That'd be the gist of it. From my own experience in recent years, a lot of peeps were introduced to Macs through the runaway success of the iPhone and the iPad in one way or the other. Either they wanted to cash in on the almighty App Store, and you need a Mac to develop for iOS, or they simply needed better integration between their mobile and desktop, and cross-device syncing is something the Apple ecosystem does really, really well.

Not to mention Microsoft shooing people away with the fail that was Vista and now, Windows 8.

There are apparently more Linux users here, which means if GoG wants to grow they have to look for ways to attract non-users. GoG's priority is to grow, to attract users who they were unable to attract before, because only by growing their customer base and proving that DRM-free is the way to go are they able to persuade publishers to go DRM-free. It's easy for Steam to get publishers when they provide the most accepted form of DRM, every publisher wants to kiss Newell's ass (because Valve's true customers are not gamers, it's game publishers), but GoG has no DRM to provide, they need other arguments for publishers.

If GoG had added Linux support that would have been great for all those Linux users who had voted on that list, but does that grow GoG? Not really. Having official Mac support is encouraging users who didn't know or just didn't want to mess with DOSBox and Wine to join GoG. Now, I can see why soemone might see this a betrayal that GoG is focusing on those new people instead of the ones who got them to where they are now, but do not forget that the more GoG grows the more games they can sell and the more money they can make, which will eventually lead to Linux support as well. It may suck now that you got ignored, but in the long run Mac support is a better decision than Linux support at the moment.

Even for me personally as a Mac user this doesn't do anything, I was playing DOS games in Boxer even before I joined GoG and I have almost all my Windows games ported with Wine. The thing is that this was not done for me, I am already using GoG, it was done for those who are not yet using GoG. As long as a company is not destroying its existing core its focus should on growth.

Sorry for the delay, but here they are:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/klg8v86f9d9z6t2/lMtwsqrAzI

This is why, along with support/distro issues I imagine, that Mac OS X took priority over Linux:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-201109-201209

Marketshare - simple as that. There are over six times more OS X personal computer users than there are Linux personal computer users. Naturally, that larger slice of business is more attractive and especially so when it is simpler to service and support.

While Mac OS X sales continue to increase and gain marketshare versus PC's slowly but surely, Linux has remained in a constant 1% for a long time. I know it is a great server OS and also can be a great desktop OS but its marketshare is very small so support for gaming has been even slower in coming than for Macs which have really been taking off in recent years.

Supporting Macs first was a pretty obvious choice, despite user polls here. The hope I am sure is to attract many new customers.

Lastly I will say, Linux still is a slice of the pie just the same and there are indies for Linux and it would be possible for many GOGs to be packaged up for Linux. So hopefully further down the road that will come next but I don't think anyone should blame them for prioritizing the larger market first. Wouldn't you if it were your business?

Linux is popular enough with some folks that I think we'll see support for it on Steam, here and perhaps elsewhere in time so hopefully Linux users have good times to look forward to too.

Just thought I'd let you know I've seen many Linux people claiming in the wishlist that they buy games elsewhere, that they are going to abandon GOG if they are ignored much longer, or simply that they will spend a lot more money here if GOG meets their demands.

I'm not claiming Linux support would grow GOG more than Mac support, but I do think it would grow it nevertheless.



In any case, I am well aware that GOG's decision to support Mac first might have been a better one from their financial point of view, as well as the fact that it might be beneficial to Linux users in the long term. I just think GOG would do better if they actually announced it, if this is what they think. If their analysts found out that supporting Mac is more beneficial and GOG's decision makers decided that "We love our Linux Gamers and we want to make them happy, but we will have to support Mac first for their own good". Then I'm fine with it, but why didn't they say so publicly? Haters would hate it anyway, but the other Linux folk would at least know why the decision was made the way it was and they'd know they weren't ignored.

If the reasons are different then that, they could simply tell us about it. I know there were official responses from GOG both on the forums and in the wishlist, but they were few and only listed problems we could solve on our own as a community, such as testing and support. If GOG was more eager to discuss these matters with us we might be able to come to better solutions, or at the very least to better understand their decisions. I know it's slightly hard to conduct a discussion between GOG staff and the Linux Gamers Community, because we'd need somewhat representative members of this community who could speak on behalf of others, but I suppose if only GOG declared willingness to conduct such a discussion, we'd find a way to select some people for the job.

Relying on the community to provide support is what Linux does now. If everyone is so satisfied with that, why are some Linux users so vocal about official GOG support?

Either the situation, including Linux fragmentation and community support, is fine, or the situation, including community support, is inadequate and needs to change. Pick one or the other, but please don't try to pretend that 'community support' will solve the problems of officially supporting Linux.

GOG tries hard not to sell things that require user testing and support. And if GOG sells something, the users will expect them to support it. Doing that for Linux is very costly, and not at all something that a long-term distributor can control or predict or manage the risk for given the current Linux ecosystem.

*facepalm*

There are lots of gamers, some of those gamers run Linux. I'm one of them on occasion. But there isn't a central Linux gaming community. The whole point of Linux is that everyone can go and do their own thing. There's no way to select representatives.

What app is that, something from GOG?

It's just a Finder window skinned with a wooden shelf background, courtesy of Boxer.

Edit: I guess you could say Finder is the equivalent of (I think it's called) Windows Explorer.

Ok, thanks. Didn't even know you could skin finder. The last time I had any experience with OSX skinning was Uno.

I both agree and disagree with this - the HIB and other related bundles are clear proof that Linux users (a) want more games, and (b) are willing to spend the cash for them - even above and beyond market value for them, if given the proper impetus. That's a big push for Linux compatibility for GOG, and it's why I'm still adamant (from my own personal opinion) that while it may not come now, Linux compatibility will come to GOG, sooner rather than later.

I still also believe that what GOG should have done was focus on Linux compatibility before Mac compatibility, even if they had restricted it to say, Ubuntu for pragmatic purposes. We all know how vocal and devoted Linux users are to companies who treat them right, and winning them over would be a huge boost to GOG's bottom line.

I know this information isn't released, but I'd be curious to see how sales are doing since the Mac announcement. Or maybe the rate of new account generation.

I'm working on prepping an interview piece that I did with TET for Inside Mac Games, where I asked him to comment on the response of Mac users to their announcement of OS X support. Suffice to say, they've been very pleased with what they've seen so far.

Great! Do share your article on here when it's published!!

I was never denying that, I just wanted to point out why the argument that Linux compatibility has more votes is not a very strong one. I'm sure Linux soppurt will come eventually, but it's always one step at a time. I mean if it took Steam this long to support Linux (and even now they are not yet supporting it; Beta doesn't count), how can we blame GoG?