+billion to that. Linux support wouldn't be any harder than Mac OS support. In fact it may even ve easier (and anyone who has created software for linux and packaged it would agree), as for most cases when game is for dosbox all that would be needed is a rebuild for newer distro, which would take just a minute of human time and 1.5 minute top of machine time. And even that, if we're using Ubuntu LTS as a platform, wouldn't need to happen more often than once per three/five years. YMMW for native linux games, but same is also true for mac os x native games so i don't see problem here anyway.

TL;DR: as solzariv said, not supporting linux while supporting Mac OS X is either sign of ignorance or incompetence, there is nothing hard at giving Linux support at same level as Mac OS support is done - e.g. I'm pretty sure Mac OS 9 isn't supported, right ? So there should be no problem with supporting only one distro either.

You didn't mention Humble Bundle. They support Linux ports which they themselves made. You can report bugs to them, and they'll reply to you. I did this on several occasions. GOG is welcome to start poring games to Linux as well. If HB can do it, you can too. Of course HB does that when possible, in collaboration with the original developers of those games (mostly recent ones). How about the Witcher 3 for Linux made by GOG? In case of CD Pojekt Red you have access to the source code, since it's your sister company. And you can easily support it long term. Witcher 2 for Linux would also be welcome. In case of other ports made by you, the situation would be the same.

About future support - set your limits and say, you support these and these systems (let's say certain glibc, certain graphics stack and etc.). You do the same thing for Windows already. Windows also has exactly the same problems between the versions, yet you don't care since Windows user base is too large for you to ignore. It's all about the size really, not about worries for support.

I made a wish for that one right here http://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/alternative_os_forum_linux_mac

It's intended to be Mac inclusive as well, both to make it more likely to be used, and since both groups have some overlap in what problems they may face and software being used. (wine mainly)

I've been caught up in the same situation several times. I also bought LoG here, but ended up buying a HB just to get the Linux version. Same deal for Torchlight which I just played through. Not GoG's version, HB's version. Strike Suit Zero has a Linux version now, but I would have to rebuy the game somewhere to get it, along with Trine. If GoG ever did start selling Trine 2 it would be to late, because I bought it on Steam. Opting to support Linux gaming over my usual support for DRM-free (which isn't possible since they haven't let the game fly free) I never did get Anomaly here, instead I got it in an HB with the Linux version. Amnesia? No I got that from HB as well, though part of the problem there is just it having been out so long everywhere else first. Psychonauts? No got that on HB too with a Linux version (which I have yet to try)

The list is a little ridiculous given the short amount of time it covers, and this song is old, old, old. I like having things on GoG as all my games are safe in my profile if something happens like my HD dying out of nowhere last month. Where as HB games are kind of a chore to archive reliably, but I get the full experience, and I don't have to worry about having to turn around and rebuy something later.

I do think it would be nice if devs would let you download alternative installers or runtimes. That used to happen a while back, but I don't think I have seen it since Quake3 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein. In that case it wouldn't even matter, we could just bypass GoG.

How is GOG better than HB in this aspect? All DRM free games you bought on HB are also in your profile there. Not different from GOG in this regard. And archiving them is even easier, since they give you an option of using BitTorrent to download them.

But if you sell the games with a clear warning that it only works under Ubuntu 12.04 and everything else is entirely at your won risk and probably doesn't work than these people will not scream a lot or their screaming will be shouted down by the arguments of us reasonable people. It would be sad if a few angry people can effectively deny good products to many people like zchronos or adamhm or ...

Humble Bundle has the Linux versions and the screaming due to failing support is pretty low so far.

Then it means that Linus Torvalds, Miguel de Icaza (one of GNOME original devs), and other Linux devs are incompetents because they complained about similar things than what GoG is worried about.

Linux has made tremendous improvement in the "usability" department in the last 10 years or so... but creating a "package" that can be installed seamlessly and reliably on multiples distributions, no matter which DE they are using, no matter which various libraries version are installed, is still a very distant dream. There are workarounds, like what Steam is doing, but it's definitely not "easy".

And when you add "bigger effort" with "much smaller market", it's no surprise that there are business like GoG that consider it as being too much of a financial risk. It's not incompetence, it's common sense.

It's easier for me because I come here all the time and its all in one nice, graphical, click me page. With HB I don't have a profile, I have links in e-mail to my downloads of separate bundles I've saved in some folder in an email account. I also have to figure out what I want to do with all the games I don't really want, but got because of the bundle nature. Or do I back up their windows version of something if I have it on GOG and was just shooting for Linux? Just juggling multiple stores complicates things, and HB just feels a bit cluttered in comparison.

I've never used a BitTorrent so I can't speak on how it could or couldn't make life easier.

Actually, you do have a profile page on HIB with all the purchased games - if you don't, create one with the same mail that you have ordered them with and they'll get associated with the new profile.

Because you haven't created an account to unify all your HB purchases, no matter which e-mail address you used for each (I don't blame you, I haven't either).

Proven distribution method with well-working resume support.

And (as mentioned) you can add any purchases and gifted bundles you've got, no matter the associated e-mail.

Unless they recently changed something, what Steam is doing is saying "We support 1 distro." All of that "there is no unified install system" talk is irrelevant if a business narrows their focus down to 1 distro which is something everyone is A) suggesting GOG do, or B) Willing to deal with if it means GOG will come to Linux.

I don't think there is much of any reason to think Linux could pull its weight financially, but I also don't think fragmentation is a major reason why. It might make a good excuse, but that's about it.
I've seen a line or two suggesting one could be created, after the fact. That's all well and fine, but it requires me to care enough in a moment I am trying to download games and I just don't. Its not really anyone's fault(maybe mine), but in GOG's case the profile is required, it's all automatic, and there is no opportunity to get into such a disorganized situation. I'm sure it's all very easy, I'm also sure I won't even bother to look into it unless I buy something else and am really bored. I'm also sure if I have to dig up those emails to link them I will just be like, eh. I'm good.

Well as I said, if it's the same mail you're registering with, you won't have to do anything else. For HIB, account is entirely optional - something a fan of DRM-free gaming should be quite appreciative of.

Not to mention, the creation itself takes like 3 seconds and rounds up all your games in a nice library. Definitely saves quite a bit of time later on.

*Ahhh*... the anectodal computer iliterate friend/family member, let's de-bust this. The core point is: linux on the desktop is only fine for the computer impaired and the admin/devs. The use case in-between for the power-user, the original PC use case is not addressed (or even understood). Why it works for your mom? Because you act as admin for her, installing the apps and your mother just uses browser, email and open office. She will not try to install software or games meaning this is more or less the workstation-server setup, the use-case unix was used for in the 70s. And I would argue, linux is still stucking in this limited workstation-server mindset, built around a powerful admin and stupid user. And has still not understood the "personal computing" revolution in 80/90s which empowered the users to simply install software from whatever source (shop, internet) themself by "double click" by having technically a stable and easy to address platform.

I strongly disagree, repackaging is a useless waste of time, expanded to infinity by the distro fragmentation & and furious upgrade cycles. Which is not existing in MacOS because they have compatiblity policies, a real platform by accepting pragmatic approaches like universal binaries (why again was Ryan Gordon's FatELF shot down?)

I don't know about that. Some of the package managers work pretty well as far as browse, click, auto-dependency resolution goes. Does get a bit more complected if you go off repository, but most of the people you describe aren't likely to need much that isn't there. The fact that everything is up for grabs cuts down a lot on the need to download a bunch of random crap of questionable quality(the empowered user with no click control often wrecks his windows install). If we start seeing a much larger influx of commercial software then it may become an issue, but to be honest I haven't had many issues with commercial software.

The moving target issue tends to create the most issues for me, and I think there is something to be said for the idea that we could use some commercial target distro and version that companies and individuals could agree on and trust not to be a moving platform. Given some ideological differences between commercial and linux groups, and the degree of unapologetic distro fragmentation/love I doubt it's something we will see anytime soon.