The developers of Armello are facing a bit of a backlash over the DLC not coming to GOG

Sounds like they're backtracking on their decision to provide a DRM free version. The weird thing is, the one in the Humble Store only provides a DRM free version for Win+Mac. I wonder if they'll skip the DLC there too.

Now I'm glad that I didn't buy either. Seems like they are really not able to do even the basics things right.

May be developers simply aren't professional enough to address this issue. Similar problem happened with Age of Wonders III (they just didn't want to release the Linux version on GOG at all). And here, they didn't explain what the problem is really. If it was legit - let them spell it out. Otherwise - ignore them from now on. I'm glad I didn't buy the game yet.


Last edited by Shmerl on 2 Sep 2016 at 7:27 pm UTC

Yesterday I just bought Lords of Xulima Deluxe Edition (read: with the DLC) on GoG. Apparently, Numantian Games have no problem to "manage DLC on GOG [is] because of the nature of DRM free platforms", why would they, what exactly is the problem with that?

I don't know what the root problem is, but I'm starting to suspect it's GoG. There have been several games now (that I know of) where the patches have come to GoG much later than, for example, Steam. It's starting to feel like a trend to me and I have to wonder if the back end management of GoG is making things very difficult for developers/publishers.

That being said, in this case it's very hard to tell whats going on because the developers appear to be babbling incoherently.

This day has only been bad news for Linux :(.
But I never was planning to buy Armello.
But it sucks for those who did buy it.

It's starting to feel like a trend to me and I have to wonder if the back end management of GoG is making things very difficult for developers/publishers.

That being said, in this case it's very hard to tell whats going on because the developers appear to be babbling incoherently.

I cant confirm this, but I think and Iv heard that gog is testing there games very heavy before it gets released on the gog platform.
I have never got a bad game on gog, that dosnt work, but on steam I have meny times.
To be fair, steam has a huge library compaired to gog, so I guess bad games would be more common.

But something I would like steam to implement is some test and remove games that dosnt work.
I dont know how this could be done, judging by the amount of games that gets on steam.


Last edited by Zelox on 2 Sep 2016 at 7:30 pm UTC

I don't know what the root problem is, but I'm starting to suspect it's GoG.

No, it's not. GOG doesn't stop anyone from releasing patches. Problem is with developers who don't care (Frozenbyte updated Trine 3 on GOG only after users complained multiple times, and asked GOG to reach out to developers explicitly).

Or do developers see their game(Armello) as a platform that delivers(?) DLC to their customers.
Because if they do, it's quiet logical for them to try to stop potential "whales" from getting their DLC-fix by not so legitimate ways.
But if it's true does it means that their game will end as a glorified DLC(-pushing) store?

Or do developers see their game(Armello) as a platform that delivers(?) DLC to their customers.
Because if they do, it's quiet logical for them to try to stop potential "whales" from getting their DLC-fix by not so legitimate ways.
But if it's true does it means that their game will end as a glorified DLC(-pushing) store?

Then the game is not DRM-free, and GOG should reject it to begin with.

What's the difference between releasing a DRM free game and DRM free DLC? In both case you're trusting your customers not to distribute illegal copies.

I don't get it either. It's b.s.

I literally don't know what they are doing now. This "no way for us to provide DLC for DRM Free users" just makes zero sense.

It's because if someone in a multiplayer game owns the DLC then all connected players will be able to play as the new characters, which means all the coding and assets are installed on all copies of the game. The developers use an online check -- basically Steam -- to see whether or not a player has bought the DLC. I'm not sure there is an elegant way to allow such a feature in the DRM-free version that wouldn't be trivial to circumvent with a simple .ini edit.

What's the difference between releasing a DRM free game and DRM free DLC? In both case you're trusting your customers not to distribute illegal copies.

I don't get it either. It's b.s.

Yes, it's complete nonsense either way, as DRM itself is after all.

What's the difference between releasing a DRM free game and DRM free DLC? In both case you're trusting your customers not to distribute illegal copies.

I wouldn't say "trust" is the issue there. You know up front that for some it is not justified. You do DRM free distribution because crippling the paying customer is bad for business. For most companies anyway.

I literally don't know what they are doing now. This "no way for us to provide DLC for DRM Free users" just makes zero sense.

It's because if someone in a multiplayer game owns the DLC then all connected players will be able to play as the new characters, which means all the coding and assets are installed on all copies of the game. The developers use an online check -- basically Steam -- to see whether or not a player has bought the DLC. I'm not sure there is an elegant way to allow such a feature in the DRM-free version that wouldn't be trivial to circumvent with a simple .ini edit.

You are the first person who did not just complained but tried to see where exactly problem could be.

I literally don't know what they are doing now. This "no way for us to provide DLC for DRM Free users" just makes zero sense.

It's because if someone in a multiplayer game owns the DLC then all connected players will be able to play as the new characters, which means all the coding and assets are installed on all copies of the game. The developers use an online check -- basically Steam -- to see whether or not a player has bought the DLC. I'm not sure there is an elegant way to allow such a feature in the DRM-free version that wouldn't be trivial to circumvent with a simple .ini edit.

THing is, steam won't stop piracy, especially with stuff like SSE (steam emu) and CreamAPI (a dlc unlocker). THe newest DLC is already on TPB so using it as an excuse is total BS. Steam DRM is extremely weak and so easy to get past.

I literally don't know what they are doing now. This "no way for us to provide DLC for DRM Free users" just makes zero sense.

It's because if someone in a multiplayer game owns the DLC then all connected players will be able to play as the new characters, which means all the coding and assets are installed on all copies of the game. The developers use an online check -- basically Steam -- to see whether or not a player has bought the DLC. I'm not sure there is an elegant way to allow such a feature in the DRM-free version that wouldn't be trivial to circumvent with a simple .ini edit.

You are the first person who did not just complained but tried to see where exactly problem could be.

That was information I gleaned from the GoG thread. Here's the actual post:

An email I got from the devs:

"Hi Kristian,

We closely monitor who engages with Armello and it's no longer viable for us to continuously update the DRM Free version of Armello. The game will continue to exist in it's current state and we're proud of how far we've been able to take it.

As online services are required to verify if any given player has access to the DLC heroes, it's not compatible with the DRM-Free version of Armello.

Thanks,


Lisy Kane
Producer"

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/armello_drmfree_edition_now_available_on_gog_2b6bf/post170


Last edited by Mountain Man on 3 Sep 2016 at 12:02 am UTC

I literally don't know what they are doing now. This "no way for us to provide DLC for DRM Free users" just makes zero sense.

It's because if someone in a multiplayer game owns the DLC then all connected players will be able to play as the new characters, which means all the coding and assets are installed on all copies of the game. The developers use an online check -- basically Steam -- to see whether or not a player has bought the DLC. I'm not sure there is an elegant way to allow such a feature in the DRM-free version that wouldn't be trivial to circumvent with a simple .ini edit.

THing is, steam won't stop piracy, especially with stuff like SSE (steam emu) and CreamAPI (a dlc unlocker). THe newest DLC is already on TPB so using it as an excuse is total BS. Steam DRM is extremely weak and so easy to get past.

It's probably not so much to stop piracy as it is to prevent typical users from using trivial work-arounds in order to get the DLC for free. Your average consumer would be more likely to try a simple "hack" like editing an .ini file than they would to search torrent portals and warez sites for cracked copies.

I don't know what the root problem is, but I'm starting to suspect it's GoG. There have been several games now (that I know of) where the patches have come to GoG much later than, for example, Steam. It's starting to feel like a trend to me and I have to wonder if the back end management of GoG is making things very difficult for developers/publishers.

That being said, in this case it's very hard to tell whats going on because the developers appear to be babbling incoherently.

GOG has improved a lot on the patching, as far as I can see from the forums, devs are able to push updates through galaxy themselves (For Win/Mac Only Unfortunately), in a similar way as Steam without having GOG staff act as the middle man. Then GOG staff grabs that update and releases it for non Galaxy users.

So technically part of the problem has been solved.

I've got the game on GOG and I was thinking of picking it up on Steam. Now I'm happy I haven't done so, and I've removed it from my wishlist.

IMO not having the DLC on GOG is just going to promote piracy, which is what they are trying to prevent in the first place "by having DRM in their DLC".