Sorry, my fault. Post fixed.

No, I will try to avoid that and focus on intended meaning (especially as words don't have exact meanings).

If your claim is that "decision hurts their own image" (or "does leave a very bad impression") therefore "decision is shitty", that logic doesn't really hold. The problem with it is that your "decision hurts their own image" is only in the eye of a given beholder. In my eye, a price increase does not hurt anyone's image (in and of itself -- in a given context, such as a CEO saying "poor people suck" and with the price increase clearly intended to cut poor people off rather than just a strategy to increase total profits, my view of that price increase would be quite different). Because "decision hurts their own image" is relative to the viewer's own opinion, so is the "decision is shitty" conclusion. So in effect you are not making an objective argument about the value of the decision, but just elaborating on your subjective opinion.

I believe you are assuming the absurd here when there is a more logical explanation. In English there is a saying: "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down" I believe the more likely explanation is that Daedalic wished to increase the base price, and Daedalic knew some people wouldn't like this (like medicine), so Daedalic is doing what it can (without too much effort) to make the change more palatable to its potential customers (adding some sugar). (The sugar doesn't "justify" the medicine -- just makes it go down easier, at least for some people.) I don't believe that Daedalic actually thinks that "sugar" is equal in value to the price difference, nor do I believe that Daedalic expects its potential customers to think that. Rather Daedalic simply believes that it is better for its profits for the game to have that new price (even if it frequently sells for less than that due to sales), so it was going to make the change with or without the sugar, but with the sugar was deemed better.

OK, that's got me laughing. (As if adventure games weren't bad enough already!)

How about releasing patches that introduce bugs or harm gameplay (without appropriate warning, especially if it's a "live patch" system so going back to the old version isn't even an option)? Suing their customers for no valid reason? Making a promise (that people make purchase decisions on) and then going back on that? (Note that a common element in all of these is actual harm to someone.)

Would you have been happier if they had just doubled the price and not added the new content? It seems to me that would be objectively a "worse" thing to do (even if still not "bad" in a moral sense), yet it would have undercut your argument.

True. (The patent-pending "GOG True Random Number Generator".)

Not entirely useless, but useless for many cases. (It's still useful in the case where you see there's an update and you decide to get and use {or download+backup} that update right away. It's not useful if you want a reliable answer to the question "is my copy of game X up to date?". From a GOG PR perspective it's useful as a "look at us, we're so great because we're updating lots of your games" tool.)

If you are about to play game X (say for the first time or after not having played it for a while), and since you know you can't trust GOG's system to tell you if your game X is up-to-date, you could just redownload/reinstall it. Maybe if enough people adopt that practice it would increase the load on GOG's servers enough that they would prioritize the issue. (It'd be even harder on GOG's servers if its users decide to redownload everything before each time they backup their hard drive -- there's no way to know if you're backing up the latest stuff if you don't redownload first.)

Is the new alternate ending the same of the Deponia Easter egg?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLVDWdAzqaU

I think that it's always subjective. Even in your example - people who think likewise won't have any problem with this CEO. There might be even others who don't agree with him but will praise him for being honest and that he had a courage so say what he thought and blah, blah, blah... so yeah the matter of someone's image is pretty much always subjective.

Yes, exactly! And I never ever claimed otherwise! :D From the very beginning I intended it as my personal opinion, I've never wanted it to be treated as universal truth. I think I participated in at least two threads about that matter and I said many times that I don't want to convince anyone who has different opinion. I do understand others' point of view and I fully respect it. So yeah, if this discussion was to prove that my statements are subjective then it was a waste of time because I never denied it. Furthermore - I really doubt a true objective argument can be made here. Simply because none of us has access to actual data about this case: who made this decision? What was his/her motivations? Who influenced this decision? Etc. etc. We can only discuss how we see it... we may all be wrong and that's why (let me repeat it once more) my reaction is not based on this event only. I would have never said anything bad about them if that had been the first time. You can check older threads - I was indeed trying to defend them. But enough is enough, I ran out of excuses ;)

Nope, your assumption is wrong :) I think just like you, I may even add that I couldn't have said it better! But the problem is the way they are trying to give us this sugar: If they for example had said something like: "We are sorry but for some reasons that we cannot share with you we have to increase the price of the game. But we want to at least try to make it up for you so we will update our game. We do know that's not much but that's all we could do now, we humbly ask you to understand us" THAT for sure would have been this proverbial sugar to sweeten the deal. But in the current situation? For me (highly subjective once again!) they are just adding insult to injury - because just like you said: they didn't even put too much effort...






Very subjective :P I do like adventure games a lot :)


That was a rhetorical question to which, by the definition, you were not supposed to give any answer ;) I could have come up with a dozen or so examples of shitty moves by myself, but thanks for your effort ;) The fact that there are a lot of worse possible situations hardly make this one any less shitty, you know. So I don't think it would anyhow undercut my argument.

I have the game on Steam, so fyi for steam users- you get the special edition as well.

edit- and I see it was covered in the thread, cool ^^

And the most important point hasn't been addressed yet; Have the game-breaking bugs been fixed?

Yes, Momo1991 was unlucky enough to encounter them in both the Steam and the GOG version of the game. The temporary solution? Save files issued by Daedalic.

How come the GOG version of The Whispered World: Special Edition doesn't have the FLAC soundtrack included as the Steam version has both FLAC and mp3 versions, can anyone confirm? I guess its time for Judas to get to work as GOG usually has more extras for games then other places and shouldn't lag behind in this case. :)

Nice!
And thanks for the free update!
(however, while they were at it they could've re-record chadwick's dialogue, it is still the worst thing about the game!)

It's a monopoly thing. Steam and companies make deals to push out other providers, we call this a "free market". So when Daedlic releases content to other providers, they release it piecemeal, at lower quality, or not at all, thus keeping Steam as the primary source for content.

Wonderful, isn't it?

As a personal observation, all the fanfare around GOG when I found it all centred on the lack of DRM, across the board pricing, and extras. Steam isn't going to implement across the board pricing or pull the DRM, so they introduce content. Now from their perspective, and apparently from a hell of a lot of companies perspectives, extras are now worth including at an extra cost since people obviously want them. Pity about the DRM/regional pricing/etc but you know, baby steps.