I'll just slip this in here.

http://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/gogcom-dont-plan-on-introducing-linux-support-in-the-foreseeable-future-updated.2369/

It's a sad for Linux gamers. I hope Desura and Steam thrive from their Linux endeavors though.

Ninja'd :p - https://secure.gog.com/forum/general/linux_support_on_gog/post669

Then, I'm definitely not in the loop. :)

Also, I have long since given up on GOG and their "we're investigating" excuses. No means no.

EDIT:
As my only contribution left to this topic that I am weary of. What's stopping GOG from releasing static support libraries for their Linux games? Surely that cuts down the support effort for the "numerous distros" *gasp*.

If you mean with "static", "static linking" two reasons. It was activly prevented to work technical for political reasons:
"static linking is dead on GNU systems. (I believe it died during the transition from libc4/libc5 to libc6/glibc 2.x.) The feature was deemed useless in light of: Security vulnerabilities. [...] Code bloat." (these are the offical reasons, the real reaons is discouraging of proprietary binary software)

2nd reason, static linking is incompatible with the LGPL, the most often used license for libraries (also widely used in non-copyleft software)

Why hates when TheEnigmaticT said that GOG takes their time to work on this? It shows their interest to do it their way, even if we don't like to wait.

Well?? I would say linux hates the possiblity of binary portable and distro-agnostic software deployment. :P

Linux seems to hate GOG and not way around.

And that is what GOG games or most other games are. If this is the main reason then it is rather unfriendly behavior. But still there must be a solution to write proprietary software (which almost always will be binary) for Linux. Maybe by developing your own layer and cutting the dependencies to the Linux ecosystem to a minimal amount. It's sad but I now see the disadvantages of Linux more clearly. I'm much more inclined to trust GOG that supporting Linux is not worth it. But the dosbox/scummvm based games and all newer ones that have a native Linux version - GOG still has higher standards than it's customers.

Nah, you've got it all wrong. it is actually TheEnigmaticT that hates all GOGers.

Just kidding! :-D

I personally don't think there's much point in talking about supporting linux with Dosbox/ScummVM-games or older Windows games. Linux people can play most of them very easily with their distro's native Dosbox/ScummVM or Wine. PlayOnLinux GUI/install scripts for Wine are very easy to use and the list of supported games is looking good. I've also installed some unsupported GOG games through PoL and they worked right away. Sure there are some games that don't work with Wine, but most work. The main interest, at least for me, is the games that have native versions available from developers.

^^ This, so much, this!

Oh yeah, I can totally see the war raging in the comment sections.

It's so popular nowadays to scream insults at eachother, when someone faces a problem, that others don't encounter and therefore gets humiliated (sometimes for a reason, no doubt about that) as dumb, entitled or "Kiddie that should stop whining".

Maybe you enjoy that - I don't! And in the interest of humanity, I hope I'm not in the minority in that matter.

See, I'm no Linux user (I tried it once, only to find, that almost all my peripheral stuff (Printer, scanner, etc.) wasn't supported by Linux - and yes, I googled for solutions - only to find, that my stuff was on a "black list" of officially unsupported peripherals).

Not Linux' fault, of course...but it made my decision to stay with windows much easier.

I see linux as an OS for tech savvy people. Some of you might disagree with that - but this is my opinion.

Thing is: regardless of how "more intelligent", "more reasonable" or "tech savvy" you think of yourself as a linux user (compared to the average Joe Dumb /Windows User - do you give that same credit to the next friendly linux user from your neighborhood , too?

Don't you expect him/her to get upset, whenever he/she paid good money for a product, only to get reminded, that "it is not supported" by the company that sold it to him, when it is not functioning as it should?

Because in my experience - whenever someone paid money for something, the last thing he/she wants to hear or read is: "It's your own fault, didn't you read the description before you purchased the game?", or: "If you're too dumb to get it running, maybe you should stop playing at all!"

And rest assured, these are responses some of your fellow linux users will give, respectively receive.

And, as an afterthought: IF your beloved linux community really is such a happy family, then why not just send a copy of your GOG purchase recipt to the respective developer with the request for the linux version?

After all, they give them to Humble Bundle, Desura, Steam, etc. at no extra cost ...so it should be no problem for them to give their linux version to you, if you can verify your purchase over GOG.com.

Just my two cents.

I understand your reasoning, but I cannot understand how it works for Humble Bundle, Desura, Steam and all the indies who deliver a Linux native version and how at the same time it cannot work for GOG. Your logic should apply to the competitors of GOG as well. Linux gamers should get upset about all of them or about none of them. Or do you assume that GOG customers are exceptionally picky?

I don't know how difficult it really is to make a game stable on Linux. You probably also don't know this in detail. GOG might know more and they are very reluctant to add Linux so far. However there are others who support Linux and seem to be doing fine. I just want to find out the reason of these apparent inconsistencies? Linux might be a tough nut to crack, but then at least it should be equally hard for everyone (approximately).

As a side point: I guess it won't be so easy to get an additional license from another service just because you bought something from GOG. The right way would be to buy Linux games from shops that provide these versions directly. And there is nothing wrong with it. From this point of view, there isn't any problem, just a small nuisance.

Quite a few actually do that. At any rate, problem is not the fact that GOG is not offering Linux versions - problem is that most of the major competition does.

This is more a question to CDPR than to GOG really. GOG never denied the sufficient demand. CDPR howver answered they won't make Linux version of the Witcher games (so far), for some really illogical reasons.

A pity this Metro game is tied to Steam. Is this because of the problem discussed above, or because the developer likes DRM?