MarkoH01: Agreed. Unfortunately this would mean that GOG would finally learn to COMMUNICATE ;)
Yes, I am basically a GOG fanboy and I love GOG to pieces despite their problems, but communication is a thing they never learned and never did the way I would want them to do. Obviously it's the same for customers AND devs. I am not surprised tbh.
^THIS, SO MUCH THIS. I can't call myself a fanboy due to all the efforts I have to go EVERYTIME a new game pops up here due to the risk of getting an inferior version one way or another, but let me assure you that I love GOG for its drm-free policy. With that out of our minds, I'd really like for GOG to learn communication and improve their damn curation system.
MarkoH01: Yes and no. It depends on the "how". If the dev is using the Galaxy backend to push updates directly to GOG it's all up to the dev and the game is updated nearly immediately after they have uploaded the new build (I know this for a fact because of contacts with some devs that told me and who are using said method). However, unfortunately many devs don't even know that there is this way to update GOG - many still think they will have to do every build from scratch and email it to GOG and then it takes time and effort.
I give you an example. A certain dev tried to get a specific update to GOG a few months ago after I improved his German localisation. He was trying and trying and could not understand why it took GOG so long to update it. Then he decided to teach himself how the Galaxy backend works and since he is a really clever guy the update was there - hours later. That's not a thing I do imagine it is a fact of which I am 100% sure because I witnessed it.
However GOG is not forcing the Galaxy backend so far too often devs don't know about it at all or don't use it ...
I'd like to say that this though is not the common ground devs wise, this was more an issue of lack of experience. With that I'M NOT saying that he must be crucified, as people learn and improve the more they work with something, but that generally speaking, people shouldn't outright say that building GOG versions is troublesome and so on, without first getting used properly to it.
Flyingfluffypiglet: Duly noted and I perfect timing on your part, since I've just finished some reading -not here- on Galaxy's Dev's tools so it's there to use to update on anything that doesn't need approval first. Don't see how/why anyone would question what you've said, not if they are intellectually honest anyway.
So that's another way for Devs to update their stuff here, the willing ones anyway, it's the others dragging their feet -to put it mildly- who need some serious pushing and shoving.
The main problem is that I keep reading devs (mostly indie ones, since well, I have yet to hear the saying from someone from a big publisher, regarding GOG toolkit) that the GOG toolkit is pretty bad and so on. Now, while there is definitely some truth about it, there is the problem that most (if not all) of them, end up comparing steamworks toolkit with the GOG one, which is well behind the former, other than other difference concerning the building system.
Usually a *lazy* dev is a GREAT dev, because al azy dev tries its best to make a software as smooth as possible, in order to make it simple for every next time he uses it, which imho should translate into scratching their heads, configuring GOG toolkit at its best and use that formula every time, rather than arguing every single time about GOG toolkit being bad.
Now I'm not a dev, nor I've tried to mess with GOG tookit neither steamworks, but I mess with visual studio under C# and I have two programmer friends with thom I talke daily about programming, both for learning and because I find fascinating the subject, so it baffles me how some devs go overboard either due to DRM, or due to toolkits.
