degree as the one doing the majority of the wrongdoing seems wrong to me.

2. No, the dev in question should bear the brunt of that....not the store hosting such first and foremost.

Also: You seem to be forgetting that many people like the site and the drm-free games it provides. If gog failed due to many people "punishing them" for various slights their signed devs comitted then you can bet some would be upset.

Also to me it's akin to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face or throwing the baby out with the bathwater levels of going overboard in terms of who is punished and how much(to make a run on refunds of dev's games or suggest a boycott/etc of a dev just because one employee made some bad comments).

paladin181: What? It's not because an employee made bad statements. It's because the company has a history of providing spotty support on any platform not Steam. The employee's comments were just icing on the cake.

GOG doing business with people who openly call GOG's customer base pirates and not wanting to support their titles until people are threatening to refund/boycott is telling. If they are so desperate to get business that they will join with those who disdain the people giving them money for their games, then they deserve any of the backlash they receive.

Let's just agree to disagree since you won't be swayed by my argument, and you're not making any convincing discussion of your own.

GameRager: 1. It's still that "icing" that made people decide to boycott/ask for refunds in bigger numbers or to take notice. Beffore that seemingly no one was complaining much.

2. Again, GOG might have no choice and be locked into a contract to keep them on the site for a set period. Would you rather they have to go to court and lose money/resources through a legal battle just to drop a dev people find distasteful? Or to wait until that contract expires before dropping them and saving themselves time/money from costly legal battles?

If GOG has no choice but to keep them here(for now) i'd rather they do so and save themselves the trouble of fighting it in court, and issue refunds to those who want them.

(In addition: I also agree companies should treat customers with respect)

3. I am hearing you and agree on some things, though, and we can always debate the points we disagree on while remembering the ones we do agree on.