I'd settle for that. Steam runs just fine on Linux Mint and probably anything else that uses Ubuntu packages.

Steam runs just fine on Manjaro (brilliant Arch based distro) and openSUSE as well judging from my experience. I am sure the Linux community of each respective distribution can work out the kinks to make whatever game work on their distribution as well. GOG essentially has highly qualified teams from each distribution who work free of charge on getting games off GOG to work for them. Can't believe GOG is not making use of this incredible resource.

Excuses or not, they're valid.

There's only one question to ask: does GOG have the necessary infrastracture to support Linux? If they thought they did, why wouldn't they do it? It's not like businesses give up opportunities for the sake of it.

I think as Linux support picks up more steam (phun intended), and more and more devs bringing out games which support it, GOG will have to introduce some level of support. Yes, they can't support every imaginable distribution, but that isn't necessary. They don't support every Windows version either.

I just noticed that GOG now has Amnesia: The Dark Descent and Brütal Legend in its catalogue, both games with Linux clients. When will GOG stop teasing me with all these games I could buy if the company supported Linux? GOG is my absolute retailer of choice due to not selling games with DRM, having no regional pricing, those thoughtful extras, the whole design of the website, and so on. Only thing it's missing is Linux support, and then my wallet would be in GOG's possession again.

Hm. Well, at least this discussion has moved on from the hypocritical 'We just wnat GOG to provide the files!' argument.

My problem with Linux support is:

1) It will take even more time away from testing and releasing new games. People on this forum whined *so hard* when GOG started releasing indie games because it would take time away from fixing up older games. Linux support will take even more resources, which I don't see a lot of people bringing up.

2) Linux is hard to use, and very hard to game on. I love the idea of it, and can't stand it as a day-to-day computer because it gets in my way so much more than Windows (or Apple, but I dislike Apple computers for other reasons). Even supporting one version of Linux on a specific hardware set will take a lot of work.

3) And then the forums will whine for more. There will be people asking for support on ARM, on Pis, on all kinds of crazy things, because people always keep asking for more. It's part of how people come.

TL;DR I'd rather have more releases. Linux releases would be cool and all, but how hard is it to play GOG games on Linux? We already have scripts, etc.

I asked myself why not just release the linux files as bonus content, like the windows-version of Heroes of Might & Magic 2 or the dos-version of Earth 2140? Just drop a (not officially supported) behind it and there you go. While I understood they didn't want to do that for mac users I believe linux users are more to get used to fiddle around with their software to make them run.

Linux support I feel is just a matter of time on GOG. All it needs is enough support, both in requests and actual users. As soon as they have enough volume of both and they know there will be a profit turnaround as any conscientious business would do, they will add Linux support.

This might've been posted before, but this Kickstarter is ending if 54 and is just one step towards making more games for the Linux platform: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1937035674/leadwerks-build-linux-games-on-linux

My vote for Linux has already put in, and I don't even use it. If there was more games for it though I might very well invest in it. It looks like it's moving along slowly but surely though, regardless.

And had they done it at the time it came out, I'm sure folks would have been fine with that. But at this point, Valve has Steam running on Linux natively.

1) Testing DOSBox games is pretty much a non-issue, if they run on DOSBox in Windows or OSX, then they'll run just fine on Linux. What's more, it's not like they've released all Windows games on OSX anyways. What's more, there's just no excuse for them not releasing new games that already have a native Linux version.

2) No it's not. Maybe a decade ago it was, but Linux isn't any harder to use than Windows or OSX. In fact in many ways it's easier to use than Windows is.

3) I'm sorry, but this is just complete horseshit. Running software on ARM or Pi would require access to the source code and is far more likely to run into problems than using a different chipset would. OSX, Linux and Windows all use the same types of chips, or very similar ones with very similar instruction sets.

These kinds of posts are why I've grown to hate Windows fanboys, they're full of BS and just there to justify shutting the rest of us out.
That's because you're not an idiot. Even my barely computer literate mother was easy enough to switch over. Well, until she needed a program that would not run under Linux and had to go back to Windows.

But, difficult had nothing to do with it. As long as you choose a distro that uses a similar paradigm, then it's not too tough.

Exactly. Linux is extremely easy to game on, and also rather easy to use. Just look at and [url=http://www.linuxmint.com/]Mint for instance. I would go as far as to argue that Linux is easier to use than Windows in some cases, such as updating all your software via the package system.

1) Yeah probably, but it's still time and effort. Plus, the number one rule of software is that the thing that breaks is the one you least expected.

I'd be happy to have Linux support, but it's a 'this is nice', not anything I'm really looking for. I would much rather GOG upgrade the forum software, add the ability to buy multiple gift codes in one transaction, etc, before worrying about Linux support.

2) Um, no. This is manifestly not true for the vast majority of the computer-buying market. Please stop trying to pass off your opinion as objective fact. We can get into a deeper discussion of LInux's UI fails and UX weirdness if you want. No OS is perfect, and no OS works for everyone. That it works for you is great, but that means nothing about it's ease-of-use for anyone else.

3) It's completely stupid that people would ask for it. That's my point. It's completely stupid, but thoughtless people will ask for it anyway.

Re: Your Mom (Sorry, couldn't resist that one :) )
Yup, it's easy to do things Linux includes in its paradigm. And practically freaking impossible to do stuff outside that. With Windows, there's the constant low-grade irritation of trying to do power-user stuff, but there's also almost always a program for whatever you're trying to do. It's a fragile situation, and I hate having my capabilities hostage to my OS.

Depends on the game. The times I've tried it, gaming on Linux has been more hassle than it's worth. Frequently I hit a stopping point where I didn't even know what to try next, and doing basic things was weirdly counter-intuitive. It was completely the opposite experience from Linux file management and server set-up, which was 2000x better than on Windows. Windows comes pre-installed and I can count on one hand the times I've had games fail on Windows 7. And at this point in my life, not having to fight with my OS is worth a lot.

It's the same DOSBox regardless of platform. The software inside there is running the same instructions on the same emulator. I have never heard of a case of something breaking on the Linux or OSX version that worked on the Windows version.

Do you even program?

The reason why the vast majority of the computer buying market buys Windows is because most computers have Windows installed by default. MS worked hard at running the competition out of business with sleazy tactics to make it so. It has absolutely no correlation with the ease of use.

I'd recommend that you follow your own advice here. It is an objective fact that Linux isn't harder to use than Windows. Which is amazing considering how much work MS goes to in order to enable hardware vendors that are too lazy to properly implement standards.

Sure they might ask, but it's not like GOG has ever taken Linux seriously anyways, your ability to create a slippery slope argument does not make the request for Linux support any less reasonable. There's even games here like Amnesia: TDD that already have Linux support from the developer. But, you can't get it here because GOG won't offer it.

In fact I bought both Amnesia: TDD and Rogue Legacy elsewhere because they were willing to offer the entire product.
I see, so you're not computer literate, so the rest of us should have to suffer for it. Got it.

I'll be sure to ignore your posts in the future.

Wow. That's kind of bitter and extreme of you.

I really would like Linux to be a better OS (although while Linus Torvalds I-can-abuse-you-if-I-want-to is in charge I don't think the typical UX is going to get better). But you've spent your last 2 posts insulting me and and I really don't think you have anything else to add besides more vitriol.

I hope you have a nice day.

GOG is here to sell games, not to save time by telling their users to get lost. They'll find time and resources if that will enable them to sell more games and to give their users what they want. GOG is not limited to old games anymore. They sell all kind of games, including new ones. And GOG does not fix bugs in old games. This was discussed at length already. GOG can only fix bugs in games which still have developers to whom GOG can communicate user feedback (such as recent games). At best GOG provides workarounds for bugs in old games. It's not the same as fixing bugs.

Linux is not hard to use. When did you try last time, 15 years ago? Gaming on Linux is easy when developers actually care about their users and release games for Linux. Native games.

What scripts? Are we talking about the same issue? This is about native Linux games. GOG doesn't sell them - that's the main problem.