A question I am sure is burning in everyone’s minds is "Will gog.com ever support Linux", well I aim to give this a bit of limelight here on GOL.
First of all let me direct you to this wishlist item on gog.com itself which has 11,125 votes on it, I find that crazy that a store like gog.com has that many customers who want to support them with their money if they just put up Linux versions of games. So while you are on that page be sure to give it a vote if you like DRM Free games in a standalone download, no messing around with clients like Steam or Desura.
Now something else has popped up on my email radar recently, I am speaking about Simon Roth the developer of Maia who stated this on reddit in response to a question from one of our supporters FutureSuture;
That sounds vaguely promising doesn't it? Well I choose to look at it that way anyway.
Personally I think gog.com run a great service for the PC Gaming industry making sure gamers have a place to get games new and old that aren't filled with any DRM, it's really a great store, hell I am even a customer!
I have a copy of Freespace 2 and Theme Hospital from them to use on the open source engines, I would gladly buy more from them too if they only allowed Linux versions up.
Although this did get me thinking, is it difficult for developers to bundle Linux, Mac and Windows executables in one package? I have seen some developers do this before so I know it is possible and wonder why more don't do that?
That's not exactly a full solution though, we need gog.com to note if a game has a Linux version and support us on it. Personally I consider them one of our major roadblocks for getting accepted as a major gaming platform considering how big a store they are.
The more places that support us the more people can learn Linux exists too right? That can only be a good thing.
What are your thoughts folks?
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
First of all let me direct you to this wishlist item on gog.com itself which has 11,125 votes on it, I find that crazy that a store like gog.com has that many customers who want to support them with their money if they just put up Linux versions of games. So while you are on that page be sure to give it a vote if you like DRM Free games in a standalone download, no messing around with clients like Steam or Desura.
Now something else has popped up on my email radar recently, I am speaking about Simon Roth the developer of Maia who stated this on reddit in response to a question from one of our supporters FutureSuture;
QuoteI've spoken in person at length about this with them. I can say no more!
That sounds vaguely promising doesn't it? Well I choose to look at it that way anyway.
Personally I think gog.com run a great service for the PC Gaming industry making sure gamers have a place to get games new and old that aren't filled with any DRM, it's really a great store, hell I am even a customer!
I have a copy of Freespace 2 and Theme Hospital from them to use on the open source engines, I would gladly buy more from them too if they only allowed Linux versions up.
Although this did get me thinking, is it difficult for developers to bundle Linux, Mac and Windows executables in one package? I have seen some developers do this before so I know it is possible and wonder why more don't do that?
That's not exactly a full solution though, we need gog.com to note if a game has a Linux version and support us on it. Personally I consider them one of our major roadblocks for getting accepted as a major gaming platform considering how big a store they are.
The more places that support us the more people can learn Linux exists too right? That can only be a good thing.
What are your thoughts folks?
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
" The point of limited activations is by far not the worst point in DRM."
For me this is exactly the worst thing. I will not buy a game that has limited activations, constant online DRM or intermittent online DRM(online authentication every 24 hours or the like) or similar. That is where I draw the line. I don't care about the more or less paranoid privacy aspects. That is not to say I don't care about privacy, I certainly do. But I don't see the issue with authenticating a game online once, when it is installed. Where is the privacy concern in that? it is meant as (IMHO ineffective, meaningless) anti piracy measure. That is it. I would want to so some really good evidence in order to believe that Valve are abusing it to gain access to sensitive information.
For me this is exactly the worst thing. I will not buy a game that has limited activations, constant online DRM or intermittent online DRM(online authentication every 24 hours or the like) or similar. That is where I draw the line. I don't care about the more or less paranoid privacy aspects. That is not to say I don't care about privacy, I certainly do. But I don't see the issue with authenticating a game online once, when it is installed. Where is the privacy concern in that? it is meant as (IMHO ineffective, meaningless) anti piracy measure. That is it. I would want to so some really good evidence in order to believe that Valve are abusing it to gain access to sensitive information.
0 Likes
Quoting: Kristian" The point of limited activations is by far not the worst point in DRM."
For me this is exactly the worst thing. I will not buy a game that has limited activations, constant online DRM or intermittent online DRM(online authentication every 24 hours or the like) or similar. That is where I draw the line. I don't care about the more or less paranoid privacy aspects. That is not to say I don't care about privacy, I certainly do. But I don't see the issue with authenticating a game online once, when it is installed. Where is the privacy concern in that? it is meant as (IMHO ineffective, meaningless) anti piracy measure. That is it. I would want to so some really good evidence in order to believe that Valve are abusing it to gain access to sensitive information.
It's surely a bad thing. I won't buy any games with limited activations either, but this is a comfort issue. Privacy and security issues go way beyond comfort matters, that's why I said the previous issue isn't the worst. But in the end for me it doesn't matter. I wouldn't buy a game with any level of DRM :)
Privacy/security concern is inherent in the concept of DRM itself if you think about it. DRM by default is preemptive policing approach (which I consider simply unethical to begin with). I.e. it treats all users as potential criminals (infringers), that's the whole point of DRM. I.e. users are denied trust from those who utilize DRM. Why would you trust them in return when they don't trust you? DRM code is a black box doing whatever because they don't trust you. Now, why would you assume it repsects your privacy and is secure for your system? Since trust is always mutual, I'd say it's proper to always treat it as a potential threat. And it's not like there were no cases of real DRM abuse in the past.
0 Likes
Someday the guys at GOG might start supporting Linux. I voted for this I think a year ago, so I doubt anything is happening behind the scenes for us anytime soon. They might start thinking about it once a good % of their catalog has actual Linux versions (instead of them doing it). What that % needs to be, only they know.
0 Likes
I'd wait until the next year. If they don't start supporting Linux by then, it would mean they aren't doing anything on that front. So far they have open positions for developers with knowledge of Linux, so there is a chance they are working on it:
https://secure.gog.com/work#senior_software_engineer_desktop
https://secure.gog.com/work#senior_software_engineer_desktop
0 Likes
Quoting: ShmerlDo you mean they distribute modified DosBox and ScummVM? I'm not aware of that. None of the DOS games I got from GOG so far had any problems running in stock DosBox and ScummVM. It's not an indicator of course, since I have just a small subset of their games. But sure, if they need a modified emulator - the only way is to ship it with the game. On the other hand, why can't they submit their patches upstream in such cases?
I am not referring to specific code modifications to either of the emulators (if there were code modifications that were not released they would be in violation of the GPL) but specific tweaks to the emulators configurations and specific parameters that affect how they are launched, many of which can not be done globally for all games. These are necessary but not very flexible parts of many of their products.
Quoting: ShmerlI'm not grateful for them proliferating any DRM on Linux. I'm grateful that they increase interest in Linux as a platform for developers. Credit should go where it's due. And criticism where it is due as well.
Indeed.
0 Likes
Quoting: HamishI am not referring to specific code modifications to either of the emulators (if there were code modifications that were not released they would be in violation of the GPL) but specific tweaks to the emulators configurations and specific parameters that affect how they are launched, many of which can not be done globally for all games. These are necessary but not very flexible parts of many of their products.
By the way, they distribute the sources for ScummVM and DosBox with the games. So if there are any modifications, they are GPL compliant.
And specialized config files - that's normal. They can simply adjust those for each OS (since there is a difference between Windows and POSIX path syntax for example), and it should be quite enough to run the game with distros' emulators.
0 Likes
Quoting: ShmerlAnd specialized config files - that's normal. They can simply adjust those for each OS (since there is a difference between Windows and POSIX path syntax for example), and it should be quite enough to run the game with distros' emulators.
Which would be very complex and increase the chance for error, limit the amount of distributions it will work on, and give GoG less control for little user benefit. There is simply no need to make one emulator install fit all, especially as far as GoG is concerned.
0 Likes
I didn't mean one install fit all. They usually dedicate a package for each OS anyway. One install for Linux distros would work perfectly though. Simply put the game in one location, put a couple of dosbox conf files which point there and mount some iso image (that's common for CD based DosBox games), and create a .desktop file that does something like:
dosbox -conf <conf1> -conf <conf2>
That's it. They can even display a message if DosBox is missing, saying something - Please install DosBox first.
That's basically what I do with DosBox games from GOG now anyway:
1. Extract the Windows installer with innoextract.
2. Place the files in one location, delete all the bundled stuff like Windows build of DosBox and whatever else not from the game itself.
3. Adjust shipped .conf files to use POSIX path syntax and selected location (GOG usually packages 2 conf files).
4. Create .desktop file with dosbox -conf <conf1> -conf <conf2>
All that would work on any distro, I bet.
Rarely you might need adjusting some settings like from:
output=ddraw
to:
output=opengl
That's what GOG would do with dedicated conf files for each OS.
dosbox -conf <conf1> -conf <conf2>
That's it. They can even display a message if DosBox is missing, saying something - Please install DosBox first.
That's basically what I do with DosBox games from GOG now anyway:
1. Extract the Windows installer with innoextract.
2. Place the files in one location, delete all the bundled stuff like Windows build of DosBox and whatever else not from the game itself.
3. Adjust shipped .conf files to use POSIX path syntax and selected location (GOG usually packages 2 conf files).
4. Create .desktop file with dosbox -conf <conf1> -conf <conf2>
All that would work on any distro, I bet.
Rarely you might need adjusting some settings like from:
output=ddraw
to:
output=opengl
That's what GOG would do with dedicated conf files for each OS.
0 Likes
Quoting: HamishI know they do, that is why I said they could easily use those .bin as a basis for their installer on linuxQuoting: BumadarI don't see this obsession to have games installed via rpm/deb, many of the humble bundle games use the .bin installer and that one works just fine, GoG could easily make a standard installer for their games using those as a basis. Its just another excuse as many said here.
They DO have their own custom standard installer already for their Mac and Windows games. And the guy who believes that distributing commercial games on Linux is so difficult because of dependency and administration issues is prattling on about a problem which has been solved since Loki. Besides, GoG games do not tie into one central Dosbox install when they sell their games anyway, but ship with a custom configured executable with each game purchase. Can you imagine the trouble that would cause if it did? Just because Linux has a packaging system does not mean you need to do that level of dependent insanity.
0 Likes
Quoting: ShmerlI didn't mean one install fit all. They usually dedicate a package for each OS anyway. One install for Linux distros would work perfectly though. Simply put the game in one location, put a couple of dosbox conf files which point there and mount some iso image (that's common for CD based DosBox games), and create a .desktop file that does something like:"That's it. They can even display a message if DosBox is missing, saying something - Please install DosBox first."
dosbox -conf <conf1> -conf <conf2>
That's it. They can even display a message if DosBox is missing, saying something - Please install DosBox first.
That's basically what I do with DosBox games from GOG now anyway:
1. Extract the Windows installer with innoextract.
2. Place the files in one location, delete all the bundled stuff like Windows build of DosBox and whatever else not from the game itself.
3. Adjust shipped .conf files to use POSIX path syntax and selected location (GOG usually packages 2 conf files).
4. Create .desktop file with dosbox -conf <conf1> -conf <conf2>
All that would work on any distro, I bet.
Rarely you might need adjusting some settings like from:
output=ddraw
to:
output=opengl
That's what GOG would do with dedicated conf files for each OS.
That would be treating their Linux users differently from their Windows and Mac OSX users. From everything that GOG is saying there is no way they would want to do that and why should they?
Edit:
Bumadar is exactly correct.
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me