Quoting: artvandelay440Approach the company on behalf of all the apples in the barrel, good and bad.

Sorry but it does not work like that. Some companies failed us, some are very nice to us. It wouldn't make sense that Valve, Feral, Aspyr, Kalipso, Paradox and many others own the reaponaibulities of bad apples like GOG and CDPR. For example, I do not trust GOG anymore, but I do trust Aspyr because, whereas GOG, their communication was very nice to us for Civ6. They didn't lie. They clearly stated that it might not come, then made several statements about their progress and finaly released it. You see, blaming someone for someone else action is very immature and not professional.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: RafiLinuxIf you don't like how they do things, just don't support them.

Actually this is not sufficient. As a small market, if we want it to be visible, we need to be vocal. Let me be perfectly clear: we are a very small market whose share does not grow much. So it makes sense to ignore us. GOG ignored Linux for a long time. Then there was the time when we all thought Linux was the next big gaming platform. So GOG started to support Linux, CRPR ported a game. But now that we all see that the numbers do not grow much, they start again to ignore us.

Galaxy is the tool GOG needs to compete with Steam. Gaming is not just about the game but also all that makes a great gaming experience: achievements, cloud storing, friends, multiplayer, community content and discussions. GOG understood that. Galaxy is not optional. More and more games will require it because it is the way to go. I won't say that GOG is hostile to us, but the fact is they are ignoring us and lied to us. Claiming the opposite is denying reality.

The money that goes to Steam, Feral store and others Linux supporters has very high chances to be used improve Linux gaming. But the money that goes to GOG will certainly be used, appart from support, to Galaxy, which we are locked out.

Note that I don't blame GOG. They took a business decision. We must take a custumer one.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I've seen many times here the excuse for GOG that they can not port Galaxy on Linux because they are much smaller than Valve. Desura was also much smaller than Valve, they provided an open source client on Linux. Itch is much smaller than GOG, they provide a client on Linux.

For once, GOG has been clear! They could port it if they wanted to but they won't because it is not a priority. Even if their team was ten times bigger, then they would affect those resources to other priorities but probably not on porting Galaxy. That is how business works.

The problem is not the size of the staff. And it is not that they don't want to port Galaxy. After all, they do what they want. Origin is not on Linux and I see noone here complaining about it.

The problems are they told us 3 years ago it was coming soon, then they told us they were working on it. This was obviously a lie. They told Galaxy was optional but some games do require it for multiplayer, again a lie. And on game pages, it is not obvious that a game requires Galaxy. So buying multiplayer games on GOG for Linux is very risky.

We can't blame GOG for not porting a client on Linux. But we can blame them for this aweful communication. I bought many games on GOG. Now I regret it because I fear Linux support could even be dropped in the future, as Linux is not a priority and obviously we can not trust what they say. Please stop this cult of GOG being the god of stores. They're good, yes they are. But the quality of Linux packages is not better than on Steam, Humble or Itch.

To people arguing that Valve is not doing a lot for Linux Gaming. Whose employes are working on Mesa? Who does have a Linux distribution? Who has most of her games on Linux? Linux is indeed a plan B for Valve, and that perfectly fine. But while Linux is "just" a plan B for them, they are being very nice to us. They kept there word. Of course there are issue and Valve is not God on earth, but Valve does support actively Linux. That's a fact. They are really investing resources to make Linux a solid gaming platform. They don't just take their cut. We should be thankful to that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: bradgyThat's a good attitude to take if you'd like to ensure they never change their priorities.

When someone does not want you, the good thing to do is to accept that and search someone else who wants you

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: istispIt's a real shame, but you can hopefully still change that with a very simple way.

If you have a GOG account, please vote on this community wishlist [External Link]. If it get enough votes to be on the top they might reconsider that. It is in no way a guarantee, but it is worth at least trying.

This feature is one of the most voted one for a very Long time, it won't change their mind. Only one thing chan : large increase in Linux shares. But even if so, would you trust a company that kept saying it was soon and in progress but was not?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Sincerely, Liam, thank you very much for this huge clarification.

That's actually very nice to GOG to give us such a clear and honnest answer. Even if it was obvious for a very long time.

We can't blame GOG for not considering Linux. After all they do what they want with their store. But making custumers expect something "soon" for more than 2 years while it was not even a priority is a complete and undeniable disrespect to all of us and a clear statement that we are not welcome there.

Of course they don't say that they will never do it but we should keep in mind that this is also true for every publisher/dev. If the Linux market reach 10% of shares, then obviously they will do it, as would every PC publisher/dev.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SeekTheShrubberyAnother option might be for Valve to allow developers to pay for more keys instead of just saying no more third party keys.

Indeed. There are two distinct entities: steam the store and steam the infrastructure. There is a point in not charging infrastrucure. The more games use your infrastucture, the less likely it is for a competitor to reach critical mass.

Look at GOG which is i think the second most used infrastructure (on PC of course). Multiplayer is still a big problem on games using steamplay because gog users remain isolated from the huge majority of players.

If steam forbid third party ressellers, then it would open the door for others stores which would then gain popularity.

Look at Google or Facebook, their infrastructure cost a LOT but serach and personal usage have to remain free to make to much money

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Duke TakeshiHmmm okay so mac people might get whatever game it is on the radar a little earlier...so what?

So this is very important. Linux, as a profitable platform, is still weak. Waiting a bit more for a game is not a problem, but it may be one of the first sign of a decline of Linux ports.

The big wave of ports we had these years was due to comapnies following Valve in their bet. The situation is diferent now. Steam machine were'nt a big success, Linux market shares does not seem to progress, companies now see much clearer the costs and expected profits.

If Feral would slow down Linux ports (I'm not saying they do! Just considering the possibility), it would mean porting for us would be less profitable. Which would be very very bad for us.

I believe our platform can become a viable target, but we're not there yet. Drivers, ABI compatibility, libraries backward compatibilities, middleware are still major problems.

We may experience a slow down for the upcoming two or three years until vulkan, Mesa, engines, flatpack (or any other similar tech) are stable enougth.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Porting Skyrim would be a bad move I think. Most of people who wanted to play it already have it. There is no point in porting an old game everybody already have, it would make low sales. Furthermore, it runs very well under wine.

We need day-1 AAA release. Or at least a games released this year. The next Lego would be awesome.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SpykerWhile DX11 support is making progress, I still have some bugs and issues with older games like Lord of Shadow 2.
WineHQ is advertising "platinum" support for this game, IMHO it's not the case even with this latest staging release.

I have quite the opposite issue. With Mesa, shaders only work if I force opengl 3.0 but not above. Sometimes (with BioShock), I need even to force 3.0 and enable nine patches to make it work on a radeon 280X.

By the way, nine patches are the best option to get correct rendering on my system. I wonder if/when they are accepted on the main line.

View this comment - View article - View full comments