1. Most businesses have such contracts with term limits.....to say it likely doesn't exist when most businesses do it to me is being a bit naive. I agree we should focus on things we can see, though, as long as those things are proven and verified(not the update thing but the employee's comments...which is what set off this latest social media/gog forum debate with everyone).

2. So you're saying ANY game shouldn't be released until prior games are all up to date(What if a game is in constant updates?)?

3. We have no idea what they are doing behind the scenes....and again if they have a contract they can't stop the sale of a dev's games because that dev upset some people if they have a contract(which they likely do) to sell their games for a set period. If they have such contract terms and they broke them they'd be liable and the dev could sue. And if it came down to waiting out any time limits and ending the contract or breaking it and getting sued i'd rather GOG do the former.

Also what if gog didn't know the dev was like that before/when signing? That could also be the case.

1. I did not say it likely doesn't exist. Rather, we don't know if it does, or what terms it may contain. To base any kind of position on something you don't know is simply wasted. What we know for fact is the games are notbbin parity, and an employee said they won't ever be because GOG customers are pirates.

2. A game from the same developer in the same series, sure. If the game is in a state of updates, and is in sync with other platforms, then there should be no problem. If there is disparity, they should be made equal before the new game is released.

3. We have no idea, see point 1. Arguing from a position of "you don't know...i don't know" is pointless. They almost certainly have a contract, yes. But none of us are privy to the terms. I won't argue against "it could be". Thats the last of anything I'll address about a contract or contracted obligations. It's not a valid discussion unless you have the contract in front of you.

GOG did know Tinybuild's games have a penchant for not being updated before Party Hard 2 was released, for instance as both Party Hard and Punch Club had issues. I feel like I'm going in circles here.

1. True, but your wording made it seem like you were trying to say that(in a way). We don't know what terms it may contain, but to suggest a business of ANY type doesn't make contracts with new partners(to me) seems non-sensical seeing as how that;s usually the standard in such cases(game stores having term limits on contracts for their devs/ip holders that have signed on). When making assumptions I usually go with the norm rather than the exception when making such assumptions.

As for the employee comment: We have no proof other than that man's word that the update non-parity is due to the reasons he/she stated. As such, I hold such with a grain of salt until further proof(that they did so for the reasons stated) is provided. I do consider that it may be true, though, and don't just toss said ideas out entirely.

2. They should be but should other consumers have to wait for the next game until such is achieved just because some want every single update for a game?

3. Agreed but that is standard for such contracts(term limits).

4. But did they know when they signed Tinybuild initially? If they didn't and the contract hasn't been renewed since then then GOG is less in the wrong in this case, imo.

================
In the end I would be glad for the games to get updated and everyone to be happy....we will just have to wait and see, as you said.
================

At this point it's up to GOG to force them to update the games. Maybe check the contract signed? If there's no such clause then it's a lost cause.