Good point, I forgot the indie bundles seem to have native Linux versions quite often.

Maybe I don't care that much trying to venture into Linux gaming (besides some free Linux games you can download from Ubuntu software center etc.) because of the different ways of getting software between e.g. RedHat and Debian based Linux distros, and I sometimes like to jump into another Linux distro. So basically, I am unsure whether the game(s) I'd buy for Linux would work on all Linux distros I'm going to use.

Maybe it is quite trivial, but it just seems a bit convoluted. I haven't really looked into it.

Yes it does. :P

There's no one "Linux", Linux is the kernel, there's several hundred distros, and at least ten different ways of setting up the file system. That's without getting into the micro distros that no-ones ever heard of barring some guy and his mate. Ubuntu is trying to take over the market with Dell, and advertise itself as the "official" Linux brand, but it still doesn't have the userbase to create an easy platform.

Now look at Windows, billions of users, and every single one of them installs to C:\Program Files . An x32 install on an x64 architecture will have C:\Program Files (x86) , but it's much easier to set up an install for that. Even cust serv with a Windows based computer is pretty easy since they're all structured the same way, a *nix distro isn't. They can provide the source files which you can then install manually (We could do automatic, but then we'd have to pick which one), but creating a build file is much more difficult, and supporting them is insane.

EDIT:
Heh, timppu seemed to have mentioned the same thing, my bad. But yeah, *nix = 1553950 OS's, OSX = minimal user base, Windows = Gaming. For now at least
We're gamers. We run dodgy install files that don't include all dependencies on architecture that may or may not be compatible with everything else on an OS that we've hated since it first came out and know exactly why that will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

Jaded is in the job description. :P Incidentally, I ran an install file for Master of Magic last night from GOG and had absolutely no problems playing it. I believe this qualifies as rule 32 (Making random obscure pop culture references that most people won't get is also in the job description. Need something to do whilst waiting for the 7th CD to install/Steam do download the 20GB file.)

I'm not going to get in a flame war over a suggestion.

My comments are clear and in black in white. I only suggested the possibility the GOG could perform minimal work and expect a return. The HB example is relevant since it offers the games across multiple platforms (Windows/OSX/Linux) - not many examples of that.

I'm not sure what you mean by overinflated example considering that the numbers are all available on the HB site for all to see.

There is no support case for providing the files in a zip - it's the same files being provided now, but without the propitiatory exe wrapper and installer.

Placing the files into a zip from the program folders was exactly what I was suggesting in my first post. If you're not familiar with the process of converting the games for use directly in DOSBox than feel free to ask about it, but don't tell me what I didn't say it.

From the OP:
I've been installing the packages in windows and then copying out the folders from the program files in windows. I've actually been formatting them for Boxer which is an awesome Dosbox front end for OS X.

That's the OP - copying the files out of the windows program files directory.

It's a bit hypocritical to support no-drm and playing old games on newer machines on the one hand and then saying your have no interest in freeing those files from a propitiatory, system dependent exe on the other hand. Take GOG games and shelve them for 20 years and your going to need to emulate windows to open the exe to emulate dos. I'm only advocating opening the files up for alternate operating systems by providing the core files without the useless (for some) exe wrapper - which is the process described in the very first post. The fact that it allows the games to be installed in OS X, Linux, etc is a benefit which could provide financial returns based on preliminary research.

From post 2:
If you want to look at something recent, you can look at the ongoing humble bundle campaign where OS X makes up about 20% of the revenue. So, if GOG would perform what is basically trivial repackaging of it's dosbox based games, it stands to increase revenue up to 20% based on these stats at face value.

Minimal work is involved to have a possible 20% increase in revenue.


There it is in black and white.


I said good day, sir!

Agreed. The original native files should be accessible without having to jump through hoops to get them - with or without support. Q.E.D.

You're suggesting, based on the HIBs, that Mac holds 20% of the gaming market, and that this can be directly translated into a 20% profit increase for GOG, both of which are incredibly wrong.
The second it says "Mac/OS X supported" anywhere on the GOG site, there will be support cases.
Which has nothing to do with zip files whatsoever, You're simply describing what you've been doing. Let's take a look at the rest of the OP, shall we? Funny, not a word in there about zip files or open formats. So... What you were actually saying was that you'd like GOG to make profiles for a OS X-specific DOSBox frontend, package them in an OS X specific file format, and publically announce that they supported OS X.
You could also say it would be a bit hypocritical to support no-DRM, and then move in on the one platform that is the epitome of DRM. Noone wants to control exactly what you do with their hardware/software quite as much as Apple does.
No, you weren't, but as for that bit, I agree with that. GOG won't do it, but I wish they would. I've suggested it myself in the past. And as I said earlier, if you'd phrased your request like that (instead of saying "Support OS X now!"), noone would have disagreed with you.
Except that you casually ignore that:
- For the HIB, 20% of the revenue is not the same as 20% of the sales. On GOG it is.

- The actual OS X market share is much lower than 20%, and much MUCH lower in gaming circles.

- Lots of GOG customers already do what you do, and either extract the files themselves to run on OS X in Boxer, or dual-boot their Macs with Windows in order to play games. If GOG sold OS X versions of their games, these people wouldn't buy more games, they'd just buy the same games for OS X that they would otherwise have bought for Windows.

- Many GOG games are not DOS games but native Windows games, so only a part of the GOG catalog would be supported anyway.

They would work just fine as long as you had the right libraries etc. (Of course, you won't always, but that's not exactly the end of the world, just boot into your partition that does).

I can't believe you of all people would start to believe all this FUD.

That goes for you too, orcishgamer. I am disappoint.

Two decades of dealing with MAC users pretending their machines are for games.

I should get free therapy.

Wishbone. Take yourself a hot bath tonight and drink a few beers. You are experiencing delusions of grandeur.

Packaging them for the Boxer front end is nothing more than packing the files in a folder with ".boxer" on the end. There is no reason to mention zipping the files since the assumption is that GOG isn't going to make people download each individual file from the Programs folder. Discussions about heart operations don't usually start of with checking the patient's insurance card - some things are just assumed. If you aren't familiar with the processes involved than you should familiarize yourself with them before attempting to discuss them instead of being belligerent and and misquoting things (e.g. "Support OS X now!!").

I never claimed to be a statistician and my referenced numbers came with full disclaimers; so, if you agree with my core suggestion that GOG should provide the files that are extracted into the Programs folder in Windows (to make *any* OS integration easier *including* OS X) - than what is it that you are arguing about exactly??? The saturation of OS X in the gaming market???!

Again, in the original post I only suggested the games that already ran within DOSBox. Are you just reading what you want to and skipping the other parts? Seriously?

No, gaming on alternate OSes, especially Linux, is littered with failures. Loki is just easy to mention because everyone has heard of it. HIB is just the latest, but extremely rare, counter-example that bucks the trend a bit. Trust me, it's not indicative of a reversal or change of heart. People refusing to run anything but Linux or OS X and that want to pay a lot for games seem to be a really small group and many of them have Windows specifically for gaming.

Do I wish it was different? Sure I do. I've just realized it's not and probably not going to be.

You're missing the important point. Providing a .zip with the game files in is one thing (and a perfectly reasonable suggestion), but that's not what you asked for. You asked for Mac support, and for GOG to start offering Mac support, they'd have a whole extra platform to have to test things on.

And what will be done when the line is crossed, Steve? What?

Don't pretend you know me because you don't. And please don't act like like some tough guy taking your failed life out on me because I don't share your world view or conform to your ideals.

I might be a bull in a china shop sometimes, but I get things done. That's just who I am and you don't really have the right to command me to be otherwise.

Well, there goes my last bit of sympathy for you. You're not a "bull in a china shop", you're just arrogant, rude and entitled. You're not getting anything done here apart from turn everyone against you.

Good to know it isn't always me on the ass end of a debate.

We've already explained to you why it doesn't make sense to support OS X on GOG, aside from lack of experience and the small staff, to the multitude of new efforts to update and supply, to costs and site bolstering, to the fact that you and many other people already use a solution that works with varying degrees of difficulty and success, to invalidation of your arguments and that fact that "Well, this is happening here on this site, so you guys can potentially have the same here" just doesn't apply. Until you got set off on page 2, everyone was treating you with at least respect, now you're acting like we've slapped you in the face with every post.

They may support it officially one day, but you've got a method that works and it isn't the only one. Stick to that for now and get back to us when you've got a bigger group advocating the same support.

If the game companies felt they could make money supporting games in OS X,they would do it in a New York Minute.
I am not going to get into the Windows vs Mac vs Linux wars as to which is the best OS, but the gaming companies feel...and I suspect they would not feel this way without a lot of market research...the OX X and LInux are primarily used for business and professional purposes, and the users are simply not interested in using them for playing games. For playing games and informational purposes, they use a Second Windows computer.