It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Kristian: Yes they certainly can. That is being done all the time in this industry.
They can't do it if they think about consistency of their bussiness model.

What is wrong with pleasing Linux users?
Nothing, but the only way to do that right now is to do the opposite of what they are doing with PC and Mac games atm.

No I don't forget that they have that rule, what I am saying is that it is an extremely stupid rule. Why should the Steam version of certain games be superior to the GoG version? Releasing things in a non-supported manner happens all the time in this industry, in particular with freeware releases of old games and with mod tools. Indeed next year CDPR will be releasing Redkit, probably on an as is, non-supported manner.
And now we can disagree. This rule is one of the core foundation of GOG (together with DRM-free). GOG primary goal was to sell games "ready to play". If they say "we sell Linux games, but there's no official support, so we are not responsible if people can't run it", then they could also say "here's game x, it's not windows xp, vista. 7 compatible, but you can buy it and try to run it on your own, good luck".

I think they could let go "fair price for everyone" rule, but not the thing that makes GOG recognizable. People come here and they trust GOG that games GOG sell are working.
avatar
SLP2000: ...
Well then, GOG should go and start working on proper Linux support to remain competitive, I'm glad we all agree :-P
avatar
Fenixp: It's also how GOG gets the version of the game that I'm interested in the least, and effectively inferior one to humble bundles / buying from the devs. If GOG wants to be the place for indies to go and sell their games, and for people to go and buy them, it needs to actually provide proper services that go along with it. If GOG was still just about the old games, I wouldn't argue about this at all, but if they actually wish to become a high-profile indie distributor, they need to actually start acting like it.
I'm pretty sure GOG want to run their indie bussiness on their own terms, not on the terms of HIB or anyone else.
Post edited November 23, 2012 by SLP2000
avatar
SLP2000: I'm pretty sure GOG wants to run their indie bussiness on their own terms, not on the terms of HIB or anyone else.
That's ... Not exactly how competition works, you know.

edit: I mean, we've all seen how GOG runs deep sales on their own terms. Or not.
Post edited November 23, 2012 by Fenixp
avatar
Fenixp: That's ... Not exactly how competition works, you know.
Sorry to tell you that, but that's exactly how competition works. By offering your own model, and making people choose your model.

If yours were the truth, we would have only Steam clones, and no GOG.

By the way, if you think GOGs way is not correct, look at this

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RebeccaFernandez/20121115/181717/Where_can_I_sell_my_Indie_PC_game.php#comment177069

"Revenue from source compared to steam's revenue:
Steam - 100% (obviously)
Desura - 0.41%
Impulse - 0.51%
GOG* - 37.8% <------------WHOA!"

GOG is doing good with indie games, they don't have to change anything. At this moment we are almost in a point, when releasing indie game on GOG is one of te key points. Of course it's far from Steam, but if you take a look at Kickstarter games, they all started with "Steam key", and now they start with GOG key in their FAQ.
avatar
Kristian: Yes they certainly can. That is being done all the time in this industry.
avatar
SLP2000: They can't do it if they think about consistency of their bussiness model.

What is wrong with pleasing Linux users?
avatar
SLP2000: Nothing, but the only way to do that right now is to do the opposite of what they are doing with PC and Mac games atm.

No I don't forget that they have that rule, what I am saying is that it is an extremely stupid rule. Why should the Steam version of certain games be superior to the GoG version? Releasing things in a non-supported manner happens all the time in this industry, in particular with freeware releases of old games and with mod tools. Indeed next year CDPR will be releasing Redkit, probably on an as is, non-supported manner.
avatar
SLP2000: And now we can disagree. This rule is one of the core foundation of GOG (together with DRM-free). GOG primary goal was to sell games "ready to play". If they say "we sell Linux games, but there's no official support, so we are not responsible if people can't run it", then they could also say "here's game x, it's not windows xp, vista. 7 compatible, but you can buy it and try to run it on your own, good luck".

I think they could let go "fair price for everyone" rule, but not the thing that makes GOG recognizable. People come here and they trust GOG that games GOG sell are working.
Nobody said anything about GoG selling Linux gams at all. We want GoG to provide Linux binaries in the extras section for games that have them. Just like they provide soundtracks, manuals, wallpapers and the like. Here is a scenario for you: I am a Linux gamer and I want to buy a newly released indie game, I can buy it from Steam and get the Linux version or I could buy it on GoG and not get the Linux version. Both versions are DRM free and both versions have all the same extras in term of wallpapers, manuals, soundtracks, etc. Both versions cost exactly the same. Why should I buy the GoG version?
Post edited November 23, 2012 by Kristian
avatar
Fenixp: edit: I mean, we've all seen how GOG runs deep sales on their own terms. Or not.
That's something different that Linux support. Deep sales involves everyone.
SLP2000, I for the life of me can't get why are adamantly INSISTING that GoG not do this. Why should GoG be inferior?
avatar
Kristian: Nobody said anything about GoG selling Linux gams at all. We want GoG to provide Linux binaries in the extras section for games that have them. Just like they provide soundtracks, manuals, wallpapers and the like. Here is a scenario for you: I am a Linux gamer and I want to buy a newly released indie game, I can buy it from Steam and get the Linux version or I could buy it on GoG and not get the Linux version. Both versions are DRM free and both versions have all the same extras in term of wallpapers, manuals, soundtracks, etc. Both versions cost exactly the same. Why should I buy the GoG version?
Well, that's some solution. This way they could not support Linux, but provide Linuxx binaries. I think that's something they could think about.
That is what I have been saying all of the time. But that is also what GoG are saying they will NOT do, no matter what.
avatar
Kristian: Nobody said anything about GoG selling Linux gams at all. We want GoG to provide Linux binaries in the extras section for games that have them. Just like they provide soundtracks, manuals, wallpapers and the like. Here is a scenario for you: I am a Linux gamer and I want to buy a newly released indie game, I can buy it from Steam and get the Linux version or I could buy it on GoG and not get the Linux version. Both versions are DRM free and both versions have all the same extras in term of wallpapers, manuals, soundtracks, etc. Both versions cost exactly the same. Why should I buy the GoG version?
There's no reason, you basically said that you should buy at Steam until GOG offers what you prefer. Supply and demand, you know.

Anyway, if it's super important you could always install a virtual, windows installation (VirtualBox is open source and free) then repack it for a working Linux copy. I'm sure it's not ideal and if that's not necessary at Steam while at the same time it's even DRM-free as well there's no reason to buy it here in the first place and we go back to what you just said:
buy at Steam until GOG offers what you need. ;)
avatar
Kristian: That is what I have been saying all of the time. But that is also what GoG are saying they will NOT do, no matter what.
It's likely that, like with Mac support, they will offer it in the future because of competition (it may not be necessary now) and their infrastructure is large enough for it (one could argue it already is but it's their business.)
Post edited November 23, 2012 by Nirth
avatar
Kristian: That is what I have been saying all of the time. But that is also what GoG are saying they will NOT do, no matter what.
They really said that?

All I saw GOG was saying that they can't support Linux (yet?), and that means they can't release Linux version (just like they do with Mac). There's nothing about linux binaries in extras.
avatar
SLP2000: Sorry to tell you that, but that's exactly how competition works. By offering your own model, and making people choose your model.
I'm sorry, but voluntarily cutting yourself from a paying user base is a rather silly model. I'm not asking GOG to stop selling DRM-free products or whatever, I'm asking GOG to implement something very common for indie games on their indie store. And yes, as far as indie games go, Linux is a fairly big market.

avatar
SLP2000: GOG* - 37.8% <------------WHOA!"
Exactly. GOG is huge. At this point, they have absolutely no excuse for not implementing Linux support when they properly implement Mac.

avatar
Nirth: buy at Steam until GOG offers what you need. ;)
Exactly what I'm talking about. I will do just that when Steam comes forward with native Linux games. That's GOG actively losing money right there.
"Anyway, if it's super important you could always install a virtual, windows installation (VirtualBox is open source and free) then repack it for a working Linux copy."

Stuff like that is what I think shouldn't be necessary and often you would have to buy the game from somewhere else anyway to get those binaries.

"I'm sure it's not ideal and if that's not necessary at Steam while at the same time it's even DRM-free as well there's no reason to buy it here in the first place and we go back to what you just said:
buy at Steam until GOG offers what you need. ;)"

That seems to be the natural conclusion, how that helps GoG, I have no idea. So what I am asking is something that could not in way, shape or form hurt GoG or any of its employees, affialites, partners or customers at all while at the same time helping a bunch of their customers, while not doing it mean GoG loses some customers. It seems like a no brainer for me.
avatar
SLP2000: I don't think Linux support should be on GOG minds at all. Not in foresable future at least. I'd prefer if GOG focus on bringing more classics here, than "waste" their time on Linux support.

First of all, Linux is not populat at all. Basing on those data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Operating_system_usage_share.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Less than 5% of web users have Linux installed. First two links says about less than 2%.

Don't overestimate the profit GOG could gain from selling linux compatible games.

It's totally different with Mac OS, which is about 10% now, and growing up. GOG is now focused on bringing more games to Mac, so they won't focus on linux for sure. Their staff is not big enough to work on all this at the same time.


The only way I can see they may be supporting Linux games is if they choose one linux distibution, probably Ubuntu. Then they could sell games that are compatible with Linux Ubuntu, and not support other linux os.
We all have links!