Hell, I'm ok with the different versions not including features. But don't tell me "We're going to do it" then just fade away. Don't lie to your customers.

We should all write some strong worded letters to Hello Games and demand Steam keys for our Gog versions.

I'd say ask for a refund and don't buy it elsewhere. That's how you deal with a certain kind of business practices.
Unlike the Redout devs they didn't even have the dignity to cut their price.
And that is not counting the myriads of unfullfilled promises before the mega-patch.

That's why I stopped buying new games on GOG. You'll never know what you get. GOG is still a great store for "Good Old Games" - meaning everything that didn't get any updates for a few years. I mean... DRM free is great, but... getting huge updates with new features, bugfixes and even DLC (just as other stores do get them) is even better than DRM free. The most important thing about a game is still the game itself and not that it isn't tied to a client.

GOG needs to get this shit straight or stop to sell new games. They're slowly starting to get a reputation of selling games with missing patches/content. And I'm not talking about the forums here... I'm talking about places outside of gog.com! You don't want to become known as the store that sells incomplete and unpatched games!

Understandable, but I doubt GOG sells incomplete games on purpose. In this specific case the multiplayer was promised and not -yet- delivered, so I assumed GOG got screwed like who bought here, and I bet the same reasoning could be applied to most of the other examples.
Redout is an exception, but the lack of features was contractually discussed and the pricing reflects that.
In cases like Perception or this, tough, one specific part -the devs- did not fullfill contractual obligations. The other contractor usually assumes good faith...

I couldn't disagree more with you. Owning an unpatched DRM-free game beats renting a DRMed game 100 times out of 100.

Take comfort that you are in the vast majority of consumers who couldn't care less about owning what they purchase. Does it worry you that a store like GOG exists for the scant few of us who do care about owning our stuff? Not to worry, thanks to the exact same mentality articulated in your post, the rest of the industry is clients clients and more clients. But I guess having like 98% of the market catering to this mentality isn't enough, can't rest until it is 100% full non-ownership for all.

Every store sells incomplete and unpatched games. The fact that GOG doesn't get some updates that Scheme does, is missing the forest for the trees imo. Incomplete, unpatched games are the new normal and have been for almost a decade. Quality control went out the window thanks to the "convenience" of all-digital, all-online, all-updating. There was a time before this update culture ran rampant, that developers would actually be expected to release their games in some sort of complete state and do the bugfixing prior to the retail (what's that?) release.

I'll bring it down to one simple point: What do I care?

Don't want to sound harsh, but... That's basically it. As a customer and gamer I don't really care who screwed up. If I end up with an incomplete game it's ME who's left alone with it. I don't exactly care who's at fault. All I know is that Steam has a feature-complete and patched version of a game and that I paid the same money for something abandoned on GOG. I don't buy games because I love GOG and want to support them (it's just a store). This is not a charity. I buy games because I want them. And I think it's my right as a paying customer to expect that they'll recieve patches and stuff. If GOG can't make that sure, they're not the store I'm buyiing my games from.

Honestly, I like GOG. But they need to do something about this. They're not doing themselves a favor. It's GOG who's selling incomplete games, not the developer/publisher.

ps. That sounds like a rant, but isn't meant as one. It's actually meant somewhat prgmatical. Like "Well, stuff's half-broken here, so I'll better get it somewhere else."

edit: One additional thing. I don't think people are doing GOG a favor with "Ahw, poor GOG got screwed by evil, evil devs." GOG needs to hear that they suck at new games. They need to understand this. This is not "hating on GOG" (why would I have such strong emotions for a shop?), this is criticism. And criticism is what a company needs to find out what people don't like about them. Whithout criticism you'll have a hard time to improve yourself. "Poor GOG" won't help them to improve.

If DRM free is more important to you than the actual game, why don't you just get a piece of paper and play tic-tac-toe?

Nah, honestly, I get the whole DRM drama. I hate it, too. I'd love to see every game being released here 100% DRM free. But it isn't. And if a game gets released here, there's a good chance it'll be lacking patches and stuff at some point in the future. And I'm not talking about "ALL GAMEZ IZ INCOMPLETE, BECAUSE <insert random rant about the state of the gaming industry here>"

Haha :) Though to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be PC gaming without GOG. I had gamed on PC in the mid-90s, when stores had beautiful boxes filled with games, manuals, et cetera. Gaming was more underground instead of mainstream maximize-profit approach. DRMed games have negative value to me, meaning less than zero. In a hypothetical world without DRM-free gaming, yes, I would go with tic-tac-toe (more likely, tabletop games...a little more complexity...lol).

I can't really argue with that. Your arguments are reasonable and sound, and I actually agree with them almost in full.
It's just that I find redirecting both blame and credit where it is due... correct.
GOG should obviously answer to the customer, and ultimately the developers/publishers should answer to GOG - because let's be honest, the biggest problem lies there. I think GOG and the customers are both offended parties, GOG offended by the devs and the customer offended by GOG, something that ultimately happened for the developers' fault. Where GOG fails in good faith (and must take responsibility) the devs fail not in good faith, which forme makes a big difference.

The OP seems to be quite ambiguous as to whether or not the devs promised Crossplay between the GOG version & Steam.

If they didn't, and if instead all they promised was Galaxy-only multiplayer, then in the players' actual real-life experience, it would make little difference in regards to whether the game has Galaxy-only multiplayer, or no multiplayer at all. Because for the most part, both of those options are functionally equivalent.

At best, Galaxy-only multiplayer is only marginally better than no multiplayer at all, because games that have it are ghost towns in which it's virtually impossible to find others to play with the vast majority of the time.

I'm not saying it's okay for the devs to promise multiplayer and then not deliver it.

Rather, my point is: it would still be tragic if they do deliver Galaxy-only multiplayer, and that appeases most of the customers currently complaining about the broken promises. Because in that case, a lot of those customers will probably have the false impression that they now will be able to experience decent multiplayer in this game, when actually they won't, and they'll still remain more or less in the exact same position as they were in before Galaxy-only multiplayer was implemented.

Frankly done with GOG.

I've been recommending them for years, but this is yet another title I've been burned with a broken half of a product as compared to the other platform again.

At least these days GOG is making it easier to avoid purchasing from them with their Chromium only website designs using Chrome only supported functions instead of approved standards and functions.

GOG is just really not worth doing business with at this point. I'm going to finish downloading the installers and junk for everything in my library but I'm not exactly planning on spending money here anymore.

"chromium only"
what?

I thought that someone would say this. That's why I put the edit there (you didn't quote it, so I think you've missed it and hit the reply button before I posted it). GOG doesn't need to hear that devs screwed them. GOG needs to hear that they'll have to make sure that customers get what they paid for. I know this could be an impossible task, since maintaining a GOG build probably costs AA and AAA (= mainstream) publishers more money than it makes (it's a different thing for indies). They could just pull the plug if GOG doesn't stop to annoy them, meaning we won't see much more new releases here. But... having more and more unpatched stuff in their store can't be what they're aiming for.

It's a difficult decission for GOG, since every game that's being released here means more income for them. But for me, as a customer, there isn't any choice at all. If GOG demanding patches and DLC scares away some publishers: so be it! At least then I can be "sure" (there'll always be the odd exception) again that games here will be up to date. It'll be safe again to buy here. Now, I don't buy new games on GOG at all. I simply wait until they're old (and cheap, which is a side effect). Up unitl now I'm the exception, but... as I said: GOG's slowly starting to build a reputation of selling games that are missing stuff. If this continues it could hurt them badly in a few years.

Yes. Because physical discs never fail, and publishers would always mail you updates if they patched the game. -_-