It would make the difference that if there is an official Mac port you don't have to invent one. You just test the game a little bit and then you sell it. Probably everything will be alright, in case that it won't just make sure you have an agreement with the original supplier concerning possible problems and compensations.

Just one example: I bought a router via amazon. It had a problem. Amazon isn't omniscient - they couldn't help me. They offered to take it back but that was all. I contacted the manufacturer and he finally solved my problem. I didn't need to send it back.

If you go to a shop like Gamestop, do you expect that they support every game that they have directly? Would you blame them for all possible OS related problems instead of the producer of the game or would you see them just as mere reseller of stuff?

GamersGate also offers Mac versions and I would bet they haven't tested them all very thoroughly.

Judging on all the available Mac games on Steam: Civilization V, Witcher, Cities in Motion, Kings Bounty, ... my guess is that is has become easier to port a game to Mac than in the past. Either less technical difficulties or just cheaper. We should see more and more of these multi-OS releases and therefore the matter will gain in importance for GOG.

Boy I hate how badly quoting seems to work on these forums!

"Apple saw its domestic Mac shipments grow to 10.6 percent of the market in the first quarter of 2012, as the company once again grew while the rest of the PC market saw its shipments slide." Source: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/04/11/macs_again_outperform_the_market_as_apple_takes_106_of_us_pc_shipments.html

I wouldn't call over 10% of total PC shipments recently all that small. That is a lot of personal computers running OSX. Consider this: what company wouldn't want to increase revenues and profits by 10%? I'm pretty sure many companies would love to do that and are doing that by marketing to the Mac market as it continues to grow.

Here is some current interesting news about where gaming is and may be going with Apple and Mac coming up: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57414912-37/apple-and-valve-could-frenemies-really-team-up/?tag=rb_content;main

Apple is building a game store with tons of games right into OSX Mountain Lion due out this Summer. I'm sure the people you refer to as "Mr. and Mrs. MacBooks-look-so-good-in-a-coffee-shop" won't have any trouble finding games to play on their Macs.

The fact that it is a pretty simple affair for me to run games with DOSBox or WINE on either Linux or Mac also means it is pretty simple for a company like GOG to offer them if they so choose. The question is, out of about 10% of total personal computers and then the subset of those users who are gamers, is there profit to be made after associated costs by offering OSX and also Linux versions? In the case of OSX, Valve seems to think so which is why there is a Steam client for Mac and why they ported all of their titles to OSX. Do you really think Valve spent all that money without doing some careful market research first? And do you really think GOG doesn't do any similar market research investigating new avenues to grow and enhance profits? I have a feeling Mr. T does more work on more projects than you might give him and friends credit for.

I did not argue that Mac is a viable gaming platform exclusively because you can run windows on a Mac. I have noted there are multiple ways a Mac user can also be a gamer and enjoy games. For example, in my own case roughly in order of priority, I will prefer native Mac games, PS3 games, GOG games using DOSBox and WINE under OSX and LASTLY, booting to windows when there is some game I value enough to bother with only available on that platform - certain strategy games come to mind here.

My point was, the Mac will let me do whatever I want including enjoy being in the OSX environment most of the time. My computer is not just a gaming console as I have also mentioned - I have a console system for that however.

While there are more games that I like available to play than I have time to play, sure the Mac is a viable gaming platform for me. WoW and Diablo 3 will be keeping me pretty busy for example this Summer not to mention the very many other games I can run within OSX. So yeah, it sure is viable but not just because it can boot windows, that is just the last reason it is, not the first one - for me.

Anyway, I respect others personal preferences too but I don't think there is any need to bash the Mac or Linux or the users of these systems as second class citizens who for some reason in the minds of some (I'm not saying you particularly) have no right to want or expect to enjoy gaming on their systems too. There is enough users on all three major OS platforms for money to be made, so why not?

I don't know why you asked me how large Steam's user base is versus GOG. I'm sure it was intended as a rhetorical question but the point of that is lost on me. Are you saying since GOG has less users, they have less Mac and Linux users and therefore should not bother? I'd like to know where you get GOGs numbers from if you believe this. How do you conduct your market research for GOG? What puts you in a position where you can declare with such certainty what is potentially good for GOG and what isn't? I don't claim to know these things either. I've stated multiple times here and elsewhere, I simply hope the numbers are there for GOG to make money and therefore be able to serve me and others like me better is all. I see nothing wrong with that which should incite any sort of anger or flaming which i have seen at times on these forums when such subjects arise.


Care to explain on what authoritative basis you can make this claim? Where do you get your data from? Do you have a degree in marketing and work on GOG's staff where you've done the homework to know these things and have some real data to back up such assertions?

I didn't think so. Sorry to be a hard ass but I get a little tired sometimes of people making stuff up without any actual facts to back up their assertions. Data that is internal to GOG seems to be common knowledge around here if one is to believe the many posts spouting off what GOG should or shouldn't do right now, what is worthwhile for them right now or in the future, etc. but in reality that simply isn't the case. Only the guys working for GOG have this data on their customer base. What is more, they have people on their staff with expertise in marketing whereas a great deal of opinion offered on these forums is nothing more than uneducated, uninformed opinion.

I think all some of us are trying to say is we hope GOG can also start selling Mac and Linux versions because there are some of us who want them. Would it be profitable and a good thing to do? We hope so, that's all. It doesn't hurt to ask and let the demand for these things be known. It's not wrong for consumers to express their desires. If there is enough of them, then maybe both parties can win. I think as OSX and Linux continue to grow this may become possible. It is easy to see there has been a lot of growth for example in indie games which very often support Windows, OSX and Linux. Those guys aren't doing all the work to make the ports without making some money for it. There is some demand they are satisfying there or those efforts wouldn't keep happening. Likewise, I've repeatedly pointed out Steam as an example and it isn't beyond possibility they may eventually offer a Linux client and start off with indies there. It's all good revenue and profit, you know?

A mixture of common sense and the fact that GOG have all that stuff and choose not to do so.

Common sense doesn't give you insight to data you don't possess. The fact that GOG hasn't done it yet doesn't mean they are not working on it or won't do it. You can't actually know that was my point. I can see that as the basis for assumption however.

Anyway, I hope GOG has reached the kind of numbers where branching out would be profitable for them as well as me sometime soon. That would be great. If not, I'll roll my own solutions.

One problem with every example you offered. One problem you even mention yourself. All those places offer refunds. That's why Gamersgate et all don't have to be concerned about the products they offer. That's why both Gamersgate and Amazon have the long tail (sell anything they can lay their hands on) business model.

If GOG did refunds then they could afford to take risks. But blunders like Interstate 76 are ones they can't afford to repeat or people will be turned off GOG permanently.

Or GOG could just offer refunds. DRM-free doesn't stop Gamersgate from offering refunds if deemed appropriate.

Interstate 76 didn't work on release for damn near anyone, and unless something's changed in the meantime, it still doesn't.

I'd welcome a remake, personally. Something with vastly superior controls to match the vastly superior graphics. Still the same soundtrack though.

While refunds for broken games would certainly be a good thing for GOG to offer (and they should), that is different problem from offering technical support for games.

GOG is on the hook for offering technical support for old DOS games because they advertise them as compatible with modern systems - i.e. advertising that they've done the work, including using emulators like DOSBox, to ensure that they are. Further the old games are no longer supported by the publishers and developers and most of those companies don't even exist as a going concern anymore. That's why any games that have intrinsic bugs in them, GOG is not responsible for though GOG is generally good about including user-made patches by default especially if they fix game-breaking bugs - if any such patch exists in the first place. GOG offers technical support in getting the game working as well as it used to, not in making the game better.

For DOSBox games, a DOSBox game is a DOSBox game almost irrespective of platform. I am sure one can find a couple of examples, but I don't know any where a game run through Mac/Linux-DOSBox had different or more technical problems than run through Windows-DOSBox. DOSBox is pretty platform independent. Boxer is a branch of DOSBox and so might be slightly different from the standard DOSBox install, but GOG doesn't have to use Boxer since DOSBox exists on the Mac even without Boxer - though honestly I think Boxer has the same compatibility with games as standard DOSBox.

So offering DOSBox games for Mac/Linux would not require a huge, new support team by GOG.

For new games, support is handled by the developer/publisher, not the store except in those instances where the store itself may be the cause of the issue (corrupted files or added/removed DRM screwing with a game, etc ...). Thus likewise adding Mac/Linux versions of new games when they exist already would not cause GOG support to overload either as the indie and AAA developers who handle those games would handle the support requests just as they do when selling through any other channel.

Now if GOG were to make ports of the older, non-DOSBox, games themselves then they'd definitely be on the hook for supporting the stability of those ports and WINE is not yet ready (and may never be, though one can hope) for totally stable, platform-independent porting like DOSBox for all games. Thus those kinds of ports are unlikely to ever show up en masse - at least not in the near future (the only reason I said "en masse" as opposed to "at all" is that The Witcher *may* show up when the exclusivity deal through Steam runs out).

That said, GOG has a lot on its plate right now securing new publishers and growing its user base/catalog/and support along with those. So patience is required for those of us with different platforms than the one GOG currently supports. Further, DOSBox games are so trivial to get working on other platforms that the lack of official support from GOG is inconsequential. Literally the only tricky part is getting the files out of GOG's installer. More important are that some of the newer & indie games GOG sells have native Mac/Linux versions which one can get except for here often for free with the Windows version. Thus the GOG offer for these games is not as good as its competition - at least in this particular facet.

While patience should be exhibited by those looking for GOG to support alternate OSs to Windows, it makes a lot of business sense for GOG to expand its user base laterally into those other OSs with those titles for which it can easily do so. Support for those titles is much less of an issue than it is being made out to be by the naysayers. More problematic, depending on how the contracts are written, officially advertising games as compatible with and providing installers for Mac/Linux may or may not (I suspect so, but perhaps not) require renegotiation with the rights holders for many of the DOSBox titles.

Ok, too many things to quote so I will just sum them up:

On the matter "Macs are not for gaming"

Well I wasn't born yesterday. I know that a Mac is not the ideal environment for gaming. I don't expect it to run games fluently and I didn't buy it to play games on it (I have a GeForce 560 Ti, a Wii and a 3DS for that reason). What I expect it to do though, is to run applications and games that are made for this platform. I don't think that's too much to ask for. So if you are against gaming on a Mac don't blame the mactards. Blame the companies that compile games for Macs. Start with Valve and Cd Project. From the 200 games I own on Steam, 45 have Mac versions as well.


On the matter "WINE is far from perfect"

WINE is way closer to perfection than most of you think it is. Somebody mentioned NWN and said that it doesn't run well on WINE. Well, these days I play NWN in Crossover Games, which is a front-end of WINE for OSX. It runs perfect (with the exception of cinematics). Almost every title on GOG runs pretty well on WINE with the proper tweaking. And on my ubuntu pc there was not a single title I didn't manage to run in WINE environment as of 2010 (some with heavy tweaking I must admit). I even managed to run the first KotOR, a game that I couldn't even run in Windows Vista. So, WINE is almost perfect, at least for me.


On the matter "Mac and Linux releases are going to need support by GOG"

Well, I don't get it. First things first what "support" is supposed to mean? Does it mean that if I encounter a problem with a GOG title, is GOG obligated to solve it for me? Because every time I encounter a problem I use the forums here (which are fan based) or I use Google. I think we all agree that the biggest digital gaming store is Steam. Well you know how Steam supports the games it sells, don't you? If you don't know, check the ToS of Steam. You will be pretty amazed to find out that Steam is not to be held responsible if a user encounters a problem. So, GOG could do just that: Offer linux or mac installer with zero support. I think the average user of GOG is not twelve years old and will find a solution to his problems if any.

Steam is not held responsible because they claim such in their TOS, and because they're big enough to squash or ignore dissent and complaints by some & loved enough by others so that those others don't mind it.

Plus(again) GOG would lose user faith and confidence somewhat if they didn't provide support(imo).
------------------------------------------
Also you say many games run in Wine with proper tweaking......well if GOG's work to pre-configure dosbox games is any indicator, some would expect them to also pre-tweak/pre-configure their (possible) future mac games as well to run out-of-the-box on Wine, and they'd probably want to set such up(per game) to keep consumer confidence up.
------------------------

DOSBox games and new games for OSX/Linux would not cause a swell in new/different/harder support tickets. Games through DOSBox (and ScummVM for that matter) run pretty much the same irrespective of platform and new games are supported by the dev/publisher, not the store a game was bought from.

Despite the large strides WINE has made recently, WINE ports, for the moment, would be more problematic and there GOG would have to support them because GOG, not the publisher or the dev, is doing the porting of the game and advertising the requirements and compatibility for the port. At that point GOG is essentially acting as a publisher of a port. Using DOSBox, even for Windows, is also a port, but as aforementioned DOSBox is much, much more stable and that stability is independent of the platform. So GOG being on the hook for support when a game is running through Mac/Linux-DOSBox should be little to no different than when it is running through DOSBox on Windows. Perhaps one day WINE will reach the stability of DOSBox, but that day is not today. I'll port the game myself until then.

People would still expect them to support such(for older games released via Wine on GOG, I mean, not newer games with native mac/linux versions), as they do with their other games(for the most part), and they'd probably feel it a wise move to provide support for those versions if they ever released them. They wouldn't HAVE to, but they'd probably WANT to to keep customer confidence up if they ever went that route(selling older games via Wine ports on GOG.)

Remember they also sell alot of games one could setup on dosbox themselves but they preconfigure it for user ease-of-use/play anyways.
---------------------------------------------------
I agree they'd most likely have to support them to keep consumers happy(if they pre-configured games with Wine for sale to Mac/linux consumers.).

All these issues are interesting but the real issue is, would selling titles for Mac and Linux also yield a profit after costs? I'm hoping that at some point it would and GOG decides to do it. Really though, it is them who are far better equipped to analyze this and make the call, not us guessing left and right here.

I think we're debating minutiae and agree on practically everything else. The reason I suspect they would HAVE to support the Wine ports is because GOG would market them as being Mac/Linux compatible and GOG, not the dev/publisher, would do the work inherent in ensuring the stated compatibility. I think by law they would have to support the OS they claim compatibility for. Maybe this would not hold true for every country, but GOG is world-wide seller and there are countries with very strict marketing and advertising laws (for example: UK). If they tried to pass the game off as compatible, it wasn't, and they showed no intention of fixing it while continuing to sell it and market it as compatible, then there are countries were they would be in legal trouble.

That said, even if they didn't *have* to in the sense I am writing above, you are right that they would "have" to because otherwise it would indeed be a PR disaster. GOG's main product is that you can now (legally) get these games at all, but if they want a lot of people to actually buy their product, then they have to do a lot of the work to ensure compatibility - both I think from a legal standpoint if they want to advertise compatibility - and as you pointed out from a consumer relations standpoint where trust between the user and seller is important.

As you mention, the DOSBox and SummVM games (a large percentage of the catalog) are already ports and GOG does a lot of the legwork to get them working (though some have noted that there are more optimal settings that could've been used for some games). All I'm saying is that with these game doing a Windows port is really no different than a Mac/Linux one. So offering Mac/Linux ports of DOSBox/ScummVM games would be little to no more a technical or support challenge than solely offering Windows ports. WINE has shown a great deal of progress recently and may one day get to where DOSBox is now, but it is trying to accomplish a much more challenging task on a still moving target.

So it boils down to the question if there are indeed enough reliable Mac/Linux ports of GOG games existing and how many people would finally buy them. I think there are enough of both to make the pursuit worthwile. Also it should be a hint that these wishes are really high up the requested site features list. On top is more games compatible with Win7.