I doesn't hurt GOG's image any more than the unsupported tech demo they ship as an extra for Beyond Divinity or any of their other unsupported extras. There will always be some people complaining about some things not working, supported or not supported. I don't buy that providing already existing Linux binaries unsupported by GOG, many of whom ARE supported by developers and/or publishers will hurt GOG's image. In fact I suspect that it would bring major good will from the Linux community and would increase sales. I can just look at my self, I have over 200 games on GOG, yet I am very hesistant with buying certain games.

Recently I have taken to Googling to make sure that a game doesn't have any kind of Linux client/binaries before buying a game from GOG. I have not bought The Book Of Unwritten Tales despite recent sales due to their being a Linux version. I find my self in a sort of limbo of indecision with regard to certain games. If GOG where to provide Linux binaries for say The Book Of Unwritten Tales, I would buy that game in a heartbeat and I would buy from GOG, nowhere else regardless of whether or not the Linux binaries were "supported".

I can appreciate their desire to bring a product to market that causes the least amount of fuss, but regardless of the intent and practicality of it, I often find myself in the same position. I personally would think I would be happy with UN-supported extras on a case by case basis and be understanding of any risks involved. Even if I had to request the version through customer support so they could make sure I know its not supported. Any avenue would be welcomed.

I know the unfortunate reality is that there are noisy a-holes out there that will whine about anything supported or not, and that there is some line between not catering to impossible people and just asking for trouble from everyone. I feel a bit bad for the pickle GOG is in, but I would still like some kind of something done. Though I sometimes wonder where the devs are on the issue. Once upon a time you could grab the binaries (not the data) for a game on the dev's website. Now it seems more like each platform is being sold separate or as an incentive of sorts. Sometimes that makes sense, sometimes it I'm not so sure.

I agree with @gooberking. Looking at how other distributors ship Linux games, GOG's arguments about how hard it is to support Linux are becoming less and less sensible.

If anyone buys Beyond Divinity due to the tech demo being offered as an extra, be sure to tell me, alright?

I think "harder to buy into," would be a better way of framing it. It really may not be easy, but it also may not be ignorable indefinitely.

Why should that matter, in any way, shape or form? Either they do provide unsupported extras or they don't and GOG do. They can't claim to have a policy against it, just a weird, irrational, inconsistent exception in the case of Linux clients.

Some of the updating/fixes may be due to some of the games showing up for linux for the first time, or having not had as much exposure as they get once on the HB. That could get better with the platform getting more exposure. There rest we are screwed on. At least until we stop needing or trying to build for every distro.

This is actually something people like GOG can contribute to( or piss people off by). The community is going to be rather happy to stay fragmented unless someone or something comes along and says, "you can't stay this way and get what you want. You can eat what's on the table or not eat at all, that's your choice. We simply cant cook for everyone." I do realise that could be said of windows vs Linux, that we should all come to windows, but I think there is room for some variety. Just not infinite variety. Its about balance and the linux community doesn't have enough of it.

There is a certain amount of irony to the idea that OSS is this coming together of people to make something we all want, but couldn't do on our own. But we find out in the end that it may only take us up to the point where we start finding out we don't all want the same things. I'm not sure what you do with that. Looking at 1%market share numbers, and knowing that 1% is shredded by different people all wanting different things, its not hard to understand someone's hesitation for "going Linux," but like I said, pressures on all the same. And a lot of times things don't change because people all start talking about how hard something is. Its when people start getting their hands dirty in spite of the problems and start working things out.

Who knows. Maybe the answer to fragmentation is more games on Linux and the promotion of the platform. With fewer people sitting around fretting about fragmentation, and more people saying we are going to do something, even if that something is small - one distro small.

Well, works with reservation.

Neverwinternights did not launch in my case at all, and I resorted to buy a Mac version from Asphyr that ran as well as the orignal, meaning wiht the original bugginess, but run it did.

The Witcher for Mac I abandned at IV chapter because save game corruption became too severe - Windows 7 seems better, even if the game still corrupts fairly regularly.

The original Gothic I will probably never be able to play though I am a fan of the series, as the controls remapping seems not to work. Alternatively it is very unintutive gameplay that does not allow to pick up anything - but I have to question if the original gameplay can have been so horrible for the series to have thrived?

What strikes me is the apparent portrayal of potentail Linux gamers as unreasonable; or as totally naive to eventual trade-off between mass market support and non-standard environments; or as stated before, as totally eccentric in their demands. I mean: there seems to be Linux gaming today - is it really that marginal?

Edit: snipping the wrong part - was referring to Adzeth whose posting is quoted - now corrected.

I'd say yes, Linux gaming is fairly marginal, as the vast amount of Linux machines around are not meant for gaming. Linux is run on servers or embedded platforms whit fairly specified purposes other than gaming itself, albeit some of those machines are meant for entertainment.

As I've said, if Linux users want Linux to rise as a gaming platform, they need to select the "main distro", which the hardware manufacturers can also make their own proprierity drivers with out zealots bitching about that everything should be open. This would help Linux to rise and there would still be plenty of distros for people to tinker.

And no, Ubuntu isn't it. As far I see it, they messed it up with Unity. And many Ubuntu users I know say the same.

Gog guys just have to provide support for one distro and one package system, really (and that would obviously be Ubuntu). Other more experienced people can just jump in and start providing alternative packages/installers for their respective distros. This is how the open source software community (especially Linux) have been working for the last decade and it's a perfectly viable approach. People just develop their software and provide a way to compile/install/run it on a "Linux system" (or a specific distro if that's what they use), then package maintainers and interested people come into play and provide support for everything else (and eventually communicate upstream patches and bugfixes).

It's not gog's concern if the game doesn't run on gentoo or arch or fedora or biebian or whatever, they should just focus on ubuntu... hell, don't even focus on anything, at least provide us the binaries and let us do the job (see: gogonlinux project, my job would be way easier if I could get my hands on unpacked data files).
Unity is just the desktop environment, it's not an integral part of Ubuntu or how Ubuntu works, you can get Ubuntu minimal and install your own desktop environment (not expected for new users of course) or just install xubuntu/lubuntu/kubuntu/mint/whatever (way better for newer users, I absolutely adore xubuntu btw), anything that is a fork from ubuntu (or in this case, same distro with different default theme) will have support for normal Ubuntu packages so that won't be a problem at all.
Actually targeting Ubuntu will make it easier to target more distros thanks to all the different (widely used) forks.

What makes some machine a Linux machine or not Linux machine? And why is it hardly tied to gaming in particular? You look from the wrong perspective. Those who care about gaming tend to get higher than average spec machine (up to very high end) with modern GPUs. Those who care about Linux with that mostly go with Nvidia in the GPU choice. Which gives them good machine meant for gaming and meant for Linux.

You mean, Damn Small Linux?
http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

No point to beat a dead horse - GOG can easily provide packaging that would work on RPM and DEB based systems seamlessly. Look at packaging of Torchlight from HB. I don't think packaging issue bothers them a lot. It's the worry about other differencies that bugs them (kernel, system libraries and so on). Packaging is really a no brainer.

I believe tomimt was talking about machines that don't even have a dedicated graphics card :-P