Developers don't want to release Linux version on GOG:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/226840/discussions/0/540736965894462634/#c611703999967821455

Too bad for them. They'll see no money from me.
You can use the older release and apply the patch from Virtual Programming. See https://github.com/virtual-programming/witcher2-linux#announcements

But I agree that it's weird that GOG still didn't update the game. Which is double strange since it's CDPR's own game! All those confusing versions don't help to understand what they actually ship as well.

Thanks for the link, I see where they're going it > Not many GOG players > We don't care. I bought the game back when I was still using Windows so I won't blame them for wasting my own money.

The way he mentions costs it's as if they have to pay GOG to send those patches (Consoles patch certification costs come to mind), either way he didn't elaborate so we don't know the details.

One thing's for certain, Triumph is off my list. This is another reason why DRM is bad, had they release a DRM-Free only build in the first place this wouldn't happen. The Mac and Linux versions were in development since last year and they had plenty of time to think about this, they simply don't give a shit about GOG users.

I'm done for good with Triumph, you don't just tell your fans "Sorry folks, no GOG due to costs" at the very last minute.


EDIT: A few days ago I got a reply about the Witcher 2 patch for Linux -

Hello

We are in contact with the Developers about the DRM Free version and we will be providing it as soon as possible.
I apologize for the inconvenience.

Regards
Genoan

GOG.com Support


I hope it comes quick :-)

I recall there being a list of games where the publishers treat GOG users like second class citizens. I think it's time for Age of Wonders III/Triumph to join that list.

Edit: Submitted AoW III for addition to the GOG Mix.

Ah. I was excited to be able to play this on my mac, but I don't spend money at Steam, so I guess they don't want my business. I've been so disappointed that this game isn't available on the mac, because it looks like a lot of fun.

You just don't understand. It's because they value you as customers equally.

I'm not buying anything from Triumph from now on. Calling their own lack of professionalism "valuing the customer" is simply insulting.

Yep, they won't be seeing any more money from me either.

So if they have to link over system shared libraries instead of steam-distributed (and either same or outdated) shared libraries, or ship them with the game, it's somehow 'more code'? Which game engine depends on steam libraries... And, Linux dlls? Just LOL

I'm sorry, this is yet another empty excuse like the previous implying that tying to Galaxy will solve it all. And likely another PR that knows crap about Linux dev in the first place. Steam is distribution platform, not a development platform.

But omg that spin, "because we value all customers equally".... this is such insult to intelligence I'm speechless. I'm glad I have not thrown any money their way, and I'll make sure not to in the future, regardless of whichever system I may use for gaming at a particular point. It's perfect example of how they intend to treat customers in general. If EA and Micro$ had a child, they'd have a hard time making something this bad.

I wouldn't be surprised if Steam itself encourages people to make Linux versions steam only however, preferrably SteamOS exclusive...

It should be, right? Unfortuantely Steam does provide a number of exclusive development features. Such as Steamworks network API which is Steam only (and locks developers who have a hard dependency on it into Steam).

But it's not even the case here! If they need Steam runtime for Linux because they are too lazy to bundle only the libraries they need, they can just bundle the whole runtime! (They can get it here https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-runtime). Not an optimal solution space-wise, but at least it works. That's what Double Fine did with Grim Fandango here if I'm not mistaken. But if Triumph can't even do that - they aren't professional developers at all.

Oh wow, I've totally missed that.

I've told them more than once on their official patch 1.5 announcement page, if they release 4 patches in a week they don't have to send each and every patch. I don't mind waiting a bit and get the latest version a week later. Looks like I'll have to send an email like the rest.

Linux dlls? What the hell? If it's the Steam runtime he's referring to, they may as well bundle the whole folder for the GOG version for all I care, we're no longer in the 500MB hard disk days.

I find their reasons very unprofessional, like a child finding every excuse to not go to school. My stance on this case is here, many other developers have multiplatform games on both Steam and GOG so why Triumph can't?

Until they change their attitude I won't buy anything else made by them.

sorry AoW - you are getting off my wishlist :/

maybe somebody should tell that to the AoW developers. The fact that they talk about additional licensing/coding costs suggests that they don't know what they are talking about.
That runtime is still free and open linux software that can be used from anybody else

I just did that, even pointed out the readme.txt which clearly states it's free to use/modify/distribute. Hopefully will change their opinion.

That really doesn't matter because GOG makes the installers. There is very little difference between the installers and Galaxy, the only difference is delivery method. The files are essentially the same.

GOG can simply grab the patch files/ game files from Galaxy's servers and pack them as an installer or tarball. Triumph will still have to manage these different version with Galaxy or no Galaxy... so not sure what their going on about. No different than that have to manage different versions with Steam. More likely it's just to much work and not enough $$$ to justify it for Mac/Linux on GOG.

While not the preferred choice, I would be fine if the client would have to be used for downloading, and maybe the first installation of the game. If the game installation can after that be compressed, moved, (installed,) and run on another computers without the use of the Galaxy client, then I am fine. I then have a fully portable DRM-free version of the game, even if it doesn't come in an actual installer.

However, that portable "installation" should be fully self-contained, hopefully installing needed dependencies if any, and definitely no quirks like with some Steam "DRM-free games", like:

- Crusader Kings 2: only the base game works without the client, DLCs are a different matter.

- Portal and Half-life 2: the DRM-free "portable" version is gimped, e.g. you can't change the resolution.

(or so I read from the "DRM-free games on Steam" discussion)

Yeah the dependencies would be a problem. It's one thing to copy a "thisgame" folder from one PC to another. It's another one if I have to move registry entries, several folders, etc... I'm not very proficient with a PC (as you could guess by my poor description of the issue), and having complicated operations would completely screw up the portability of the game for me.