Well folks a lot of you saw this one coming, GOG.com have officially responded to us to state that Linux support just isn't happening anytime soon. Quite sad news really, was hopefull on this one since they are such a big name and a pretty decent store too.
Here's the message I got from Trevor Longino, their Head of PR and Marketing, with thanks to Piotr Szczesniak who also works in the PR dept.
So folks no matter the hints, you have it direct from their PR head.
This line is the bit that gets me:
It has often bugged me just how many distributions there are, but it's more of a problem with their own policies of refunding if they cannot get it to work for you which is a good policy, but on Linux it is fair enough that it could be trouble for them when someone tries to install x game on "Look Ma I Built A Distro v4" that has some crazy new configuration somewhere.
I will just leave this here:
UPDATE #1, I asked if it was basically the amount of distro's and how often they are updated that's really the issue:
So a long winded answer to basically say "Yes Linux is updated too often for us".
Strikes me as odd since even Windows which was once known for being exceptionally slow to make major OS updates has committed itself to having a much more regular release schedule now, along with Mac having yearly releases.
So, I have asked about that as well and I have also pointed out that Ubuntu for example has LTS (Long Term Support) releases which are meant for things like this, so people don't have to update every 6 months.
UPDATE #2:
About his Mac point - It was one every other year back in 2009 but Mac now does yearly updates, 2011, 2012 and 2013 will have all had Mac OS X releases and they have said it will be yearly.
So basically guys, if you're looking for native Linux support out of the box you'll have to look elsewhere than GOG for now.
We have Steam, Desura, Gameolith, ShinyLoot, FireFlower Games and one day soon IndieCity too. One day GOG.com may support us and I will thank them when they do and we can put all this to rest!
I hope one day they support us but considering their answers I don't ever see it happening. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Here's the message I got from Trevor Longino, their Head of PR and Marketing, with thanks to Piotr Szczesniak who also works in the PR dept.
Trevor Longino GOG.comHi Liam,
Unfortunately not much has changed in our stance towards supporting Linux in the last few months and there is one main reason for that. Since our birth over 5 years ago we have always provided full customer support for all games we have released. That is not going to change. For every game we release we provide a money-back guarantee: if we can't get the game working on the customer's computer with the help of our support team, we return the money. The architecture of Linux with many common distros, each of them updating fairly often, makes it incredibly challenging for any digital distribution company to be able to properly test the game in question, and then provide support for the release--all of which our users are accustomed to.
Sure, we could probably release a client and sell the games and let Linux users worry about the rest. We don't consider it, however, a viable option for the business model we have followed so far. Apparently our model has its drawbacks, as we cannot make everyone happy, but, as of now, we don't plan on introducing Linux support in the foreseeable future.
So folks no matter the hints, you have it direct from their PR head.
This line is the bit that gets me:
QuoteThe architecture of Linux with many common distros, each of them updating fairly often, makes it incredibly challenging for any digital distribution company to be able to properly test the game in question, and then provide support for the release--all of which our users are accustomed to
It has often bugged me just how many distributions there are, but it's more of a problem with their own policies of refunding if they cannot get it to work for you which is a good policy, but on Linux it is fair enough that it could be trouble for them when someone tries to install x game on "Look Ma I Built A Distro v4" that has some crazy new configuration somewhere.
I will just leave this here:
UPDATE #1, I asked if it was basically the amount of distro's and how often they are updated that's really the issue:
Piotr Szczesniak GOG.comIt's a bit more than that.
There are a number of distros. We can support just one (which is how Steam is doing it), but since we believe strongly in freedom of choice, that's not our preference. On the other hand, supporting everything in the world is more burden than any business could assume So, the last time we looked into this, we investigated supporting three common ones: Mint, Debian, and Google's Chrome OS. We researched the number of OS updates, how often they occurred, when (and how frequently) various libraries are surpassed and deprecated. We then researched how often, for example, updates to these versions of Linux caused problems with DOSBox, SCUMMVM, and other tools that we make use of for our remastering process.
There is a difference in GOG.com's business model from Steam or any other distributor out there. *We* are on the hook for support of these games. And we update our support as the OSes that our games are running on are updated. That means that, unlike a developer or any other distributor, when we release on a Linux distro, we don't have to test once and then we're done. Each time there is a major update in an OS that we support that changes compatibility, we have to devote substantial time and resources to updating our catalog to work with the update. Sometimes, it may even occur that we cannot fix it in-house but rather have to spend the money to get it fixed by outside resources or else we'd have to remove the compatibility for the game from its game card. Imagine if we had 400 games from our 600+ game catalog supported on Linux and we found that a third of them no longer worked in a distro that we supported. Imagine the time and effort that would go into re-building 130 games.
Now take that kind of time and effort--time and effort that is not required by other OSes except on a one every four or five years' basis--and think of the cost we associate with it vs. the possible revenue that we might earn from Linux. Even if, on average, a Linux distro only has big updates as often as, say, Mac OSX does (every four or so years), unless these big updates are synchronized across the distros (which, historically, they're not) that means we're seeing the need to remaster some of our games every 14 - 16 months.
Until we can figure out something like a better way to automate testing and building games for GOG.com, there's no way that the economics of Linux support make sense for us. That said, we do know that there are plenty of people who want to be able to play their games with Linux-native support from us, and we continue to look for ways where we can automate this until it reaches a point where it is something that we believe we can do and not lose money at it.
So a long winded answer to basically say "Yes Linux is updated too often for us".
Strikes me as odd since even Windows which was once known for being exceptionally slow to make major OS updates has committed itself to having a much more regular release schedule now, along with Mac having yearly releases.
So, I have asked about that as well and I have also pointed out that Ubuntu for example has LTS (Long Term Support) releases which are meant for things like this, so people don't have to update every 6 months.
UPDATE #2:
Piotr Szczesniak GOG.comNo, it's not.
One, because Windows' faster releases are promised, but I'll believe it when I see it. As for Mac OS: "The desktop-oriented version, OS X, followed in March 2001 supporting the new Aqua user interface. Since then, seven more distinct "end-user" and "server" versions have been released." (seven versions released over 12 years or about one every other year).
Also, as I just noted below, to support Linux in a manner that we feel is consistent with our standards, we would need to support three distros each of which sticks to its own schedule and period for updates, and each of which brings in a tiny part of the revenue of Windows or even Mac. So, as I noted, it's a question of economics. Until we solve things our own end for how to make this scale economically, I don't see it happening any time soon. That said, we are investigating how to do this for a variety of issues beyond Linux support, so don't give up hope. Just don't expect it tomorrow, either.
About his Mac point - It was one every other year back in 2009 but Mac now does yearly updates, 2011, 2012 and 2013 will have all had Mac OS X releases and they have said it will be yearly.
So basically guys, if you're looking for native Linux support out of the box you'll have to look elsewhere than GOG for now.
We have Steam, Desura, Gameolith, ShinyLoot, FireFlower Games and one day soon IndieCity too. One day GOG.com may support us and I will thank them when they do and we can put all this to rest!
I hope one day they support us but considering their answers I don't ever see it happening. 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.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
Ubuntu and Arch. Kill the rest ;)You misspelled "Debian."
Update your software or make testing the default. Then we'll talk. :D
0 Likes
I know Hamish. It was a joke! I think the "Major 4ish" (Fedora, Arch, Debian, and Ubuntu ) and all their appropriate spin offs should stick around because they obviously influence each other. It's just the "n30p1r4t3 OSes" that aren't necessary. In some cases, like manjaro, the spin off actually creates and developed new software that is useful to all users (arch at least).Ubuntu and Arch. Kill the rest ;)
First, with Fedora and Debian gone, Ubuntu and Arch could not exist. Secondly, Arch would be a very stupid choice for a supported distro (and I am saying this as an Arch user, among other things).
I think most people who advocate for killing off all the other distros, especially Ubuntu fans, would be very surprised to learn how interdependent they are, especially on upstream distros like Fedora or Debian that provide most of the technology and infrastructure that the others utilize. And when it comes to that distrowatch statistic that has been floating around, one should realize that not all of those are desktop distributions, and many target certain niche markets which do need a specially tailored distro in order to be useful. There really is not as much specific desktop fragmentation as many believe.
And speaking in general terms, I really do believe that proprietary applications have no place in a distribution's package manager. They are designed for free programs with source code available, and trying to shoehorn pre-complied applications into them is a headache people should not attempt. Proprietary applications should just ship with their own installer, or use one of the excellent ones available such as mojosetup. Then you do not need to worry about using a deb, rpm, or any other format.
But if I were just to create a Distro that was based on Ubuntu, just with new colors, icons, pictures, and a few games. Does that Distro need to exist? No.
0 Likes
I agree with you to an extent. Just support ubuntu. Leave it to the Arch junkies, fedora freaks, and debian divas to get it running on their platform.Yes I still think so, since ubuntu is valve's choice its gonna get the most support for gaming (games already ported and running, drivers, etc.. ) and gaming peripherals and the largest userbase as well. If they really wanted to be good, they should choose ubuntu and fedora and we can handle the rest. I think ubuntu's choices lately are making them more commercialized too which would probably be looked at positively by developers. I only hope they dont become so different they are their own OS like Android.they can still follow their policy and just use ubuntu (come on guys the distro choice is obvious) and let the community figure out the other distros.
But is it that obvious? With Ubuntu trying so hard to become incompatible with every other distro under the sun it may not be the best bet on its own anymore.
Look, Arch had steam before it was "officially supported."
0 Likes
Debian Divas... Fedora Freaks... Arch..... Junkies? Arch Arseholes, don't you mean?I agree with you to an extent. Just support ubuntu. Leave it to the Arch junkies, fedora freaks, and debian divas to get it running on their platform.Yes I still think so, since ubuntu is valve's choice its gonna get the most support for gaming (games already ported and running, drivers, etc.. ) and gaming peripherals and the largest userbase as well. If they really wanted to be good, they should choose ubuntu and fedora and we can handle the rest. I think ubuntu's choices lately are making them more commercialized too which would probably be looked at positively by developers. I only hope they dont become so different they are their own OS like Android.they can still follow their policy and just use ubuntu (come on guys the distro choice is obvious) and let the community figure out the other distros.
But is it that obvious? With Ubuntu trying so hard to become incompatible with every other distro under the sun it may not be the best bet on its own anymore.
Look, Arch had steam before it was "officially supported."
0 Likes
Debian Divas... Fedora Freaks... Arch..... Junkies? Arch Arseholes, don't you mean?
Some of them...lol
0 Likes
They just don't want to port their RedEngine them middleware-hungry pussies. They would not release to a platform their flaghsip game doesn't support. So... they're not getting my money with the Witcher 3 now.
0 Likes
We don't give a fuck about GAG. We have Steam which works great and desura. Please don't ever post news again about that useless site.
0 Likes
They just don't want to port their RedEngine them middleware-hungry pussies. They would not release to a platform their flaghsip game doesn't support. So... they're not getting my money with the Witcher 3 now.
What does this article have anything to do
Edit: Holy Crap! GOG is owned by CDPR?? You learn something everyday.
0 Likes
I think Trevor Longino from GOG says it best in defense of the company's stance:
When asked "And Linux?"
Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/10/24/cd-projekt-red-interview-cyberpunk-2077-witcher-2-piracy-windows-8-and-more/
When asked "And Linux?"
Linux gaming is also something we’d love to do, but we haven’t made any announcements about it yet. We’ve been looking at it.
I’ve been making public statements for a while that there are technical hurdles. Steam’s approach is to say, “Here’s our distro, we support this distro. Have another distro? Sorry.” That’s not how GOG does things, we’re more free-range gaming. So we’re looking at how to deliver the GOG experience on— we can’t say every computer, because you can of course hook up an E Ink display with 2-color CGA as your monitor, use Lynx as your web browser, and run some weird Debian distro that you’ve custom modded to do just what you want and then say, “How come I can’t play your games?”
Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/10/24/cd-projekt-red-interview-cyberpunk-2077-witcher-2-piracy-windows-8-and-more/
0 Likes
And who cares? Never heard of gog.com until this post. Don't give a shit if they rot.
0 Likes
And who cares? Never heard of gog.com until this post. Don't give a shit if they rot.
We don't give a fuck about GAG. We have Steam which works great and desura. Please don't ever post news again about that useless site.
And Gameolith and ShinyLoot and FireFlower... you can even get some Linux games from Amazon and GamersGate. Do we really need to be supported for every games distributor on Earth (and beyond)?
I agree with them, all these posts about GAG are undeserved publicity only.
0 Likes
And Gameolith and ShinyLoot and FireFlower... you can even get some Linux games from Amazon and GamersGate. Do we really need to be supported for every games distributor on Earth (and beyond)?
A big part of GOG's catalog is classic old games that can't be found on any of the above. If there's no old games you're wishing to buy and play on Linux, then yes it makes sense that you could hardly care less about GOG. Those who are longing to pick up a bunch of classics that are really hard to find anymore DO care. Liam can try to keep the communication lines open with GOG, who knows, maybe something good will come of it someday... hard to imagine anything bad will come of it. People who are sick of hearing about GOG can just skip these posts; there are a ton of other GoL posts every day and we don't really need to read every single one ;)
0 Likes
Ubuntu and Arch. Kill the rest ;)
I agree with this. Only support the popular distros (Ubuntu, Arch) and leave the rest as unsupported. If you're using a non-mainstream distro, chances are you are already accustomed to doing everything yourself anyway.
0 Likes
I have updated with the next answer, I have to agree now they are basically doing a cop-out and using any reason they can not to support us considering what they just said.
0 Likes
hardpenguin Sep 6, 2013
I simply cannot understand, what is the big deal - to bundle DOSBox with some libraries (which is they actually are doing right now on Windows, right?), alternatively bundle just a few libraries. Humble installers from Ryan Gordon somehow achieved it. They have incredible potential, because they could even bundle specific custom Wine releases for big amount of games that are known to work rated as 'platinum' in Wine.
And yes, even if they decided to support only Ubuntu LTS, thats all fine as well. Valve somehow can do it, and rest of Linux distros simply adapted.
I assume, they just don't understand Linux and they are not really into it. Remember that Liam talked with PR representatives. They won't simply say 'we dont give a shit about your platform, it wont bring us enough benefit'. They have to put it nicely. With PR bullshit like we've read.
Seriously, I guess it will be better to focus on giving money to those who are willing to support us (as stated, Steam, Desura, ShinyLoot, Gameolith) and deal with no official support from GOG (you can still run their games in DOSBox and Wine tho if you really want to).
And yes, even if they decided to support only Ubuntu LTS, thats all fine as well. Valve somehow can do it, and rest of Linux distros simply adapted.
I assume, they just don't understand Linux and they are not really into it. Remember that Liam talked with PR representatives. They won't simply say 'we dont give a shit about your platform, it wont bring us enough benefit'. They have to put it nicely. With PR bullshit like we've read.
Seriously, I guess it will be better to focus on giving money to those who are willing to support us (as stated, Steam, Desura, ShinyLoot, Gameolith) and deal with no official support from GOG (you can still run their games in DOSBox and Wine tho if you really want to).
0 Likes
Bloody GOG. Always wanted to like them, because they sell cheap, classic and DRM-free games... and well gee, doesn't that sound like something Linux gamers would appreciate?
But they keep disappointing, at least if you're a Linux gamer.
Oh well, so be it, Valve will keep getting my monies...
But they keep disappointing, at least if you're a Linux gamer.
Oh well, so be it, Valve will keep getting my monies...
0 Likes
Updated with their 3rd reply, will not be asking them any more questions as it seems fruitless.
0 Likes
I have updated with the next answer, I have to agree now they are basically doing a cop-out and using any reason they can not to support us considering what they just said.EDIT: Let me note: I'm Trevor Longino from GOG.com, in case you don't recognise the user name from our forums.
Okay, I'll bite. How is that a cop out? You're a fan of Linux, I get it. I have two computers which use Linux--PupEEE Linux and a Mint one--so it's not like I'm opposed to the OS.
The answer I gave wasn't "marketing B.S." It was the truth. The economics don't work out. I understand that you're all fans of the OS and you're part of an active community that is passionate and dedicated--all things that have gotten GOG.com where we are today--but you're also part of a *small* community. And until we create a better way to actually scale the labor required to test and master builds, it's not economically feasible for us to support even *one* Linux distribution, much less the three that we've targeted as providing a broad enough reach to make us feel happy about moving into the space and doing it right.
I'll admit that this is disappointing news for you guys, I'm sure, but I don't see why it's a source of vitriol. I would think the fact that we've clearly thought about this in depth--and that we have a pathway for what we need to do in order to implement Linux support--should be more promising than discouraging. Sure, it's not Linux support today, but I think that our investigations and attention in this matter show that, while we're still a small company that's trying to make the best use of our limited staff that we can, this is definitely something that we believe is worth figuring out.
0 Likes
Considering the comments we have explaining how easy it actually would be for you guys to support us (didn't realise you worked for GOG.com hello!) I see it a cop out.I have updated with the next answer, I have to agree now they are basically doing a cop-out and using any reason they can not to support us considering what they just said.Okay, I'll bite. How is that a cop out? You're a fan of Linux, I get it. I have two computers which use Linux--PupEEE Linux and a Mint one--so it's not like I'm opposed to the OS.
The answer I gave wasn't "marketing B.S." It was the truth. The economics don't work out. I understand that you're all fans of the OS and you're part of an active community that is passionate and dedicated--all things that have gotten GOG.com where we are today--but you're also part of a *small* community. And until we create a better way to actually scale the labor required to test and master builds, it's not economically feasible for us to support even *one* Linux distribution, much less the three that we've targeted as providing a broad enough reach to make us feel happy about moving into the space and doing it right.
I'll admit that this is disappointing news for you guys, I'm sure, but I don't see why it's a source of vitriol. I would think the fact that we've clearly thought about this in depth--and that we have a pathway for what we need to do in order to implement Linux support--should be more promising than discouraging. Sure, it's not Linux support today, but I think that our investigations and attention in this matter show that, while we're still a small company that's trying to make the best use of our limited staff that we can, this is definitely something that we believe is worth figuring out.
I don't want to re-post them as they all explained it better than me.
0 Likes
Updated with their 3rd reply, will not be asking them any more questions as it seems fruitless.You should maybe not ask questions but instead offer solutions to GOG for the distro fragmentation:
These are bundle approaches which allow a GOG like direct deployment with the libs bundled
http://portablelinuxapps.org/ (especially as showcase for gaming http://www.portablelinuxgames.org/)
http://listaller.tenstral.net/
http://0install.net/
(more aggressive approach application virtualization http://www.pgbovine.net/cde.html)
In general, I tend to agree with their conclusion the linux distro landscape has failed up to now to progress to addressable platform like the Android, Mac, Windows or Steam creates. Core quality, long time binary comaptiblity. Something which is prevented the tightly integrated distro concept see this bug. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-center/+bug/578045
PS:on choice vs fragmentation http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me