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.
Quoting: AnonymousIndeed. I liked GOG.com, but they are talking bullshit. It is dishonest and dumb excuses. I would respect them if they would say "Linux has too small market share and we are not interested". Instead they just make it like there are 9000 distros and it is impossible to handle. They say it to generally well-versed technically users, really?
And by saying "Mint", "Debian" and Chrome OS as most popular distros, they show their incompetence.
How exactly that is an incompetence? Not sure about Chrome OS (I don't follow it at all), but Debian and Mint are indeed very popular. Not sure if making such close related choice is a good idea though. I'd pick Debian and openSUSE for example for wider variety.
While I don't agree with GOG's excuses, they aren't dumb given their policy which they clearly explained. You don't agree with them aiming at long term support? I think they can offer shorter term support for Linux games as well. But it's up to GOG to decide.
0 Likes
Quoting: TheEnigmaticTWhile you have a nice and tight story for why you accept the inherent community-driven flaws of ScummVM and DOSBox, I know for a fact this isn't true about Wineskin and WINE which some of your Mac ports use. Also, some of the Mac ports I've played are clearly inferior versions to the Windows originals, so the quality and support argument falls apart there as well (Psychonauts, Fallout, Alpha Centauri). Just in the mere fact that GOG.com cedes to using WINE should be proof enough in itself that Linux versions are tenable; Though the better and more clear argument is still for the Linux games where native versions already exist, are new and are primarily supported by the developer anyways.Quoting: Quote from 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.
Also, while we talk profitability/costs, support is NOT profitable. The comparison that you make between Steam and yourselves clearly illustrates this in that they are much more profitable than yourselves. So, if support is not inherently profitable, why can't some leniency be made towards Linux ports? Say the cost of developing for all three platforms is covered by total sales, rather than platform specifics, to, you know, support choice?
It's really GOG.com's decision in the end of course, but your rationals are far from absolutes in reasons that GOG.com is not hosting or will not host Linux files.
P.S. I'd like to add a plug for the wish I just created on GOG.com which parallels the "Show which games use ScummVM and DOSBOX". Show which games use Wineskin/WINE . It should be relevant to Linux gamers as far as WINE goes, though it's aimed at Mac-ports more specifically.
0 Likes
Quoting: AnonymousIndeed. I liked GOG.com, but they are talking bullshit. It is dishonest and dumb excuses. I would respect them if they would say "Linux has too small market share and we are not interested". Instead they just make it like there are 9000 distros and it is impossible to handle. They say it to generally well-versed technically users, really?It's a combination of both.
The small market share that the combined linux distros hold together should be at least easily addressable.
But infact, the smallest audience is the most fragmented and therefore hardest (and most expensive) to support.
If the support would as simple as for the other two platforms, even the current 1 digit market shares could be enough for GOG making a business case. I would guess because of the philosophical nearness of the free community to GOG's community focus and DRM-freeness ideals, they would start even earlier. ;) But as it is so unreasonable hard... they have to step back to not threating the complete GOG business by taking a bite which is to big for a small company.
From linux side, this missing addessability needs to be fixed in the linux distro landscape, fast. But not by steam, hopefully. :(
0 Likes
Quoting: helsiniki_harbourQuoting: Quote from AnonymousIndeed. I liked GOG.com, but they are talking bullshit. It is dishonest and dumb excuses. I would respect them if they would say "Linux has too small market share and we are not interested". Instead they just make it like there are 9000 distros and it is impossible to handle. They say it to generally well-versed technically users, really?It's a combination of both.
The small market share that the combined linux distros hold together should be at least easily addressable.
But infact, the smallest audience is the most fragmented and therefore hardest (and most expensive) to support.
If the support would as simple as for the other two platforms, even the current 1 digit market shares could be enough for GOG making a business case. I would guess because of the philosophical nearness of the free community to GOG's community focus and DRM-freeness ideals, they would start even earlier. ;) But as it is so unreasonable hard... they have to step back to not threating the complete GOG business by taking a bite which is to big for a small company.
From linux side, this missing addessability needs to be fixed in the linux distro landscape, fast. But not by steam, hopefully. :(
At most it's as hard as supporting Windows or Mac. There are already games portes, it's being already done and it's not rocket science. They just need to learn, and they're not interested enough.
I'm sure supporting Windows is a lot harder, but they already know how to deal with that nightmare and maybe it pays off because there's more buyers. They're just talking bullshit.
We're talking they just have to return the money for users that don't get the game working. They could earn money from sales that work.
This trolling/FUD should be put to an end.
0 Likes
Quoting: helsiniki_harbourQuoting: Quote from AnonymousIndeed. I liked GOG.com, but they are talking bullshit. It is dishonest and dumb excuses. I would respect them if they would say "Linux has too small market share and we are not interested". Instead they just make it like there are 9000 distros and it is impossible to handle. They say it to generally well-versed technically users, really?It's a combination of both.
The small market share that the combined linux distros hold together should be at least easily addressable.
But infact, the smallest audience is the most fragmented and therefore hardest (and most expensive) to support.
If the support would as simple as for the other two platforms, even the current 1 digit market shares could be enough for GOG making a business case. I would guess because of the philosophical nearness of the free community to GOG's community focus and DRM-freeness ideals, they would start even earlier. ;) But as it is so unreasonable hard... they have to step back to not threating the complete GOG business by taking a bite which is to big for a small company.
From linux side, this missing addessability needs to be fixed in the linux distro landscape, fast. But not by steam, hopefully. :(
Several highly technically informed people(Here, on the GOG forums and elsewhere) have provided bunches and bunches of solutions to supposed issues surrounding fragmentation. People are calling in to question GOG's supposed reasons for lacking Linux support due to them not standing up to scrutiny by those informed about Linux development and porting and the best practices surrounding those areas. That is why people are using words like "bullshit" not because they are being "rude" but because they see them as accurately describing what the GOG representatives are saying.
0 Likes
Quoting: KristianSeveral highly technically informed people(Here, on the GOG forums and elsewhere) have provided bunches and bunches of solutions to supposed issues surrounding fragmentation.
Indeed, there are approaches (not solutions [[1]](http://blog.linuxgamepublishing.com/2009/02/08/our-new-way-to-meet-the-lgpl/) [[2]](http://www.sandroid.org/imcross/) [[3]](http://web.archive.org/web/20071013034536/http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/features/linuxprogramming2/page2.asp) [[4]](http://listaller.tenstral.net/)), which are sadly not as comprehensive, simple and robust as developers/publishers would need them. Not on quality level which can be expected from a platform in the 21th century.
Looking back in history, it would have been helpful if Autopackage would have been welcomed by community. Or FatELF. Or if the Loki packages would have not been broken without reason. Or if the LSB under Ian Murdock would have not been ignored when he was arguing for backward compatibility and a ISV infrastructure... missed opportunities.
0 Likes
Quoting: helsinki_harbourQuoting: Quote from KristianSeveral highly technically informed people(Here, on the GOG forums and elsewhere) have provided bunches and bunches of solutions to supposed issues surrounding fragmentation.
Indeed, there are approaches (not solutions [[1]](http://blog.linuxgamepublishing.com/2009/02/08/our-new-way-to-meet-the-lgpl/) [[2]](http://www.sandroid.org/imcross/) [[3]](http://web.archive.org/web/20071013034536/http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/features/linuxprogramming2/page2.asp) [[4]](http://listaller.tenstral.net/)), which are sadly not as comprehensive, simple and robust as developers/publishers would need them. Not on quality level which can be expected from a platform in the 21th century.
Looking back in history, it would have been helpful if Autopackage would have been welcomed by community. Or FatELF. Or if the Loki packages would have not been broken without reason. Or if the LSB under Ian Murdock would have not been ignored when he was arguing for backward compatibility and a ISV infrastructure... missed opportunities.
There's a solution and it's given in link #3, solution #3. Any developer that doesn't want to open source their project must ship their game with all libraries needed. Not doing so is a call for problems. Open sourced games have the benefit that they may get into the distribution packaging system and thus have the problem solved.
0 Likes
Quoting: berarmaQuoting: Quote from helsinki_harbourQuoting: Quote from Quote from KristianSeveral highly technically informed people(Here, on the GOG forums and elsewhere) have provided bunches and bunches of solutions to supposed issues surrounding fragmentation.
Indeed, there are approaches (not solutions [[1]](http://blog.linuxgamepublishing.com/2009/02/08/our-new-way-to-meet-the-lgpl/) [[2]](http://www.sandroid.org/imcross/) [[3]](http://web.archive.org/web/20071013034536/http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/features/linuxprogramming2/page2.asp) [[4]](http://listaller.tenstral.net/)), which are sadly not as comprehensive, simple and robust as developers/publishers would need them. Not on quality level which can be expected from a platform in the 21th century.
Looking back in history, it would have been helpful if Autopackage would have been welcomed by community. Or FatELF. Or if the Loki packages would have not been broken without reason. Or if the LSB under Ian Murdock would have not been ignored when he was arguing for backward compatibility and a ISV infrastructure... missed opportunities.
There's a solution and it's given in link #3, solution #3. Any developer that doesn't want to open source their project must ship their game with all libraries needed. Not doing so is a call for problems. Open sourced games have the benefit that they may get into the distribution packaging system and thus have the problem solved.
This is exactly what modern games do on Windows anyway as far as shipping with DirectX, the Visual C++ Runtime, .Net, etc goes. Every single GOG game that uses Dosbox ships with it separately as well.
0 Likes
Quoting: KristianQuoting: Quote from berarmaThere's a solution and it's given in link #3, solution #3. Any developer that doesn't want to open source their project must ship their game with all libraries needed. Not doing so is a call for problems. Open sourced games have the benefit that they may get into the distribution packaging system and thus have the problem solved.
This is exactly what modern games do on Windows anyway as far as shipping with DirectX, the Visual C++ Runtime, .Net, etc goes. Every single GOG game that uses Dosbox ships with it separately as well.
Bundeling was the approach of Autopackage, worked not robust enough (you can't bundle everything) as nobody was cooperating with autopackage and therefore this crap wasn't fixed (and is still not). As the distros refused to support this idea (because of conservatism and elitism) the project died. Other technologies who aimed also on making binary software deployment easier like FatELF by Ryan Gordon faced the same fate.
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me