Time to stop being excited (GOG not supporting Linux)

oh thank you

been an interesting debate here :)

if GoG would want to do linux support the first that they must do is create a download client that runs nativly under linux. Secondly they need to make their own linux installer like they do with all current (window) games.

There would be no need to zipping and tar balls, like with windows games you download (either via their client or directly from your GoG library page) the GoG installer.

Once they got that running they will need to split their games into 3 groups: native linux (some of the new indy games they do), dosbox, windows.

native linux would simply be a download, run GoG installer and your done except for the part where you need special dependencies.

dosbox games would basicly be the same, and it would make most sense they include a dosbox with the game, I seem to recall they do this with windows versions also. Again this would be a simple download, run the GoG installer and your done.

now the windows games is more of an issue, they could make a wine package like codeweavers did for that HiB game but the problem there would probably be an outcry from people saying wine is not linux, and it's not but how else you gone play old windows games on linux, you can not expect them to re-write them to linux libraries.

To be honest I would think dosbox games would be the most easy to start with and support.

Wine bundles made by codeweavers would be okay too, would generate some income for codeweavers and they would run on most linux distro's without issue.

The native linux games probably bring the biggest challenge.

Anyways they would not have to start with all 3 types at the same time.

Or possibly just package the files like humble bundle does. Leave the support to linux users and forums. Im pretty sure all of us Linux users know where to find support. I know that many people run into the same problems, and we all do a great job helping eachother out.

Giving support doesn't mean GOG should fix all broken systems out there, I guess that's not what they do for Windows. They won't fix your library mess or clean your computer from virus, they'll tell you to reinstall maybe. Windows programs already package a lot of their own libraries, sometimes making an interesting mix in your system.

In GNU/Linux is safer and easy to do a bootstrap for your own games, you use your own libraries and you're almost done. They should rely a minimum on the underlying systems, Linux kernel, libc, sound and video drivers, that's all. Still there'll be problems because libraries have bugs and drivers too, but doesn't any platform have bugs?

Libraries take care of Alsa/Pulseaudio/OSS/Xorg/OpenGL/desktops or anything else. If your system is not broken and has the required subsystems correctly working you're leveled to a Windows user. If your system is broken the problem is the same as a Windows user with a broken system (not a few.)

I mean, I know it's quite some work to support a new platform, but I don't agree it's because there's a lot of distributions. There's a lot of Windows installs and a lot of differences between them and still they give support, they won't say there's too many different Windows system configurations (hardware and software) for them to support.

I'm not an expert, but I have the strong feeling that they're taking the easy route by blaming the platform instead of admitting they're not that interested.

As for the packaging, I don't like installing foreign packages, they taint my system in unpredictable ways. I'd rather have the whole game in a directory with some script that makes the desktop launchers, make it an automatic installer and that's the best we could have. You don't want the packages carefully crafted by your distribution developers mixed with some low quality packages done by unexperienced people.

I'll say it again, stop trying to support distributions directly, companies don't know how it works and it's too much work for them to do it. They can cooperate as we're seeing with Ubuntu by using their Software Center to distribute games, or elaborating new ways together with the people that create the distributions. That's the way I see companies should mainly work along with the community.

Quoting: "Beemer, post: 5792"I wrote that comment on GOG about "JUST ASK"(tm?). It *is* that simple to get the ball rolling.

All they have to do to start is say "Hey - we'll support the DOS box games to start. Here's a forum, here's a .tar.gz of the dos files. Please submit instructions for various distros on how to get dosbox and/or gameX working and we'll post it in a support site/wiki/something".

Within a day, I'd bet they assign some wiki editors for this to compile the docs (and probably be overwhelmed :) ). BUT - *they* have to:

Take files they already have, and make .tar.gz of them.
*JUST ASK* for assistance
Compile the docs/how-to's/etc that the community will provide.

Heck, they could even go the route of "Hey - we'll trial this for DOS games. We'll provide the basics, you guys provide the instructions". Again, not hard. Just some time invested on both sides.

Starting with the DOS games makes it super easy for GOG and Linux users:

DosBox is already well established in Linux, so dependency suprises should be kept to a bare minimum.
There's plenty of existing DOS items in GOG to use.
Providing a .tar.gz of the game files is lower cost than packaging the game with a tweaked DosBox.
There are already Linux users buying DOS games there (albeit not officially sanctioned).
GOG can get a great feel for how this could go while having a pretty easy out.

I think this argument can work against us. Since users already know how to do it by themselves and will work their way out, why should GOG invest resources and money?

There are a few points I would like to add to this thread. First off, I think it would be better to just avoid selling Windows games to Linux users entirely. There are good reasons why this is not supported by a large swath of the Linux community, and Wine/CrossOver bundled builds have a bad history of being hard to maintain and hard to optimize. In this instance, I think it is much better to just let the users themselves get the games working on their own with Wine if they so wish to play them.

Dosbox enabled titles are a different manner, as they are much easier to maintain and it would not entail getting second class treatment compared to Windows users as Wine/CrossOver bundled builds necessarily would. This would obviously seem to be the easiest to get working, and the one that I think GoG should originally focus on if they ever truly do commit to supporting Linux.

As for native Linux games, these would also be fairly simple I think. For example, they already have Frozenbyte and RWS selling their titles on the service, and they could easily pick up the Linux versions of their titles and start selling them just as Desura is doing now. I certainly disagree that out of the three options Bumadar listed that native ports would "bring the biggest challenge". More than the Dosbox builds, probably, but not much more work.

Regarding already having some native games on their service, I don't think this one would be that simple. Just as it'd be a bitch to get the rights to distribute Loki ports on GOG, they'd have trouble with those games. Some of the Frozenbyte games are published there by someone else, and the same applies to many other games with native ports. So generally, they probably couldn't even release all the games they do have natively there.

btw, the press [URL='http://www.gog.com/news/watch_us_live_here']conference is right now[/URL], its MAC support they adding.

And the disappointment was confirmed. Ideals they stand by my ass. You can't really talk about DRM-free and Mac in the same sentence, now can you?