I loaded the game and can only see the left side of the battle field. the previous screen shows up in the right side . sure hope someone can help me out. thanks

Which game? Which version of Linux/GNU? Monitor refresh rate and resolution? Anything else we should know?

I'll just say hat in my PC build topic there's a reason I explicitly said I *don't* want an nvidia GPU. (Also whay my current systems use Intel integrated grapbics; it works really well under Linux.)

What's going on with Vampire: The Masquerade - Coteries of New York? The game has a Linux version on GOG, but it's not listed on the game page and lgogdownloader doesn't find it either. You can download it from the "game shelf" however through the browser.

VtM - Coteries of New York is now listed!

I think Warhammer 40k: Mechanicus has the same issue. Going to send a ticket, also the DLC is missing for Linux.

Is it another sign of deteriorating Linux support here?

Most of them, at any rate. AMD still requires firmware blobs.
You would think GOG of all places would be more about future-proofing their service as much as possible. We're a very small slice of the pie atm, but what other life boat do they have? Hell, they should be cooperating with Valve with Proton/DXVK.

I don't think current GOG's management really gets anything Linux in the wider picture sense. Since @linuxvangog left, I'm not sure there is anyone in GOG who gets it (except may be @JudasIscariot who acts like a ghost now). And Valve are for sure light years ahead in that. On the other hand, may be GOG's financial situation is so dire, that they can't afford investing in anything? Look at the forum here for example. It's barely usable, and it's been like this for years.

I think the problem is GOG doesn't have a long-term plan. They're focusing on Galaxy right now. And while that is great and all, what's that going to matter when Microsoft decides to start pushing Xbox on GaaS?

I suppose Galaxy is their long term plan? Things like Linux support is simply not something they see as part of their plans.

The problem is that we dunno if Windows as we know it will still be a thing in a decade, let alone beyond that.

From a pragmatic sense (as opposed to a philosophical/ethical sense), a firmware blob is not nearly as bad as the nvidia situation.

With a firmware blob:
* The blob doesn't execute on the CPU, so it won't interefere with software running on the CPU.
* The code executing on the CPU is still GPL2, so there's no license issue with linking it into the kernel.
* The firmware blob doesn't need to use the kernel's internal API, and therefore doesn't need to be updated with each kernel version; furthermore, due to the fact that it doesn't need to link to the kernel. the CPU portion of the driver can be made entirely GPL2 and upstreamed.
* Another advantage, at least theoretically, it should be possible to use said driver with a non-x86 CPU (like ARM, MIPS, Power, RISC-V, and others).

Can't do any of that with nvidia's proprietary driver, which needs to run propoietary code on the CPU.

It's LESS bad than the complete black box we get with Nvidia, but it's still not idea, freedom-wise.

Would it be more or less ideal if, instead of requiring the firmware blob to be uploaded by the kernel at boot time, the blob was burned into the video card's ROM and not upgradable or accessible by the host CPU?

Edit: I assume you meant to say "ideal" instead of "idea" and somehow failed to type the 'l', correct?