The problem with adding games that have a native Linux support already is not that easy, as it looks like from our side of the screen.
It's about consistency - they can't say "ok, so we are not supporting Linux, but we offer you some files provided by the devs. You can download and see if they work".
It's not how you do bussiness, it's not how you should do bussiness, it's not how GOG say they want do their bussiness. They try to take some responsibility for their games - and they are pretty successful with it so far. They shouldn't change it just to please Linux users.
Also, you forget that one of their rule is that they care about the support, so the devs (or IP holders) don't have to worry about that. Again, they would have to sign a game and say "ok, so we take care about PC and Mac compatibility, but if our customer can't run the game on Linux, you will have to provide a solution". That's impossible, and even if it was, then there's the problem if the dev says "I can't fix it, sorry".
If consistency is an argument then GOG is in a bind. On one hand they want to provide personal service support for their products and Linux is difficult on that end. On the other hand there is such a thing as consistency within the market and on that note GOG is bumbling around behind the pack, while refusing to even attempt to offer existing solutions that is somewhat frustrating in todays climate. We also have a problem with the numbers seeing that they are willing to "Waste their time" (an assertion I am not sure I appreciate) in providing a Mac initiative that by the numbers caters to a largely gaming apathetic crowd compared to the Linux crowd. Their newfound support of macs actually makes it harder to understand.
Linux is a minor market, and at one time I thought it was something that could be dismissed, but in light of mac initiative, and in light that just about every other distributor is offering some kind of Linux support, It has become hard to maintain that position I once held.
GOG has publicly stated that it is something they have talked about internally, and that it could come down the line, but it also may not happen. Thats all we really know, but every time people talk about it someone comes sweeping in to tell everyone of the challenges GOG faces in providing such support as if they were on the team. Truth is it is all speculation. We don't know what their business is like or what their plans are, or even a fraction of what they think about. All we know is what we would like to see, and what we see other companies offering.
To that there is nothing wrong with us saying we want that thing over there too. Just like there is nothing wrong with them saying no. Its their business and its up to them how to run it. Maybe they will do it some kind of right, and maybe it will be some kind of wrong or a mix. We still are going to suggest that if they offer linux support that it will make choosing GOG as a source easier. I will leave it up to them if its worth the coin or not. I don't want to pressure them unfairly to do something just because I would like it, but I also don't want to go around theorizing as to why they shouldn't do it, and make them feel like its perfectly OK not to even try.