League of Geeks had gotten Kickstarter funding by describing a game which would be DRM-Free, already had DLC planned and would also have In-App Purchases. League of Geeks also posted a "Shiny New FAQ" which restated plans to release DLC.



Fast forward to today, the game on GoG never received any of the stated planned DLC or In-App Purchase items which had originally been promised.



On the Steam forums for Armello, Trent Kusters has been kind enough nice enough to give insight into League of Geeks reasoning for the situation. He has since indicated that he done discussing the issue and will lock all future threads. However, the "answers" he has left just lead to more questions instead of answers:



(1) Why is League of Geeks only willing to respond on Steam's forums instead of discussing the issues directly on GoG's forums? Are they just trying to save face among their preferred user community?



(2) Trent Kusters pointed out the game was released a year ago and never would have guessed LoG would be supporting Armello this long. If that is the case, when was the stated planned DLC and In-App purchases supposed to be released? What took League of Geeks so long?



(3) Trent Kusters has pointed out that all conjecture related to why other publishers can provide DLC for games that are DRM-Free do not apply to Armello. He further states that "given infinite reasources and time we could undertake the task of rewriting the underlying architecture at the core of this dicision.



(3) (a) How long has League of Geeks been writing an underlying architecture without including support for DLC for DRM-Free as a priority?



(3) (b) When did League of Geeks first know it was not going to be feasible?



(3) (c) If League of Geeks just recently started coding without regard for DLC for DRM-Free, how is there already a massive amount of code which would need to be rewritten?



(3) (d) How has the issue build up to requiring such a massive rewrite without League of Geeks knowing at the time the "Shiny New FAQ" re-iterated the plans to release DLC for the game while stating no known limitations?



(3) (e) If League of Geeks has not just recently started coding without regard for DLC for DRM-Free, but has been doing for a while now, why wasn't the issue announced earlier?



(3) (f) If League of Geeks just made an honest mistake which is too massive to correct at this point, why was it never discussed on the GoG forums? Never discussed on the Armello Twitter feed? Never discussed on the Armello Facebook page? Never discussed on the League of Geek forums?



(3) (g) If League of Geeks expects GoG users to consider the situation an honest mistake, why would they not have made more of an effort to apologize? Why all of the excuses instead of an apology?



(4) Trent Kusters has posted recently to his Twitter feed regarding advice he has for indie game developers to market their games.



(4) (a) Is issuing claims that a game will receive a DLC update and waiting until the actual release of the update to announce a specific class of the game's users will not be able to get it the best way for League of Geeks to market their game?



(4) (b) How does this situation and Trent Kusters' answer that LoG is not capable of releasing the frequently promised DLC to GoG users not sum up to something that makes League of Geeks appear either incompetent or deceitful?



(4) (c) By leaving so many questions still unaddressed but locking any future Steam forum threads related to this as "cover old ground," shouldn't Trent Kusters expect LoG's users that feel slighted to branch out to even more forums on the internet instead of keeping the discussion contained?



(4) (d) Why should anyone listen to Trent Kusters or anyone from League of Geeks on the topic of building a brand at this point? How did LoG do the best job possible in honoring what it marketed or communicating with it's users? How many GoG users does League of Geeks expect see LoG as being a brand they can trust?



Bottom line is the answers given so far indirectly indicate a company that considers Steam, PS4 and Xbox One to be the only customers they truly care about at this point. They seem to imply that they have put effort into trying to be fair to GoG users but done very little to give concrete examples of what exactly was involved in their effort. I normally have nothing but respect for indie game developer/publishers and the amount of work they put to distinguish themselves against the industry establishment. But in this case, I really feel the way League of Geeks has decided to handle the situation has more in common with how Electronic Arts initially handled SimCity (2013) or how UbiSoft initially handled the PC release of From Dust. The way LoG has decided to communicate via excuses and answers which seem to defy logic seems to mirror the establishment. It might be possible there are more details which makes the seemly illogical make sense but they aren't supplying those details. I am greatly disappointed and I strongly feel if this is continues to be left unaddressed the resulting frustration with bubble over to negatively impact LoG's brand across the internet.