I get this error when opening the game:
[code]./BaldursGate64: error while loading shared libraries: libssl.so.1.0.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory[/code]
I then install libssl and libcrypt to game/, but then I get this:
[code]support/gog_com.shlib: line 94: 12490 Segmentation fault (core dumped) ./"${bin_64}"
[/code]

It seems to happen whether it's x64 or multilib. Using Arch Linux.

How do I fix this issue so I can play the game?

If you’re OK with playing the 32-bit version for now, you could give a try to ./play.it. It does automatically take care of the tricky parts in the installation of Baldur’s Gate Enhanced Edition, including providing it with the expected `libssl.so.1.0.0` and `libcrypto.so.1.0.0`.

An update adding support for the 64-bit version is under testing there: Game update: Baldur's Gate - Enhanced Edition — Add support for 64-bit binary
If you want to give it a try tell me and I’ll post instructions on how to use this updated script.

Exactly what did you do to install these packages? What versions were installed?You probably installed an incompatible library, so the loader maps it into the game, but then the game uses it differently from how the library expects to be used, and the program crashes.

You need to use a compatible version of the library. Ideally, the publisher would issue an update that was rebuilt with a modern OpenSSL (currently, the 1.1.x branch), in which case everything should just work without bundling OpenSSL at all.

Sounds like I was better off trying to get my old copy of BG to work than buying this one. oh well...

Where is the download for the correct libssl and libcrypt? Thanks!

Hey, sorry to wake this old thread but I have a similar issue:

"error while loading shared libraries: libssl.so.1.0.0"

However this is on Linux Mint 20.2. Do you know what the best solution for me would be?

The best solution would be to get GOG to have the vendor update their software so that people stop encountering this. OpenSSL 1.1.0 became available late 2016, so it has now been available for about 5 years, which seems like adequate time to update the game to handle the newer 1.1.x series. According to https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2019/11/07/3.0-update/ , 1.0.x was declared End-of-Life at the end of 2019. There are no further changes, including security fixes, published for 1.0.x as of the End-of-Life date. No one should be releasing new builds dependent on OpenSSL 1.0.x at this point. I suggest you file a GOG helpdesk ticket inquiring about the availability of a release that is compatible with OpenSSL 1.1.x.

If you are determined to install outdated and unsupported software to work around the vendor's failure to update, check your distribution's package archive for an openssl compatibility package. The distributions stopped shipping 1.0.x in their main repositories because it was unsupported, but some retain a compatibility package for dealing with old software that cannot be updated (usually because the source was lost, or never published).

I don't understand how this is GOG's fault (or how they have any control over the issue). I would not complain to the grocery store if the brand of beer I purchased did not satisfy me. Nor would the grocery store have any way to get the beer company to change their recipe. I would recommend complaining to Beamdog. And good luck with that.

It's not GOG's fault that the game is broken, but they can personally fix it - by bundling an old copy of OpenSSL with the game, so that the game works out of the box when installed. However, they are also in a better position to complain to the vendor, because they are the ones who send the vendor money and have a standing contractual relation. I disagree that the grocery store has no ability to get the brewer to change their recipe. I would expect that Beamdog, not having sold anything to the end user, would be uninterested in a direct report. I would also expect that GOG, as the one who provided the software, would either bundle OpenSSL or escalate to the vendor when they get tired of users reporting that the software is broken as shipped. I would expect that GOG complaining to the vendor, on the basis of multiple different users all reporting the same problem, will make more of an impact than getting the user to contact Beamdog individually.

I think that is silly and lazy. "multiple different users all reporting the same problem" *to Beamdog* is what should get *Beamdog* to change their build. Have you bothered to complain to them at all?

Anyhow, please have a great life.

Thanks for your inputs, I got an answer with a potential fix today. But they also said my OS is not supported (Beeing Mint instead of Ubuntu). Will post more when I have the time!

No, because (1) I don't see a way to report the problem to Beamdog, but I do see a way to report it to GOG: the GOG helpdesk; and (2) I am not impacted by their negligence here. I am trying to help the people who are impacted by directing them to a reasonable venue for doing so. How are you helping? I suggested the GOG helpdesk to the affected user, because that seemed to me like a good place to start. You disagree, and think the user should go direct to Beamdog. Have you provided any way for him/her to report it to Beamdog? If Beamdog is anything like GOG, posting on their forums is a complete waste of time.

For the sake of this post, I spent a few minutes trying to hunt down how to report the problem to Beamdog, because I honestly didn't know how before now. A few searches led me to a subreddit that mentions seems to suggest Beamdog runs something called "Redmine" for this purpose, but no link to it. A guess at https://redmine.beamdog.com/ shows that Beamdog's reporting system is actually even more of a disaster. It completely fails to load. https://redmine.beamdog.com redirects to https://beamdog.atlassian.net/servicedesk/customer/portals , which is simply blank - typical of the modern web, where massive Javascript webapps are thought of as standard, even when they're unnecessary. This sounds like GOG wants you to change something locally to work around the issue, rather than fix the problem. Please consider either pushing back to GOG that they need to fix the problem by (1) shipping the required libraries, so the game works as installed, or (2) ask them to push the vendor for a fix, or (3) as alcaray suggests, you escalate this to Beamdog so that they fix the problem by linking to libraries that are not completely abandoned.

Well it sounded like you were discouraging people from contacting the owners of the build. And *I* was trying to help people. Different strokes, I guess.
There are lots of ways to contact corporate entities and to get their attention. Beamdog tends to resist this. At worst, you can always write them snailmail letters.

Here's the part where you make GOG suffer for being a responsible company. This is the part that pisses me off.

Last word is yours, friend.

I would be grateful if you can share any fix.
Just bought BG I and II enhanced and neither game will run on Fedora 34:

$ sh start.sh
Running Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition
./BaldursGate: error while loading shared libraries: libssl.so.1.0.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

$ sh start.sh
Running Baldur's Gate II: Enhanced Edition
./BaldursGateII: error while loading shared libraries: libssl.so.1.0.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

I suggest giving a try to ./play.it (obviously).

It will build a .deb package compatible with Mint from the GOG installer, said .deb includes the missing libssl.so.1.0.0 library amongst a couple other fixes.