Why is the newest LTS version of Ubuntu not supported? All of my Linux games crash or don't start because they aren't 18.04.

GOG scared their Linux people away. Or laid them off. In any case, don't expect much Linux support from them. I recommend you choose any distro you can work with and do what it takes to make your games run, that's what everyone else does too.

Do you have news I don't know about or is this FUD?

Any updates on this?

You may need to install 32bit libraries. Ubuntu ditch them on last lts version.

Check: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/adamhms_linux_mint_beginners_guide/page1

And there's also the free mention that GOG has plenty of job openings, save for one small albatross. I'm sure the CVs and applications are just waiting to--

The hired individual will need to work in-house, in our office based in Warsaw, Poland.

Oh.


On topic: Try running LDD on the binaries and see what they report.

I'm using Linux Mint 20 Ulyana, based on Ubuntu 20.04, and I don't face any issues so far, to be honest. I also think there should not be such a generic problem for the new version. I'd definitely start with common-libs-meta.deb metapackage prepared by adamhm and linked above.

Regarding GOG - indeed, no matter what's the plan, it would be fair to communicate it clearly to Linux users.

Oh my. I'm afraid none of you know how GOG, games, or OSes work. This is not a GOG problem. It is NOT GOG that supports a particular version of a distro; it's the game devs. If they choose to support 20.04, then you'll start seeing 20.04 in the list of supported OSes.

All GOG did originally was reach out to game devs and Linux gaming community nearly a decade ago, and the dev consensus was that Ubuntu was the mainstream platform for Linux gaming. And so it was until 2 years ago when Ubuntu stopped supporting the Ubuntu Desktop after 18.04, and eventually this led to dropping necessary legacy 32bit library support last year, which caused Steam to stop supporting Ubuntu temporarily, which led to Ubuntu reversing their decision to drop the libraries to provide UNSUPPORTED backward compatibility.

SO, long story short, Ubuntu is still the mainstream Linux gaming platform, but LTS 20.04 is only guaranteed to run the newest native titles designed for 64bit 20.04. Hence, a lot of new native Linux games are based on cross-platform systems like Java (Space Haven, for example), but indie native Linux development has dried up a lot in the wake of Valve/Steam's Proton tech which makes native ports somewhat unnecessary, given that most Windows games can now run on Linux easily. Hence, there probably won't be any more AAA native Linux games. But there probably will always be a small niche market for native Linux indie games based on cross-platform technologies, like Java or simple to port HTML (Crosscode! the best action jrpg ever), Unity engine games, etc.

GOG can work with Windows to make old games run on new versions of the OS because Microsoft itself supports backwards compatibility. Ubuntu much less so.

So, there's your answer. Newer native Linux games will have no trouble with 20.04 LTS. Older Linux titles on GOG will only be guaranteed to work on what they were designed to work on back when native Linux game development peaked circa 2015: 18.04 mostly.

However, there is a long-term future-proof solution (which is, after all, one of the main purposes of GOG -- a curated collection that works on newer systems). It's called Flatpak, Snap, and AppImage. If you don't know, these are the new software distribution systems for mainstream desktop Linux. They replace the .debs on Ubuntu, and Snap or a proprietary Flatpak-like tech will eventually replace GOG native Linux installers. These new distribution methods are designed to overcome versioning limitations by packing in all necessary libraries, no matter how old, into a sandboxed pack along with the executable. Thus, just like how GOG packages up DOS games for us in little DOSbox bundles,
I expect in the distant future Linux will continue to be supported by GOG in exactly the same way, but with little 16.04 and 18.04 bundles, so you can run these old Linux games on new distros by running the old distro libraries, etc, in a container. Or GOG could choose to repackage all Linux games as their Windows versions, emulated in little Proton bundles. Either way, GOG can keep Linux support in the long-term without much effort, but the technology will have to change, again exactly how DOS games are supported by GOG.

Until that day comes, remember the biggest differences between Windows and Linux, respectively, are that the latter is free and only takes 10 minutes to install completely. So, install 18.04 on a spare comp or on a partition, and BOOM, you've got a perpetual GOG Linux gaming machine, just like that old SNES or Genesis you might have lying around the house.

So, relax and edumacate yerselves, amigos. Your complaints were founded on an unfortunate misunderstanding and indeed accidental ignorance of the current state of Linux gaming as well as the underlying tech that future-proofs all GOG games as well as what "support" means in GOG's storefront context.

Good luck out there. It's a big world.

There is alot of misinformation in this thread.

https://ubuntu.com/blog/statement-on-32-bit-i386-packages-for-ubuntu-19-10-and-20-04-lts

32bit has not been dropped by Ubuntu. What they stated last year was that 32bit packages would be dropped but then they backpedaled and stated that they would be kept but they would only maintain the 32bit packages that are needed.

If there are 32bit packages that the Linux version of GOG games uses then GOG and/or the dev needs to either notify Ubuntu or provide the libraries themselves with the games or recompile the game to 64bit.

Packaging games in a container with a no longer supported version of Linux isn't a solution, it's a mess. If that becomes the only viable solution then it would be best for GOG to drop Linux for those games.

Who knows if the above is the OP issue because no details have been provided except that the games do not work.

Welcome. It'd be nice if you didn't start with an insult though. GOG has chosen to support specific distros, and where they can choose which distros to support, they can also choose which versions of said distro to support. Just as they can drop support for Windows XP at will and fix games for Windows 10 at will. (The games, as provided by their developers, may very well work on other distros and the developer may indeed support other distros, but if you contact GOG about an issue on a distro they themselves do not support, then they will pretty much tell you to f*off and you're better off contacting the developer directly. I've been there. Hell, I've gotten that "we don't support your Fedora" treatment from GOG support when I pointed out a bug that was affecting users on Windows too.)

I don't know how exactly the responsibility between the developer and GOG is divided but unless you have insider knowledge (who are you again?), I wouldn't rule out the possibility that GOG helps (or at least has helped in the past) with the packaging and testing of Linux releases to ensure they run on the specific distros that GOG has chosen to support. Have you ever looked at the supporting scripts, directory hierarchy and arrangement of a GOG Linux release? They tend to be very similar, unlike (say) random humble bundle Linux games from random Linux developers of yore. It's almost as if GOG is supporting them.. GOG could do the work independent of Ubuntu. Linux supports backwards compatibility, so you generally don't need the distro to provide much for you. It doesn't matter much who provides the required deps as long as someone does. I wouldn't be surprised if there's already some community-maintained repo of 32-bit libs. So where GOG now lists the libs you need to install from the official Ubuntu repos, one day they could list packages from a third party repo. Packages changing in incompatible ways has always been a concern on Linux, and it is not just a 32-bit multilib specific issue. You can take a native 64-bit game from today and try it in 10 years, chances are if it depends on more than libc and a small library or three, something will have changed and you need to go fishing for old solibs. That's why the best way to ship a game on Linux is to ship the libs with it. Until that becomes the norm, native Linux games will keep breaking over and over again and someone has to keep maintaining these games that GOG sells. Wait wait waaaait, didn't you just start the post off by insulting everyone here, then telling that no it's not a GOG problem and that GOG doesn't support particular versions of a distro? And now, in a total reversal, you're saying that GOG could repackage everything and maintain Linux support. For just about any version of just about any distro!

I agree! GOG could! If they so choose to. The choice whether to (or how much to) support Linux is very much a GOG problem. (And no, Flatpak and the alternatives you mentioned are not at all a requirement for this to be true. GOG could pick up any game they have today, bundle the missing libs, and ship an updated installer. If they so choose. Most of the cases are indeed that trivial to solve.) Yeah, you go have fun running 2020 hardware on a 2010 kernel. You can backport drivers for all eternity. It's pretty obvious that you haven't kept up with with what's going on at GOG regarding Linux support since they started it in 2014. The complaints that GOG has kept their Linux staff to a minimum and aren't giving it any thought are very real. The complaint that Linux releases go missing because GOG does not bother support Linux with their software is very real. New games releases where the first thing someone in the comments asks "where's the linux version?" are a weekly recurring thing. And it's been going on for a long time.

Let me say it again: Linux isn't a priority for GOG. At all. They either fired or pissed off one of their few key people and judging by the decaying state of things, they haven't hired much more talent to replace him. Do you think nobody's ever mentioned Flatpak to GOG? Do you think they've never heard of it? I know that they have heard of it, because we have talked about it here in the forums. Back when they still communicated with the community.

Nothing will change if there's no will on GOG's part. And if there is will, they can indeed choose to repackage and fix games for modern distros, with or without Flatpak.

Now should GOG go back and fix old games that weren't packaged well to begin with? To be honest, I don't think it's worth it, because these things are trivial to fix (by the user himself) which is why I told the OP to help themselves. Still, GOG has a ton of work to do if they want Linux users to take their store seriously. The work should probably start with Galaxy and all the missing Linux versions.

Well it seems they already have tons of fans on that Flatpak hype train. Can't go a week here without someone here gushing about it.

I have my reservations about it but I'm not super happy with the status quo either. It's evident that very few developers care to package a Linux release well.

It's quite possible that it'll come and take over in the same way that Docker came and took over and we'll just kinda have to live with it, and try to take the good parts of it for what they are. I think dropping support entirely seems a bit extreme, I'd rather not go there.

I'll be honest, I've crossed out Flatpack and Snaps on my cards. (Especially Snaps.) So that just leaves Appimages or GOG doing the proper thing and making a proper signed package repository that allows us the choice of Deb, RPM, or Tar.gz files.

The only way to solve the problem long-term is via stable software distribution platforms that include an 18.04 or whatever layer in the future, which is exactly what Snap and Flatpak are doing for us. The only missing piece is devs refusing to natively support Linux by using Linux's mainstream universal packaging solutions, thus forcing GOG to look like they are selling broken products when they are not. Ultimately, only hobbyists are going to be downloading and running Linux only games, and they are the types of people who know how to fix these trivial dependency problems with symlinks, etc, so GOG doesn't need to spend any money on this until the Linux community stabilizes app distribution and devs start releasing Linux software as intended by mainstream Linux.

@Clarry: I only intended to correct some misinformation and misunderstanding about the situation with Linux app distribution and GOG's responsibilities now and in the future. No insult sent forth. I think GOG could do one tremendously beneficial thing: require devs to deliver their products in Flatpak format. The standard GOG .sh installer would just install the Flatpak invisibly to users locally. You wouldn't even know you're running a Flatpak, except that the game will actually work. On the user end, it would look no different to how things already work, but it would be immeasurably better tech.

Linux isn't Windows (to a lesser extent Mac) where the OS tries hard to preserve backwards compatibility. Linux distros break almost all software compatibility between versions, and until Flatpak and Snap there was no viable Linux-side solution to this problem. Thus, GOG can go out of its way to support a dead standard (the Ubuntu LTS), or it can wait for game devs to repackage their Linux games in Linux's own modern mainstream universal package formats, and if they want to keep supporting Ubuntu specifically, my guess is that Ubuntu's in-house solution to the problem (Snaps) will become the de facto way to ship all Linux games past and future, thus avoiding dependency hell.

GOG could choose to repackage their entire Linux games library as flatpaks on behalf of lazy or broke devs, but who will pay them for it? Maybe Cyberpunk will actually turn a profit, or maybe Elon Musk will just be like, hey, here's a cool $250 mil to spend the next 6 months repacking hundreds of abandonware games! lol

Flatpak et al are the only realistic possibility. What you're suggesting here is the equivalent of GOG writing their own DOSbox because they arbitrarily refuse to use the only well-supported standard for running DOS games on modern hardware. Why would GOG invest one penny into maintaining hundreds of games every 5 years forever? It's not their responsibility. If devs want people to buy and play their games, they have a responsibility to repackage their work in the mainstream way in which games are functionally distributed on their chosen platforms. GOG can only do so much sustainably. Imagine if a Windows dev dumped a game on GOG's doorstep in a proprietary executable format using only Windows ME libraries, then demand GOG get it running and maintain it forever on Windows 10! Why would GOG take that seriously?

As for maintaining an 18.04 box for Linux gaming, don't want to run an old kernel on newer hardware? Cool, so support universal future-proof packaging standards like Snap and Flatpak.

As for all the complaints that GOG isn't doing enough for Linux users... pfft. Drama, drama, drama. They are literally only one of three Linux stores, and the best one by far. I have no complaints against GOG. If a dev has a completed Linux version and it's not released on GOG along with the Windows version (not that there is any evidence of this ever happening), then there's a 99% chance there's some kind of exclusivity deal the dev took with Steam because Valve profits soooooo much from SteamOS and native Linux games!

If GOG drops support for Linux, I'll never use it again. I play almost exclusively Linux only games to support the platform and mainly to encourage indie devs to properly support Linux and get away from Microsoft and Apple's "OS as a service" model to safeguard the individual right to personal computing.

Look, GOG will support Linux more when devs and the community band together and make it an attractive profitable software distribution platform. Step 1? End dependency hell and maintain one centralized future-proofed distribution format. If GOG doesn't want to cut a deal with canonical with the whole Snap server being proprietary, then let's get a community effort going to respin GOG's entire library as working Flatpaks with the permission of each game's original devs and owners, then gift the new working library to GOG for consumers to buy and enjoy indefinitely, then encourage all new native Linux game developers to deliver their games to GOG in the Flatpak format. All GOG needs to bring to the table is graphical Flatpak installer, so it would look no different than the current .sh bundle installations. You got a better idea that sustainable? Why reinvent the wheel? The answer is right here. Reliable app distribution = more devs supporting native Linux games = more $$$ for GOG = more enthusiasm for Linux from GOG. There is no other way.

Peace and love, mon ami.

@Darvond: "I'll be honest, I've crossed out Flatpack and Snaps on my cards. (Especially Snaps.) So that just leaves Appimages or GOG doing the proper thing and making a proper signed package repository that allows us the choice of Deb, RPM, or Tar.gz files."

Why? Old fashioned package repos are not a solution. They are the original problem. They are OS version locked apps. Flatpak is even more advanced than the way Windows software is distributed, so why wouldn't you want that kind of a future-proof, easy to use app distribution for Linux? Green eggs and ham?

It's the content of your post. Try to post something GOG's forum doesn't like and it just hangs forever. It's been like that for years. The forums are about as neglected as Linux support, if not worse.