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

×
About tarballs - I don't think anyone meant source code here. If game is open source - you can always get the source directly from the project site. If it's not open source, how do you expect to get any sources? Tarballs were mentioned simply as an option for distro agnostic archive for actual binary releases of games.
Post edited November 13, 2012 by shmerl
Not sure about .bin, .run, and .sh. As I said I still have not graduated from my newbie status even after using Linux for years. But if they also work agnostically (is that even a word?) with many distros, I think that would be a good choice too.
avatar
Fenixp: Just a note: PlayOnLinux currently supports loads of GOG releases, install scripts are now changed to support GOG installers v2. All you need to do to get a GOG game running, you need to install playonlinux, click install, find a game in the list (and pray it's actually there) and select it. You then follow the automated installer and playonlinux does everything for you, including installation of an instance of Wine that works the best with the said version of the game, configuration, everything. It's a fantastic service.
That does nothing for the GoG.com games that are Dosbox based, ScummVM based or have native Linux binaries/installers provided by their developers and/or publishers.
avatar
Kristian: That does nothing for the GoG.com games that are Dosbox based, ScummVM based or have native Linux binaries/installers provided by their developers and/or publishers.
Huh? I'm terribly sorry for posting that link then, I ... guess?
avatar
Kristian: That does nothing for the GoG.com games that are Dosbox based, ScummVM based or have native Linux binaries/installers provided by their developers and/or publishers.
avatar
Fenixp: Huh? I'm terribly sorry for posting that link then, I ... guess?
No you shouldn't be, just pointing out that it is poor substitute for some kind of official help or support from GoG.com. Obviously it is great that the community is taking such steps
avatar
Kristian: The issue for me very much are those games that already have native ports. With those native ports the developers dealt with all the questions that GOG is putting forth, like what distros to support, how to package the games etc.

As it is now with all the games on GOG.com with native Linux ports already, there is a dilemma since buying the games from GOG means cutting yourself off from the Linux version.

How would shipping the respective Linux installers and binaries as an extra(just like all those wallpapers, manuals, art work, soundtracks, etc) hurt GOG and/or their customers?

What some of us want GOG to do is to upload a bunch of files to their servers and to provide them on an "as-is" basis. That is it, nothing more. But GOG's all or nothing policy is getting in the way of that. GOG is hellbent that downloading any binaries for the Linux OS from www.gog.com MUST be and stay impossible.

Who benefits from that stance and the absence of Linux binaries? Nobody at all, as far as I can tell.
Yep this is as simple as the situation is. They can but they dont want to. Quite poor on their part is you ask me.
Currently there is a sale on The Book Of Unwritten Tales here on GoG so that is is an obvious reason to buy it from them rather than say Steam. But say the price was the same why should a Linux user buy it from GoG rather than Steam, when he gets the Linux version included on Steam(once the Linux client is out of beta)? Currently GoG is insisting that their version of games with Linux clients be inferior than what is available elsewhere.
avatar
tarangwydion: Although of course I cannot speak for all Linux GOGers here, I think for starters we want GOG to release those games that not only have Windows version but also Linux version as well. So, not really only those games that are in Linux and nowhere else.

Chances are these kind of games are still relatively new, and the developers are still actively supporting them.

Funny thing is that the wishlist:
http://www.gog.com/en/wishlist/site/add_linux_versions_of_games
which at this moment of posting has 7804 votes, was started by JudasIscariot who is now a GOG staff :-)
Found the attached image on Phoronix and I think it's quite amusing. JudasIscariot being a GOG employee gave me hope with regard to Linux soon being supported as well, but alas...
Attachments:
ewwwno.png (182 Kb)
Here is something I just posted on Twitter with Twitlonger, a bit of rant: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/k3u2mk
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.
Post edited November 23, 2012 by SLP2000
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.
You know, people mostly want Linux support for games that actually have a native Linux support already :D Vast majority of other GOG games are really, really easy to get running on Linux DosBox or just via Wine.

Not to mention... Look at any humble indie bundle sales statistics. I think with our demographic, they're much more accurate. Not only there tends to be as many / more Linux buyers than Mac buyers, Linux buyers also pay the most.
Post edited November 23, 2012 by Fenixp
Sorry but that is not at all an argument against GoG providing already existing Linux binaries/installers provided by the publishers and/or developers of the games.

Edit:

I was replying to SLP2000.
Post edited November 23, 2012 by Kristian
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".
"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". "

Yes they certainly can. That is being done all the time in this industry.

"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."

What is wrong with pleasing 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"."

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: 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.
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.