It's the same price, so the dev is actually getting less of your money, and buying from the dev gives you a drm free installer AND a steam key if that's your want... So you're getting less, the dev is getting less and gog are getting a cut.

In this case I don't see why that should be.

Sure if they are DRM free and offer the same price then why not going directly to the source. It would always be the best strategy. Only some people are probably too lazy and only need a Windows version.

We could advertise this and write an entry in the wiki or somewhere else for each new indie title under which conditions (DRM, supported OSes, payment methods, price) they can be bought directly from the dev.

I haven't found a GOG game that didn't run well in Linux. Sometimes they even run better than on W7.

In fact, I would say that for GOG games Linux is the superior platform. Wine allows you to run non-windowed games in a window and to pass the mouse cursor seamlessly between windows, and compositors on Linux allow you to zoom into the windows, so you can play games that only support resolutions like 640x480 in a maximized window.

I don't understand why GOG doesn't at least brand Dosbox games as Linux compatible, since Dosbox works exactly the same on Linux as it does on Windows. All you have to do is change the shortcut from "dosbox.exe" to "dosbox".

Given how easy it is to get a lot of GOG's classic titles to work on Mac and Linux (without even paying a cent, if all you use is Wineskin), and given the potentially high cost of support, I'd rather GOG continue to use their time and resources to bring more classic games to their catalog. LucasArts and their games (many of which use DOSBox) would be the next target that I'd want them to pursue.

I support this.

I agree, i would prefer them to do that as well, but gog has made the decision not to focus solely on classic games. if, for example, they are bringing over games like Trine for windows, why not also the native mac and linux versions? they have been made, so why not stick em on here as well?

Do you have Rayman 2 running? And can see all the lums?

These are both marked as "Done". A good sign?

Oh so it means "Voted" then. I guess I already clicked on the Mac one already :)

I would love to see Mac enabled "old" games.

I bought a Mac Mini (2010 8GB) because my Windows machines (XP,Vista, 7) all keep crashing, and OSX is stable, and the Mini is the only Apple I could afford. However, trying to run a PC game, even Beneath A Steel Sky, under Parallel's Desktop made the Mac Mini grind to a halt. Using a Wine wrapper would probably work much better with limited resources. I've had little luck working with Wine wrappers or even DOSBox myself.

So even though I still have many old games, some on original disks that I don't even have drives for anymore, I would be willing to purchase them from GOG. I have only purchased a few, so far, because my Windows machines don't stay running long enough to play the games. Maybe Windows 8 will be more stable.

I did buy (sadly not from GOG) the Mac version of The Secret of Monkey Island, and it played wonderfully on the Mac Mini.

Programmers used to talk about how programs should operate in a "black box" so that they ran the same no matter what hardware was used, and never became lost do to changes in hardware, operating systems or even programming languages. It's too bad this is such an impossible dream in reality.

On a side note, I prefer "old" games due to better quality, and because new games are too expensive and require expensive hardware to run.

Have you tried scummvm (mac version) for Beneath a Steel Sky?
It also works very well with a number of other dos based adventure games.

Also, have you tried using Boxer instead of Dosbox?

I use scummvm and Dosbox, and to a lesser extent, Wine, for all my old school mac gaming needs.

As other's mentioned. There isn't much problem for us with the old dos games under linux or mac. What I was commenting on was the desire that games that already have native mac or linux ports, have them available (or just the executable available) to be downloaded. Examples would include Neverwinter Nights and Trine. That way we could run them directly without having to use wine.

I doubt that would be a good strategic move. The installer would require them to use wine which they don't support and asking any user to do any extra work beyond install -> click play icon probably is not going to be well received as "supported." I think its fair for them to mention many users are doing this but to say they are compatible gives users certain implied rights they may not want to be getting drug into. As a purely Linux user I don't really expect a lot in an official capacity.

I'm not sure how they would go about providing Linux version without implying they are supporting them, but If they were to offer some solution, be it redeemable access code on devs website, or whatever but say they are "unsupported" I would be more than fine with that.

Depending on the game though it seems like devs could just provide the Linux installer free of charge the way ID did with Quake3 and RTC Weinstein back when. I owned both games and was able install them on both OS'es even though I had purchased the Linux version of Q3 and the win version of RTCW.

There's no need for an installer. Just have an archive and put a shortcut in it that runs dosbox.

Then the instructions would be 1) install dosbox, if you haven't already 2) extract the achive 3) click the shortcut

That's hardly any work for either GOG or Linux users.