It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)GoG.com games on different platforms(61 posts)(61 posts)
(61 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 22, 2012
I think that you should vote here if you would like support for Linux:

http://www.gog.com/en/wishlist/site/add_linux_versions_of_games

For some games native support for Linux is trivial (Darwinia or Never Winter Nights) many other games may only be possible via Wine and DOSBox.

I use Linux exclusively and most of the games purchased from GoG run without issue in Wine (a few games needed a little work to get running).

If Linux cannot be supported it would be nice to have Wine's Application database link with GoG so an indication on whether other people have got the game to work on Linux / FreeBSD or MacOS could be shown here and the GoG community could help out the WineHQ folks by updating the database. This would be a way of providing unofficial support.
Posted April 22, 2012
avatar
nullzero: If Linux cannot be supported it would be nice to have Wine's Application database link with GoG so an indication on whether other people have got the game to work on Linux / FreeBSD or MacOS could be shown here and the GoG community could help out the WineHQ folks by updating the database. This would be a way of providing unofficial support.
I believe the gog wiki already does that. Otherwise people can just list it when they feel like it. I think part of the problem is that there aren't as many people doing it as is needed to make it work.
Posted April 22, 2012
avatar
Navagon: It's not a matter of ignoring evidence that contradicts what I'm saying. On the contrary. I know about Wine and Boxer. Boxer seems reliable. But gaming via Wine, especially for older titles, which were all over the place, programming-wise, is far from a perfected science. You certainly wouldn't convince GOG to support Macs because Wine exists. If anything it highlights the problems they'd be faced with.
Which is why I posted earlier saying I don't think GOG needs to officially "support" Mac or Linux. As a Linux user, I think the community support has been more than sufficient for any troubles I've ran into (which have been few) playing GOG games.

I was merely saying that writing off any platforms to gaming just because you don't use them is short-sighted and incorrect. Playing Space Marine Shooter 6 isn't the only definition of gaming. Especially now, with GOG, and with indie gaming becoming big (The Humble Bundles have all supported Mac and Linux, every single one)... it's outdated and foolish to say one simply can't game on Mac or Linux.

Is it as simple or as full-fleshed as Windows? No, but we're not all gaming the same way.
Posted April 22, 2012
avatar
cuppsy: I was merely saying that writing off any platforms to gaming just because you don't use them is short-sighted and incorrect.
Which I wasn't doing and you weren't saying.
Posted April 22, 2012
avatar
nullzero: I think that you should vote here if you would like support for Linux:

http://www.gog.com/en/wishlist/site/add_linux_versions_of_games
And for a forum.
http://www.gog.com/en/wishlist/site/alternative_os_forum_linux_mac

nullzero I didn't see you in my recent poll of linux/mac users. It was quite a bit down from one run last year.
http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/linuxmac_users_raise_your_hand/page2
Posted April 22, 2012
avatar
GameRager: Well again they'd have to get permission to host those versions here, which could require them to redo the contracts they have to sell those games.....they'd also have to train in support for said versions(afaik in some countries you have to provide such support on all versions of things you sell, barring some exceptions on certain products and some used goods).
----------------------
Again, they'd need to provide support for said versions......even if some countries didn't require them to provide such by law, they'd still lose consumer confidence/sales if they didn't.
Well playing through DosBox is pretty much identical on the Mac and Linux to the PC (in fact we tend to suffer from the exact same technical issues across all platforms if there are any) and many of the newer games I don't think GOG supports like the older ones. For instance, for Trine, I would contact Frozenbyte for support, not GOG regardless of the OS. So for the very old, DOS, titles and the very new titles with native Mac/Linux versions, there should be only very limited added support issues for GOG. It would not require a whole new support team for DosBox/new titles. All that is required then is renegotiating contracts with the rights holders (admittedly not an easy issue and could take a lot of time for all of the DosBox games).

So I think GOG could feasibly add Mac/Linux versions to a substantial fraction of their catalog without overloading their support (any more than it already is at any rate). But I understand why they didn't support Mac/Linux right off the bat and why there is inertia to change. Thus, while I think they can offer games for those platforms fairly easily, I'll just wait until they do so and port the games myself 'till then. The DosBox games which would be the most likely to come over first are so simple to get working that the fact that GOG doesn't officially support them on Linux or Mac actually means very little - the only thing tricky required is getting the files out of GOG's .exe installer which is straightforward with WINE.

avatar
Navagon: It's not a matter of ignoring evidence that contradicts what I'm saying. On the contrary. I know about Wine and Boxer. Boxer seems reliable. But gaming via Wine, especially for older titles, which were all over the place, programming-wise, is far from a perfected science. You certainly wouldn't convince GOG to support Macs because Wine exists. If anything it highlights the problems they'd be faced with.
As for the rest of catalog, WINE is actually working a lot better these days and for many GOG games it is relatively easy to get the games working and many of the rest can be gotten working with a little extra push. But even so, no I wouldn't expect GOG to anytime soon or perhaps ever to offer WINE versions of Windows games (unless/until WINE ever reaches the point where DOSBox is at now where practically all games are port and play). That said, CDPR used what seems to be a standard WINE engine to port The Witcher 1 (they may have tinkered with the game's files a bit though to do it - the jury is still out on that). For those games though GOG really would be on the hook for support and would be qualitatively more difficult to support, or at least different from supporting, than just normal Windows versions. However, some of my games run better and are more stable through WINE than in Windows 7 - a factor which will probably get more, not less true as time marches on and new Windows operating systems come out and WINE continues to improve.

avatar
Pheace: CDPR *is* GOG's parent company.
I believe Navagon is right, CDPR (the developer) and GOG are sister-companies. CDP is the parent company to both companies.
Post edited April 22, 2012 by crazy_dave
Posted April 22, 2012
avatar
StingingVelvet: TREAT MY NICHE LIKE A REAL MARKET, DAMMIT!
Oh, it is a real market. Steam didn't create a Mac client and start selling to and supporting Mac users as some act of charity. There was money to be made and for that same reason, GOG could make more money too.

Of course, money has to be spent to make money. What else is new under the sun. I really don't get why people are so negative about the idea of GOG serving the Mac and Linux markets as well. So what if they are small. All income is good income. Those markets are smaller sure, but they are markets with potential just the same.

There are people selling to both Mac and Linux users too and they are not charities. They are businesses with the primary goal of making profits.

I like how people will make statements such as "It's not likely here" when they don't actually have any clue what is discussed by the people at GOG or what market research they might do, etc. For all we know, they are already carefully examining the possibilities and may yet also choose to act on them. I wouldn't be so sure about knowing things when one doesn't actually know them at all.
avatar
Xellspooun: Also, why do they *have* to support the Mac/Linux versions?
avatar
Navagon: CDPR and GOG might share the same parent company, but not a lot else. As for why they'd have to I refer you to my above post.
avatar
StingingVelvet: TREAT MY NICHE LIKE A REAL MARKET, DAMMIT!
avatar
Navagon: I don't get why people would buy a Mac then want to play games on it. In fact I don't really understand why people would buy a Mac at all. But that's beside the point.
That's simple. The Mac is a nice computer with an elegant interface and a solid OS beneath it. In simpler terms, maybe you prefer one kind of automobile and I prefer another kind. They are both cars but we have our own individual preferences that guide our purchasing decisions. Isn't it nice to have choices to make instead of everyone being stuck in the same sedan, computer, OS, etc.? I think it is.

Why wouldn't a Mac user want to play games on their computer?
avatar
Navagon: I don't get why people would buy a Mac then want to play games on it. In fact I don't really understand why people would buy a Mac at all. But that's beside the point.
avatar
SimonG: A PC is a tool. A Mac is a lifestyle product.
That is an interesting way of looking at it but the fact remains, they are both computers and are both capable of doing exactly the same things.
avatar
StingingVelvet: I don't get either, but it's especially annoying when they buy a Mac knowing it's not a gaming platform and then expect it to be treated like one.
avatar
Navagon: Exactly. If you buy a cricket bat you can hardly wonder why it's crap for baseball.
avatar
SimonG: A PC is a tool. A Mac is a lifestyle product.
avatar
Navagon: Once upon a time they were more powerful. But then they switched over to intel. Any trace of purpose has since been lost.
were more powerful? now you make me lol... A quad core i7 isn't powerful enough for you? Do you have something better in your PC? Too funny. I'm not sure why you care enough about a competing personal computer platform to hate it.
Post edited April 22, 2012 by dirtyharry50
Posted April 22, 2012
avatar
StingingVelvet: TREAT MY NICHE LIKE A REAL MARKET, DAMMIT!
avatar
dirtyharry50: Oh, it is a real market. Steam didn't create a Mac client and start selling to and supporting Mac users as some act of charity. There was money to be made and for that same reason, GOG could make more money too.

Of course, money has to be spent to make money. What else is new under the sun. I really don't get why people are so negative about the idea of GOG serving the Mac and Linux markets as well. So what if they are small. All income is good income. Those markets are smaller sure, but they are markets with potential just the same.

There are people selling to both Mac and Linux users too and they are not charities. They are businesses with the primary goal of making profits.
Yes, but how many copies? Steam doesn't guarantee that the game will run on Mac just by porting the infrastructure over to Mac, anybody that wants their game to run on Mac also has to make the adjustments necessary to make it happen.

Is it eough to justify the work? I don't know it depends a great deal upon how much work there is to do to make it work. Games running on MS libraries and using MS APIs are almost certainly going to be quite a bit more expensive to port than ones using libraries available on OSX.
Posted April 22, 2012
avatar
rampancy: It's all a matter of opinion, in the end. Some people choose Mac, some, Windows, and some Linux.
avatar
Wishbone: It really, really isn't. It's about choosing the right tool for the right job, and if gaming is a passion of yours, then you do not buy a Mac. It's as simple as that. Macs are probably good for a lot of things, but gaming is not one of them.
I'm sorry but that really isn't true anymore. With an i7 based iMac, 8 gigs of RAM, 2 TB hard disc, ATI graphics that can run Skyrim, etc. an iMac certainly is a viable gaming machine as well as arguably a better PC in other ways depending on one's own personal preferences if nothing else.

Gaming on an iMac today is not hard to do at all and without a lot of compromise either. I've done my homework here since I plan to buy one.

My first stop was to check my Steam library. It turns out thanks to Steamplay that I already own over 50 quality titles that run natively on the Mac. My MS-DOS based GOGs will all run fine with DOSBox on the Mac. Many of my old Windows GOGs will run fine with WINE on the Mac. None of this is hard to setup and enjoy. For everything else that won't run natively one way or another, there is dual booting into Windows 7 thanks to bootcamp. So basically, my new Mac hardware can run anything my old PC hardware could run but my new computer will have a much nicer display (27" widescreen) and an operating system and apps I happen to like better. My new Mac will sporting an i7 quad core and plenty of RAM with a decent graphics chip so I will be just fine thanks.

Again, I have to remind you guys there is already a market for Mac gaming and it is continuing to grow. That's why Steam supports it now. There was money to be made there and they went for it. It is not a ridiculous idea at all to hope GOG will at some point do the same thing. Sure there are associated costs to be considered but obviously, these are covered by increased revenues. There is no charity involved nor being requested. It's just business. Whether you like or hate Steam, they didn't get where they are today by making poor business decisions. I'm sure they looked very carefully at Mac before they spent a nickel on a Mac client, etc.
Posted April 22, 2012
avatar
hedwards: Yes, but how many copies? Steam doesn't guarantee that the game will run on Mac just by porting the infrastructure over to Mac, anybody that wants their game to run on Mac also has to make the adjustments necessary to make it happen.

Is it eough to justify the work? I don't know it depends a great deal upon how much work there is to do to make it work. Games running on MS libraries and using MS APIs are almost certainly going to be quite a bit more expensive to port than ones using libraries available on OSX.
For Wine, while much better than it used to be, yes it can still be tricky to do and I wouldn't expect it anytime soon as I wrote earlier. But for DosBox and the native Mac/Linux versions ... should be easy and not require much added support (the new games are supported by the developers and the old games getting stuff working in DosBox is pretty much if not entirely platform independent).
avatar
dirtyharry50: were more powerful? now you make me lol... A quad core i7 isn't powerful enough for you? Do you have something better in your PC? Too funny. I'm not sure why you care enough about a competing personal computer platform to hate it.
In fairness, I think Navagon is referring to the time when Macs ran on PowerPC architectures and could thus differentiate themselves based on that from "Wintel" machines. However, now that their innards are pretty much the same, he sees no reason to get a Mac. I disagree (since I have a Mac), but I believe that is what he meant.
Post edited April 22, 2012 by crazy_dave
Posted April 22, 2012
avatar
dirtyharry50: Oh, it is a real market. Steam didn't create a Mac client and start selling to and supporting Mac users as some act of charity. There was money to be made and for that same reason, GOG could make more money too.

Of course, money has to be spent to make money. What else is new under the sun. I really don't get why people are so negative about the idea of GOG serving the Mac and Linux markets as well. So what if they are small. All income is good income. Those markets are smaller sure, but they are markets with potential just the same.

There are people selling to both Mac and Linux users too and they are not charities. They are businesses with the primary goal of making profits.
avatar
hedwards: Yes, but how many copies? Steam doesn't guarantee that the game will run on Mac just by porting the infrastructure over to Mac, anybody that wants their game to run on Mac also has to make the adjustments necessary to make it happen.

Is it eough to justify the work? I don't know it depends a great deal upon how much work there is to do to make it work. Games running on MS libraries and using MS APIs are almost certainly going to be quite a bit more expensive to port than ones using libraries available on OSX.
Steam doesn't guarantee much to anybody really. But in fairness, the terms are the same whether you purchase a game for Mac or Windows on Steam. Mac customers are not second class citizens with lesser terms of service. By all means you could read them for yourself to see this. There's no distinctions made.
avatar
hedwards: Yes, but how many copies? Steam doesn't guarantee that the game will run on Mac just by porting the infrastructure over to Mac, anybody that wants their game to run on Mac also has to make the adjustments necessary to make it happen.

Is it eough to justify the work? I don't know it depends a great deal upon how much work there is to do to make it work. Games running on MS libraries and using MS APIs are almost certainly going to be quite a bit more expensive to port than ones using libraries available on OSX.
avatar
crazy_dave: For Wine, while much better than it used to be, yes it can still be tricky to do and I wouldn't expect it anytime soon as I wrote earlier. But for DosBox and the native Mac/Linux versions ... should be easy and not require much added support (the new games are supported by the developers and the old games getting stuff working in DosBox is pretty much if not entirely platform independent).
avatar
dirtyharry50: were more powerful? now you make me lol... A quad core i7 isn't powerful enough for you? Do you have something better in your PC? Too funny. I'm not sure why you care enough about a competing personal computer platform to hate it.
avatar
crazy_dave: In fairness, I think Navagon is referring to the time when Macs ran on PowerPC architectures and could thus differentiate themselves based on that from "Wintel" machines. However, now that their innards are pretty much the same, he sees no reason to get a Mac. I disagree (since I have a Mac), but I believe that is what he meant.
Ah, okay. I see what you are saying there. I do see Intel as a plus though given the ability to dual boot into windows just for certain games that won't run on OSX and aren't available to me on a PS3.

Going forward, considering I plan to play on a console as well, I don't feel like I am making some great sacrifice by going with a Mac. I see myself gaining a lot given my preferences. To me, the Mac OS is like driving a Cadillac and the Windows OS is like driving a Chevy. They both get you where you want to go I guess but I'd rather take the nicer ride myself. Before I get flamed too much for that crack, yeah I know it is subjective but that is my view and an important part of why I want a Mac.

I love gaming but my personal computer is not just a gaming platform. It does much more. Gaming is just one thing my computer does. Now, the PS3 I think of being a gaming platform although even it does more than just that. Its focus is certainly squarely on gaming.
Post edited April 22, 2012 by dirtyharry50
Posted April 23, 2012
avatar
hedwards: Yes, but how many copies? Steam doesn't guarantee that the game will run on Mac just by porting the infrastructure over to Mac, anybody that wants their game to run on Mac also has to make the adjustments necessary to make it happen.

Is it eough to justify the work? I don't know it depends a great deal upon how much work there is to do to make it work. Games running on MS libraries and using MS APIs are almost certainly going to be quite a bit more expensive to port than ones using libraries available on OSX.
avatar
dirtyharry50: Steam doesn't guarantee much to anybody really. But in fairness, the terms are the same whether you purchase a game for Mac or Windows on Steam. Mac customers are not second class citizens with lesser terms of service. By all means you could read them for yourself to see this. There's no distinctions made.
I could be wrong, but the Mac version of Steam doesn't even offer most of the games in the normal Steam catalog.

That may have changed or I may be misinformed as I don't use Macs, but I don't believe you have as many games available for OSX as you do for Windows with Steam.
Posted April 23, 2012
avatar
dirtyharry50: My MS-DOS based GOGs will all run fine with DOSBox on the Mac. Many of my old Windows GOGs will run fine with WINE on the Mac. None of this is hard to setup and enjoy.
For you maybe, but for Mr. and Mrs. MacBooks-look-so-good-in-a-coffee-shop it might be a different story. You have to remember that as small as the Mac market share is, the percentage of Mac users who have enough know-how to do stuff like that is even smaller.
avatar
dirtyharry50: For everything else that won't run natively one way or another, there is dual booting into Windows 7 thanks to bootcamp. So basically, my new Mac hardware can run anything my old PC hardware could run but my new computer will have a much nicer display (27" widescreen) and an operating system and apps I happen to like better.
So, you argue that Mac is a viable gaming platform because you can install Windows on it.
avatar
dirtyharry50: Again, I have to remind you guys there is already a market for Mac gaming and it is continuing to grow. That's why Steam supports it now. There was money to be made there and they went for it. It is not a ridiculous idea at all to hope GOG will at some point do the same thing. Sure there are associated costs to be considered but obviously, these are covered by increased revenues. There is no charity involved nor being requested. It's just business. Whether you like or hate Steam, they didn't get where they are today by making poor business decisions. I'm sure they looked very carefully at Mac before they spent a nickel on a Mac client, etc.
And how large is Steam's userbase compared to GOG's, do you think?
Posted April 23, 2012
avatar
dirtyharry50: Steam doesn't guarantee much to anybody really. But in fairness, the terms are the same whether you purchase a game for Mac or Windows on Steam. Mac customers are not second class citizens with lesser terms of service. By all means you could read them for yourself to see this. There's no distinctions made.
avatar
hedwards: I could be wrong, but the Mac version of Steam doesn't even offer most of the games in the normal Steam catalog.

That may have changed or I may be misinformed as I don't use Macs, but I don't believe you have as many games available for OSX as you do for Windows with Steam.
That is correct. There is a growing number of good native releases for Mac but there are many more of course for the dominant Windows platform. As I mentioned earlier, it turns out I already own over 50 releases for Mac thanks to Steamplay and there's some more on my wishlist there. So I'm happy with that considering my Mac can run windows when I want it to anyway, which I will sometimes for certain games.

World of Warcraft which I enjoy has a native Mac client and the upcoming Diablo 3 will also have a native Mac version which is cool. There's definitely good gaming to enjoy on a Mac and it's pretty much unlimited if you don't mind dual booting into windows sometimes.
Posted April 23, 2012
avatar
hedwards: Is it eough to justify the work?
No.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)GoG.com games on different platforms(61 posts)(61 posts)
(61 posts)