TR Member Perks!

Recently, there has been some controversy on Armello, which was explored in great detail in TechRaptor’s article. However, to summarize, the developers of Armello, League of Geeks, released DLC for their title that is only available on Steam. Later, Trent Kuster, the Director and Founder of League of Geeks announced that GOG users would not receive any paid DLC. As expected, the response to this was resoundingly negative, with users coming out in droves to state their dissatisfaction with their product.

In accordance to this, GOG has issued a statement:

Due to changes to the version of Armello and the fact that some online functionalities and future content for the game will not be available on, we want to make sure all prior owners have a choice. If you feel that the current version of Armello is not something you wished for back when you bought the game – please contact our support team for a refund.

Later the same day, Trent Kuster posted a message on the Steam forums, explaining why there would be no paid DLC for GOG’s version of Armello:

Just because another studio or game has DLC on DRM Free, doesn’t mean it’s immediately a possibility for us or Armello. Assuming as much is incredibly naive. Every team’s processes, resources, and games are innumerably different. Almost every single piece of conjecture about ways we could have or should roll out our DLC on DRM Free have either been wildly off course or avenues we’ve already investigated. 

Quick Take:

This is an ugly situation that makes everyone look bad. League of Geeks looks bad for stiffing GOG owners of DLC that they should receive, and GOG looks bad for offering a substandard product. While the GOG version of Armello will still receive patches going into 2017, there is no real point to do so when “some online functionalities and future content” will not be available with GOG’s version. 

What do you think of this whole situation? Let us know in the comments!

Patrick Perrault

Staff Writer

Writer for TechRaptor, who hopes to gain valuable experience in a constantly changing industry.

  • Nope Naw

    At first I kinda thought the Armello devs seemed like alright people, but the more I hear about them and the more I read from them I become convinced of the opposite.

    Good on GOG, in any case.

  • I don’t think GOG looks bad, rather, I think the opposite. If anything, they look better than ever.

  • Patrick Perrault

    I agree based on how they acted, but the fact remains that GOG has an inferior product on their store compared to Steam and therefore looks bad by association.

  • Slo

    It should have been marked as a different version to begin with.

  • Johnathon Tieman

    While they might have had an inferior product, you are assuming they knew that to begin with. My take away is they were given the exact same product on Steam with the understanding that it would receive all patches/etc that it did on rival platforms (and frankly, it is bad business to not do so, as the Armello developers are about to or currently finding out). This act does what is right for both GOG and their customers, so the only bad actors left are the developers.

  • Visci

    If they can’t provide the same version, they shouldn’t put it on GOG in the first place. If they didn’t know that they were unable to provide the same game beforehand, they should take the consequences, admit their mistakes and pull the inferior version entirely (of course, with people who already bought it keeping, if they don’t refund).

    It’s the “we haven’t done anything wrong” attitude that kills this for me (and ensures that I stay away from Armello entirely)..

  • > “Almost every single piece of conjecture about ways we could have or should roll out our DLC on DRM Free have either been wildly off course or avenues we’ve already investigated.”

    Then tell people why rather than giving insulting non-answers. Even if it’s a case where Steam just proved far more convenient (for the devs) for handling licensing and in-game item trading, being honest about it does far less damage to their reputations in the long run.

    On GOG’s side: it’s good to see them at least handling this with refunds. Removing it from sale entirely would be in GOG’s long-term best interests simply to send the message that devs need to be upfront about what is being sold on GOG. GOG’s curation and effort getting games working is the reason they’re so much better than Steam and they need to enforce that by culling games that violate this from their library. Burning bridges with a single dev is better then losing consumer confidence by a thousand cuts when this happens again because they didn’t stop it now.

  • Rumble Red

    I’ve already gotten my money back; I asked for a refund as soon as I heard about this whole scheme. I bought it a while ago but hadn’t played it yet, since I was waiting for the DLC to come out first. Oops.

    This is my favourite part of Trent Kuster’s post:

    “Now, of course it’s theoretically possible to have DLC on DRM Free, I mean, there’s a robot taking selfies on Mars right now.”

    There are literally no technical problems they could’ve run into that would make those words not seem absurd and condescending.

  • Patrick Perrault

    Oh that was bad wording on my part, my apologies.

    My opinion on this issue is that GOG were given as you explained, a product that would receive all the same patches and DLC’s as their competitors. However, when that didn’t occur, they were left holding the empty bag, so to speak.

  • Ckarasu

    You ARE aware that the developers signed off on this, right? And that, in the Steam discussion, even recommended getting a refund from GoG if you were unsatisfied with their decision. Does no one do research on stuff like this anymore?


  • Nope Naw

    I agree that GOG should remove it from sale on their store.

  • Ckarasu

    A bit hyperbolic, I think. In the end, even before GoG officially mentioned giving refunds, the team behind Armello was apparently offering them to anyone unhappy about this. Read the full topic, and not just the bits Techraptor posts.

  • Ckarasu

    The Armello devs were apparently the first to offer refunds. Hate their decision all you want, but do not think GoG is the only party involved in the refunds process. I’m of the mind that they shouldn’t have offered a DRM-free version if they weren’t absolutely sure it could reach parity with the Steam version, but acting like they’re some terrible developers is silly. They were offering refunds for people upset, and now GoG is **officially** doing that.

  • Nope Naw

    You’d have to corroborate that claim, because from what I’m reading from their responses in the Steam forums, they say that they’re wearing the cost of refunds. Not that they “signed off” on them, which would actually be kind of ridiculous. That’d be like one wares supplier of a store deciding whether or not the store can offer refunds to an unsatisfied customer for their particular products. (Well, it’d be exactly that.)

    Even so, I was more talking about how they behave themselves and how they treat their community.

  • Ckarasu

    They recommended refunds straight up. It wasn’t just that they were taking the costs. And this statement was before GoG’s official offer for full refunds. They even said they’d honor refunds through even Humble’s site.

    I’m all for calling out bad development practices. But I have little respect for anyone outraged by this. Being upset is fine, but calling this scummy is a bit too far. Armello decided to integrate Steam features into their game that the GoG version couldn’t really support(item marketplace). And they offered refunds for anyone upset by this. While not a great decision all the way through, articles like this are not putting forward many good points.


  • Ckarasu

    I edited the main comment with a source, as well as tried to reply. But neither seem to be going through.

    But here, if this makes it through:

    The developer even tells people to refund through Humble as well, if they wish. They’re not particularly good at explaining their actions, but I do think some of the hate is a bit overblown.

    Edited: Formatting got messed up for some reason.

  • Bathsalt Addicts

    His explanation doesn’t explain anything. Why would anyone accept that as an answer. Thats some Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama question dodging skill he’s got. Also Why would putting “DLC on DRM free” be a problem?

  • Bathsalt Addicts

    Right. Thats what blows my mind. How did ANYONE read those words and go. “Oh. Well that clears up why you aren’t putting DLC on GOG.” Thats the dodgiest answer I’ve ever heard. Just because everyone else lives off of oxygen doesn’t mean the sky is blue!

    Where are we right now? Is this real life?

  • Grumpy Catterman

    I’m already a little disappointed with Armello. It felt like such a neat game but I really wanted to play it using local multiplayer. I had heard they were planning on adding that and bought it when it was on discount. :/

  • Michele

    I disagree.

    GOG doesn’t act swiftly and avoid being upfront.

    Their news was worded as it was somehow a good news (a term that is often used to mock them as a reminder of their bad pr news where they often bend the true to their convenience). It was not a good news obviously.

    They could have also thought beforehand that customers would have asked a refund and offer that from the beginning. Instead they waited a week without replying to customers concern and posted an announcement in the forum instead of a proper news visible on the website. They shouldn’t have to wait of the situation to go out of control to give an official statement. That’s compatible with GOG behavior of keeping thing under the radar to avoid people knowing what’s going on hoping the uproar cease by itself and avoid bad publicity. It works mostly because usually that doesn’t end up in the news, but they have a huge records of bad decision and customer mistreatment.

    I agree that GOG couldn’t know when they first released the game but as said in the news lately GOG and Armello devs worked together for some time to come to the conclusion of building a version of the game specific for GOG. So GOG knows for a while what’s going on and allowed users to purchase the game knowing that they’ll end up with a bad deal.

    As also pointed out, GOG also ended up with an inferior version of a game, that is added to a really long list now. This show how bad GOG is in making deal with publishers and obtaining equal treatment. It’s clear that is not safe to purchase game on GOG, expecially new one.

    So GOG doesn’t look good in this matter, It hasn’t been in a while now.

  • Michele

    I believe it’s more appropriate to say that they should have thought that beforehand. They already planned addon during the kickstarter campaign so they know that they’ll need to implement dlc in the future. The also offered the drm-free version on that campaign, and that must have got them additional backers. They released both drm and drm-free version and continue developing the game. At some point they started implementing the system to handle the dlc, but did that disregarding the drm-free version that became impossible to adapt. That’s thei choice and their fault. The issue is that the want drm to check dlc ownership, that could never work on a drm-free edition. It’s a bad decision on their part but they also never thought of their customer convenience and communicate properly.They just dropped it on them when it suited them.

  • Michele

    I agree but I also think that the issue is how the dev phrased it in an arrogant way. The point is “It could be done but it costs and we don’t want spend resources in that” and I can trust that claim. The problem is why does it costs. During the kickstarter campaign they arleady planned future updates, addon and in game purchase. They also planned to release both drm and drm-free versiond and that surely got them a lot of backes. I don’t know if they would have done it if they only provided drm version (and we cannot know at this point). So they knew that they had to support a drm-free version, still implemented a system to check ownsership of dlc which by design is not compatible with drm-free. So it costs because they didn’t do a good job in planning the feature of their product and also neglected to inform their customers before hand. Now they are in a situation in which it’s not convenient for them to change the design of their product and they are not concerned with their customers convenience.

  • Michele

    GOG has stopped curating games for a long time now. They simple sell it whenever they are good or not, and have no contractual power to enforce devs to support their own games. There’s a long list of games that awaits patch, fix, ect. Inferior versions are not new on GOG but this is the first case of entirely different version.
    I agree they should act more in their customers interest, eventually dropping some dev/pub because that’s the main reason people choose them, but they won’t do it. All of their recent decision are always dictated by devs/pubs and GOG job is to make it seems good to their community even when it’s not.

  • Sarusig Musicman

    Yeah their community is incredibly aware of that though. Hence the “Good News™”.

  • Joe Gamer

    Shafting your customers in favor of DRM?
    To the boycott list you go League of Geeks.

  • FlamingoJet

    What a bunch of scummy little fuckers.

    I think it’s time to start raising lawsuits against these scummy little fucking indie devs that think they can lie about their products and take advantage of their community.

  • Johnathon Tieman

    Assuming the laws haven’t changed since I worked retail (and they don’t differ between physical and digital), a store can basically “return” a product to the manufacturer for pretty much any reason and get a refund, so GOG will hopefully lose nothing from this and the fallout will land solely on the developers. In any case, GOG shows they are still the best store for gamers. If their catalog ever rivals Steam, we may see an interesting upset in the market.

  • Ckarasu

    I’d agree if they weren’t willing to honor refunds even on the Humble store. There’s a huge difference between scummy moves and shortsighted decisions. You had a couple years of complete support, and the DRM free edition is still going to be supported. It just will not have parity with the Steam version, and that is definitely bad, but I lose any sympathy for anyone calling this scummy.

  • Ckarasu

    I saw the reaction as more of a “poor explanation” than simply being malicious. Those Steam forums are terrible, and I won’t hear otherwise. The people in those forums can be awful, ignorant, and entitled. Not all of them, obviously, but there is a reason that people don’t take those forums seriously.