Don't want to see articles from a certain category? When logged in, go to your User Settings and adjust your feed in the Content Preferences section where you can block tags!
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.
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.
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:
image

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
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly.
See more from me
The comments on this article are closed.
182 comments
Page: «9/19»
  Go to:

TheEnigmaticT Sep 6, 2013
Quoting: liamdaweWell of course we are users not businessmen (most of us). We are trying to show you ways you can support us and trying to get you to see you can and will earn money from us.

You rely on dosbox and ScummVM for some games don't you? Aren't those community run projects? How is that different than using another one? What if no one maintains those projects for a while and updates in say Windows and Mac break them and no one is around to update those projects for GOG?

The linux support vote here: http://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/add_linux_versions_of_games has nearly 12,000 votes on it, are those masses of people not a big enough percentage of your userbase to work with and earn money from?

The point is you don't need to support every game on GOG under Linux, hell you sure don't for Mac. Why not even for now to dip your toes in use the dosbox and ScummVM games? What is the problem with them? As you surely can't think you would have more issues with those projects on Linux than you would on Windows or Mac?

For DOSBox and SCUMMVM, we have points of contact who are decision-makers in the project and who we established relationships with prior to launch. Also, those projects are substantially smaller-scope than creating an entire OS and maintaining it, so there's less likelihood that we'll see a catastrophic breakdown of the team maintaining it.

And you're right: we could just port our DOSBox games to Linux. The problem enters when we begin to look at cost-accounting. Let's talk about market share: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems.

We've already publicly stated that we receive 30% of the revenue of a game's sale (http://www.gog.com/indie). Out of that comes costs, VAT, processing fees, and whatever the hell else goes on. I'm not gonna keep track of all of those, because it makes the math a pain in the butt. Let's stick with 30%, even though you should realize that our income is actually less than that for any given game sold. When we're looking at adding a cost associated with Windows OS for a game's release, that means that for a cost of x, we should assume that we will sell at least (x*3)/.9 worth of copies for it to work out. For $1,000 of expenses, we assume we'll need to sell about $3,333 worth of games. That's not hard to do at all.

For MacOS, this is tougher. The math there is (x*3)/.08 (using the math from wikipeida; I'm not gonna share internal revenue splits from GOG. :)). For $1,000 of Mac-related costs, we need to project that we expect to see a game sell about $37,500 for the Mac portion of the costs to recoup. That's challenging, but not impossible. 

Linux, though? That's a bastard. For $1,000 in costs, we need to assume that the game will sell about $200,000 worth of games (x*3)/.015 before we've probably recouped the cost of the Linux effort. That's a whole lot of profit that we need to earn from a game--before we even know how well it will sell--before we can assume that we will make back the money invested in.

Now, of course the math isn't quite that simple--Linux-specific fixes tend to drive Linux-specific revenue, after all. So let's just look at the math required to take an already released game and get it ready for Linux. As a completely wild guess, I'd estimate it takes about 100 - 150 hours of labor from "Hey, we would like to sell this classic game on GOG.com" to "released". This is true of DOSBox games, SCUMMVM, or any other classic release. We test every classic game we release, remaster it, jigger with the settings, and generally invest time in the games. This number isn't reduced substantially for adding a new OS to already-existing signed classic titles: we don't have rights to sell on that OS, we have done no testing, we haven't made any masters... it's not as simple as turning on a switch. So now consider: let's assume we want to launch with 60 games on Linux (that's the same number we had on Mac). 60 games * 150 hours * cost of labor....that's not cheap. Even if I assume US minimum wage for all of the labor employed, that's 60 * 150 * 8.75 * 3 = $236,250 USD games sold--Linux copies only, mind you--before it looks like this is a break-even point. The usual basis for "successful operation" is 300% revenue over costs, which means we'd need to believe that we will sell nearly a million dollars worth of Linux copies of those games for the effort to be considered "fiscally prudent." Keep in mind that none of the above numbers account for the costs associated with the fact that we would need to spend a lot of time and money learning how to actually handle releasing a game on Linux, hiring new staff, and et cetera. 

Now, others have mentioned that we sell games that right now support Linux and we don't sell Linux versions of those games. Part of that is because, again, we support our games. So many of the staffing costs associated with "adding Linux games" to GOG.com will be present whether we're re-mastering games ourselves or not. In either case, due to the fact that we're fundamentally a different business model than Steam or Desura, we must take a different approach to Linux support than they are. They can pawn you off on a developer and say, "This is not my problem." On GOG.com, it is our problem. 

All of this leads to a single point: the processes are not as simple as you think they are, and the risks are higher than you believe they are. We did not make the decision to move into the MacOS lightly, and it was something that took a lot of time and work to do. If we ever move into the Linux space, it will be because it looks like we have figured out how to add Linux support in a manner that is consistent with our core values, and something that we believe we can be proud of and you can enjoy.
Guest Sep 6, 2013
Quoting: ZeroX1987Reading all this I know one thing for sure:
We have to look at this from both sides of the coin...

We are looking at it exactly like that.

Quoting: ZeroX1987This whole topic is not about *we* as a small community against them as businessmen. Being pissed at their decision won't get us anywhere. We are the ones who want something from them, while they are making their decisions, after all. We want more support from them, so we, as gamers, can enjoy what we want to enjoy the most: Games.

If that is what you think then please read the comments again. Especially the wall of text ones that tend to explain where the GoG people get it wrong and why. Yes, some people called their reasons BS because, frankly, they are and it's well explained why in the comments that you probably missed.
 
Quoting: ZeroX1987Therefore neither a flamewar nor a counter to every argument will get us anywhere. TheEnigmatic came to us after all, even though he knew something like that was coming up. Wouldn't it be wiser to analyze what was said? Actio et Reatio...

What TeT does is called damage control, in my opinion. He is the PR person after all. I was not angry at GoG for not supporting Linux. It's their choice, their money. What really grinds my gears are the reasons they gave, which for newbies seem like good reasons but for the more seasoned of us are bullshit.

Quoting: ZeroX1987Example:
For them, this decision obviously NEEDS to be about money. It simply is their job after all. But there is much more to this: Even IF we have the necessary amount of interest in games AND the necessary amount of money to make them interested, the whole process of support OBVIOUSLY is the actual issue here.

There's also the issue of who  the people that assess what needs to be done in order to provide proper support are. The way TeT describes the process was to throw PupEEE Linux and Mint on some machines and something something until something else broke. When it broke the conclusion was drawn that it sucks and does not warrant effort. The ones doing the assessments were people that don't seem to know much about how things are or can be done on Linux machines. A weekend (please tell me you did not waste a month banging your head against the wall) project like the one TeT describes does not make it market / technology research. It's entertainment.
Liam Dawe Sep 6, 2013
Quoting: TheEnigmaticTLinux, though? That's a bastard. For $1,000 in costs, we need to assume that the game will sell about $200,000 worth of games (x*3)/.015 before we've probably recouped the cost of the Linux effort. That's a whole lot of profit that we need to earn from a game--before we even know how well it will sell--before we can assume that we will make back the money invested in.
Sorry but now you have completely lost me.

I honestly don't get your math at all or your reasoning for why $1,000 of costs for a Linux version means you need to get $200,000 in sales?
I mean seriously come on, that's just a joke. If it costs you $1,000 you need to get $1,000 to break even, anything above that is revenue, revenue you wouldn't have gotten without it.
TheEnigmaticT Sep 6, 2013
Quoting: SilviuThere's also the issue of who  the people that assess what needs to be done in order to provide proper support are. The way TeT describes the process was to throw PupEEE Linux and Mint on some machines and something something until something else broke. When it broke the conclusion was drawn that it sucks and does not warrant effort. The ones doing the assessments were people that don't seem to know much about how things are or can be done on Linux machines. A weekend (please tell me you did not waste a month banging your head against the all) project like the one TeT describes does not make it market / technology research. It's entertainment.

You're literally making stuff up.

For personal use, I use PupEEE Linux and Mint. For institutional research--as mentioned in the above--we evaluated Mint, Debian, and ChromeOS, and did do in depth. I don't know what you consider a sufficient audit, but I consider four people working for two weeks on researching build frequency, library deprecation, market share, bugs, immediate portability, etc. and etc. is sufficient for us to reach conclusions. I'm sorry that they're not the conclusions that you want, but please don't assume that our QA, IT, and dev teams are incompetent. We went about this seriously, we investigated it fully, and we continue to be evaluating this rationally and reasonably. As soon as this is a good move for us--whether because of something that we do on our end or some new technology that gets conceived--we will certainly be happy to add Linux support.
TheEnigmaticT Sep 6, 2013
Quoting: liamdawe
Quoting: Quote from TheEnigmaticTLinux, though? That's a bastard. For $1,000 in costs, we need to assume that the game will sell about $200,000 worth of games (x*3)/.015 before we've probably recouped the cost of the Linux effort. That's a whole lot of profit that we need to earn from a game--before we even know how well it will sell--before we can assume that we will make back the money invested in.
Sorry but now you have completely lost me.

I honestly don't get your math at all or your reasoning for why $1,000 of costs for a Linux version means you need to get $200,000 in sales?
I mean seriously come on, that's just a joke. If it costs you $1,000 you need to get $1,000 to break even, anything above that is revenue, revenue you wouldn't have gotten without it.

I may not have explained that fully. If I'm adding a cost for a specific project, I want to make sure that the costs from that project are worth it. So, given the size of the market share of Linux, if I'm spending $1,000 to fix a Linux issue, then I'd generally assume that the game will need to sell a heck of a lot of copies for it to actually recoup the Linux-specific costs.

EDIT: And, as a really rough back-of-the-envelope statistic, that means you need to sell enough copies of the game that, given the small market share, you assume that the percentage of people who bought it equated to your costs. In that case, my rough math was (1,000*3)/.015. 

On the other hand, I'm working on this in between other spreadsheets. I may have gotten the maths wrong?
Liam Dawe Sep 6, 2013
Quoting: TheEnigmaticT
Quoting: Quote from liamdawe
Quoting: Quote from Quote from TheEnigmaticTLinux, though? That's a bastard. For $1,000 in costs, we need to assume that the game will sell about $200,000 worth of games (x*3)/.015 before we've probably recouped the cost of the Linux effort. That's a whole lot of profit that we need to earn from a game--before we even know how well it will sell--before we can assume that we will make back the money invested in.
Sorry but now you have completely lost me.

I honestly don't get your math at all or your reasoning for why $1,000 of costs for a Linux version means you need to get $200,000 in sales?
I mean seriously come on, that's just a joke. If it costs you $1,000 you need to get $1,000 to break even, anything above that is revenue, revenue you wouldn't have gotten without it.

I may not have explained that fully. If I'm adding a cost for a specific project, I want to make sure that the costs from that project are worth it. So, given the size of the market share of Linux, if I'm spending $1,000 to fix a Linux issue, then I'd generally assume that the game will need to sell a heck of a lot of copies for it to actually recoup the Linux-specific costs.
Still lost me sadly, I am not a businessman which is why unlike some other people I won't be calling you colourful names but if I spent $1,000 in time to fix a Linux issue on a game and made $2,000 from it, that's $1,000 in revenue.

I can see how you are shying away from the Linux support if that is how you are doing your math though, you can't just divide it by market share and say that's how much you need to get.

Edit > Like I said business isn't my strong point so I won't comment on that anymore.
TheEnigmaticT Sep 6, 2013
Quoting: liamdaweStill lost me sadly, I am not a businessman which is why unlike some other people I won't be calling you colourful names but if I spent $1,000 in time to fix a Linux issue on a game and made $2,000 from it, that's $1,000 in revenue.

Ah. Easy enough then. Let's say I am cost accounting--that is to say, trying to make sure that the things I spend money on are things that actually earn me money back. I spend $1,000 fixing a Linux bug.  Since Wikipedia suggests that Linux is 1.5% of the market, that means that for every $1,000 I sell, I assume that 1.5% of it is earned from Linux users. So for every $1,000 earned, I'm actually earning $15 from Linux users.  

Now, GOG.com receives 30% of the gross price of a game. So if I want to earn back the $1,000 of expenses, I need to gross $3,333 in sales. But I want to see if my expenditure of fixing this Linux bus is worth the money, so I want to project the overall revenue from the game to get a feeling if it is worth the money to fix. To have Linux gaming bring in $3,333, the percentages suggest I need to gross $3,333/.015. Which is $222,200. So to earn back a $1,000 expense on a Linux-specific bug fix, a (very) rough projection is that the overall gross revenue from the game should be assumed to be about $200,000.  Otherwise, the cost required to fix that Linux bug will, presumably, not recouped and, instead, I would have been better off putting that $1,000 elsewhere, regardless of whether or not the game itself was a success.

Does that make any more sense?
Anonymous Sep 6, 2013
Desktop market share doesn't correlate directly to game sales, especially when it comes to Linux as we have a much higher proportion of tech-savvy users inclined to do gaming for what ever small market share we have.

Looking at the stats on crossplatform Humble Indie Bundles, you'll find the total number of Linux purchases is at least half that of Mac purchases.
ZeroX1987 Sep 6, 2013
From my point of view I see the following:

As was said before the Linux Distros are missing one thing, both Windows and OSX have. Standards on industrial Level. Standards any Developer follows, any Developer knows about, any Developer trusts in to be static and supported. Something thats not whimsical and dynamic. As TheEnigmatic said before they fear that support stops the moment a Design decision splits the Developers. From my Point of View the Bunch of Linux Distros in general are like a Cluster of Cells that constantly evolves through survival of the fittest. Thats why Linux biggest strength (and (from my point of view) advantage towards Windows (and OSX?)) lies in chaos, evolution and flexibility. Yet still the Linux Distros in general, just like a Cell, need an Interface on the outer side that won't change that much, so they still get information and nutrition. Something that secures stability while the inner parts evolve as they see fit. Isn't that the purpose of Programming Interfaces in general? As I said before I might be missing something here...

Even though I still am not at a Level to say something like this (by far :D):
Are they at fault for wanting what is established in every Industry to reduce the costs?
Or are we at fault for not providing something like that?
Anonymous Sep 6, 2013
Quoting: Silviu
Quoting: Quote from AnonymousBundleing is nice approach but would need support by the distros... who hate it with passion as such distro agnostic approaches questions their role as central control instance.

What the? Since when do I need to ask anyone anything about bundling libs in my tarballs/installers? Seriously, WTF? Nobody needs to ask distros for anything. That is the whole point of a bundle.
You are right this is the vision on bundleing... but if the distros give a fuck about minimal inter-distro and backward compatibility, they are creative/careless enough to break things (see how the loki packages were broken). That was one reason why autopackage failed because the distros gave a shit on compatiblity and autopackage had to introduce more and more fragile distro dependent shim code.
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
The comments on this article are closed.