skeletonbow: ...Why do I think it'll succeed? Because they're making all the right decisions so far if it has any chance whatsoever to do so, and they're going into it highly-informed about what they're getting into.
Trilarion: I'm not sure they will succeed and changing to a plattform that isn't so popular now instead of staying on well established plattforms is certainly risky, but might be rewarded greatly. I wish them luck.
You're making the mistake of thinking that Valve is switching to an entirely new and untested platform and abandoning all other platform in an all eggs in one basket switcheroo. In reality, Valve is
adding a new platform to their matrix of offerings. They're not abandoning Windows or Mac or anything else that they're doing currently, but accentuating it with something new. So they /are/ staying on well established platforms, but simultaneously providing another option to both gamers and themselves. This is an expansion, not a swap out.
Trilarion: The reason I like GOG to go and support Linux is also to not put all the eggs in one basket. You really don't know how Windows will develop. So it's better to support more plattforms then is strictly neccessary to maximize profit now, so in the future when the wind blows harder you can adapt more easily.
So GOG, just do it and do it smartly (i.e. keep the costs low). Don't wait, life is short. :)
So what you're suggesting, is that if Valve puts out a new Linux offering as an addition to what they do right now, they are putting all of their eggs in one basket and it is risky and likely to fail, the world will come to an end for them, etc., however you would like to see GOG do the same thing essentially however if GOG does it, it is diversifying by not putting all eggs in one basket? :)
Seriously, apply what you just said you think is a good idea for GOG - to Valve. Valve is a much bigger company with more money to throw around and experiment, and a lot more manpower to throw at the various problems. GOG would be wise to wait and see what happens than to assume all of that effort and all of the risk themselves in my opinion, and that's most likely what they'll do too. If and when Valve's efforts show signs of paying off - and I'm sure they will, lots of other companies will be watching carefully and likely following in their footsteps, and many of them - probably GOG included will have already started doing things behind the scenes long before they ever announce it publicly. What's more though too, is that any game developers out there who have their games on both Steam and GOG and are porting the game to Linux already - GOG is likely to get the port for themselves as well once they decide to also support the platform. Valve has a *LOT* more muscle to convince game devs to port their games to Linux than GOG does, and GOG can only benefit from them doing so eventually one way or another.
If I were GOG or some other company in gaming right now, I would be monitoring what's going on with Linux and I'd probably be silently doing things internally with Linux to prepare for the future, and that would likely include porting stuff, making changes to my website code for it, figuring out how to handle tech support etc. but I would most likely be waiting to see whether Valve succeeds at what they're doing or not and sort of ride on the coat tails of that. Lets face it, if Valve's SteamOS/Steam machines actually _fail_, the likelihood of GOG or some other distributor doing similar and succeeding is rather slim and unlikely - so why would the smaller guys go ahead and take such a big risk when they'd have a lot more to lose from it and have a lot less resources?
Yes, GOG should be paying attention to LInux right now but:
1) They almost certainly are to some extent or another (behind the scenes with lips sealed)
2) They should go about it in a low risk way and ride the coat tails of giants rather than dumping significant resources into an unknown. Let the big guys do that and assume the risk.
We don't need another Loki. :)