.... minor nit. SDL is pretty small and most of it a work of one guy. Yes, that guy is employed by Valve nowadays, but SDL existed for well over a decade before Valve hired him.

I'd wouln't call something effectively being DirectX direct equivalent* (that is, basically DirectInput, DirectDraw, DirectSound, DirectEverytgingThatIsNotDirect3D) "small". Oh, and by SDL I understand SDL2, of course. :)



* Pun not intended :)

Come on, it's only around 150k lines of code. That is *small.*

It's just a slim shim between the OS-specific APIs and your application, so you don't have to worry about how to get a blob of pixels to the screen on all five platforms your application runs on. Plus a handful of helper functions to do some very basic compositing and such.

I don't know DirectX well enough but it probably does a whole lot more.

Greetings!
When you told that, I was feeling down because of my utter disappointment in GOG so I didn't have the strength to talk back.
Now, I remember this topic and I feel motivated to stand my ground so here I am! :-3

If we follow your reasoning, then GOG would just have to shut down.
Because your reasoning is: GOG failed to dominate Linux market so they just gave up on Linux.
Then if we follow your reasoning, GOG failed to take over Steam's dominant position on PC games distribution, then GOG should just give up on PC games distribution and shut down right away.
But GOG still stands, GOG didn't give up.
Because the point is not to be the king, it is to be there to offer an alternative to the king's tyranny.
A refuge, as you said. A sanctuary for the players who run away from tyranny.
Now, you say that GOGamers attach imaginary qualities to GOG.
Then I humbly suggest you to acknowledge how GOG introduces itself: https://www.gog.com/about_gog
GOG claims to support freedom (no DRM, no restriction, GOG Galaxy completely optional and open-source, players' absolute control on their games), justice (fair prices), love (GOG starts its introduction with "Because we love video games", isn't that clear enough?).
See? We didn't attach imaginary qualities to GOG out of nowhere, we merely expect GOG to stay true to their own words.
We can't help but think that this is utterly illogic that GOG doesn't show love to the only OS which shares the same qualities.
We even think that GOG's favouritism to OS which oppose their values is somewhat of hypocrite.
We don't expect GOG to dominate Steam on Linux market, we are well aware that GOG doesn't dispose of the same resources as Steam does and Steam clearly intends to use Linux to expand their control not only on games but also on computers as they have developed their own OS based on Linux.
Steam is dedicating considerable resources to support gaming on Linux (for their own agenda), we obviously don't expect GOG to do as much.
We merely expect GOG to do their part to not let Steam monopolize Linux.
Again, the point is not to rule.
The point is to offer a satisfying alternative so players have a real choice, they don't have to subdue to Steam's rule out of lack of satisfying alternative.
Who cares who has the biggest, everyone knows that size doesn't matter as long as it gives satisfaction.
And this is exactly what we expect from GOG: to satisfy gamers who care for freedom and are not willing to subdue to Microsoft nor Apple nor Valve nor anyone's tyranny.
GOG is the logical choice for gamers who care for freedom just as Linux is.
This is why Linux and GOG should be the best association from a logical point of view.
Nothing more.
We don't care if GOG doesn't hold the biggest share.
GOG exists because CD Projekt didn't want to let Steam monopolize PC games digital distribution, they wanted to offer a satisfying alternative so players have a real choice.
GOG developed GOG Galaxy in order to offer a satisfying alternative to Steam client.
GOG's point has always been to offer a satisfying alternative.
So we are wondering why GOG lets Steam monopolize Linux, why GOG doesn't offer a satisfying alternative to Linux players so they have a real choice, especially considering that Linux is the only OS which shares GOG's values so it would make sense to show some special care to this OS instead of supporting the monopole of OS which oppose GOG's values as they are very restrictive, unfair and show no love to their users, only to their wallet.
GOG claims to be "made by gamers for gamers" and be driven by love.
Linux is the only OS which is free, open-source, developed by users for users, community-driven by passion instead of greed.
So Linux is the option which suits GOG's philosophy the best.
However, it is the option that GOG shows the least interest in.
That simply doesn't make sense.
GOG contradicts itself by not supporting the OS which supports its values.
This is the same issue as GOG's lack of consideration for languages other than english.
Here again, GOG supports a monopoly, which contradicts its will of offering a choice.
GOG justifies this by blaming publishers, saying "We want to offer our games in your language but the publisher is not willing to provide it to us.".
This is bullshit as CD Projekt doesn't bother to offer a choice of language in their own games anymore.
They just don't care anymore.
GOG's own employees are screwed as they want to support their own language and are told by their employers "Dear employee, we want to support your language, but publishers are mean, they don't want to provide any other language than english, it is all their fault.".
While this is complete bullshit as that doesn't explain why they don't support multi-language in their own games nor why publishers provide all languages to Steam and only one language to GOG.
It happens that a publisher is willing to provide a game to Steam and not to GOG.
But why would they be willing to provide a game to GOG but only one version?
Just picture the scene of a publisher negotiating a contract with GOG and saying "Okay, I am willing to allow you to sell my game. But only in english.".
That's just ridiculous, that doesn't make sense.
The only sensible explanation is that publishers provide to GOG what GOG asks for and GOG cares only about english because, you know, it is the international language so everyone should speak english, it is pointless to speak another language if it is not the mainstream language.
Except if it is polish, polish obviously deserves more consideration since GOG makes sure to provide a polish version if there is one.
Because, you know, CD Projekt is polish after all so this is perfectly fair if GOG supports its executives' native language and not its customers nor even its employees, they have to speak english after all.
Just like everyone should give away the control of their PC to Microsoft and even pay for it since it is mainstream and it is imposed with almost all PC anyway so it is pointless to try to resist and support a free OS, resistance is futile, GOG knows it, so why bother to support Linux, life is so easier when we just subdue.
You notice how that sounds wrong, "GOG knows that it is pointless to try to resist", as GOG is famous to stand to resist Steam's domination?
GOG's employees will tell us that GOG wants to support our OS and our language but publishers are not willing to.
They will tell this because this is what they are told by their executives.
GOG's executives mock their employees as much as they mock their customers because this statement doesn't work to explain why CD Projekt's own games are not available for Linux nor for any other language than polish and english.
It also doesn't work to explain why GOG Galaxy is not available for Linux.
And it never worked to explain why publishers would be willing to provide all versions to Steam and the Humble Store and not to GOG.
The only logical explanation is that GOG's executives who are in charge of contracts with publishers care only about the mainstream version and so they ask only for it.
Then they make up excuses to their employees and their customers when they are asked to support diversity.
They tell to their employees "Publishers are to blame." and so employees tell to us "Publishers are to blame." but they just don't care plain and simple as long as they secure mainstream players' love.

You are absolutely right, GOG is not what its supporters like to see, GOG is not how it wants to be seen, GOG is a Steam's competitor, and this is exactly why GOG shouldn't sit on its butt while Steam is securing Linux's monopoly, GOG should be doing what it has always done: offer a satisfying alternative to Steam.
So GOG should be developing partnerships with Linux community in order to make sure that Steam doesn't monopolize Linux and Linux gamers have a real choice.
GOG's strongest point has always been to offer a satisfying alternative to Steam's tyranny.
And this is exactly why that would make sense that GOG stays faithful to its reputation and offers a satisfying alternative to Steam's tyranny on Linux.
I will be perfectly clear, the future of gaming is Linux, Steam will make sure it is.
Steam's ambition is to make Linux the best OS for gaming and send Windows to oblivion.
If GOG doesn't secure Linux's community support, GOG will be damned when Linux will become the mainstream OS and GOG failed to see it coming because be sure that Steam will do everything to make it happen and you know that Steam has the resources.
Oh come on, GOG's resources are not that limited, GOG's wealth is ever-growing.
The number of gamers who get fed up with DRM and Steam's tyranny is ever growing, and you know where they find their refuge, don't you?
It means that GOG gains ever more customers which implies that GOG's market share is ever-growing.
We have another hint at this when we observe that ever more publishers want GOG to sell their games DRM-free, which shows that publishers see GOG as a lucrative distributor, which is a remarkable hint that GOG's philosophy is commercially successful as ever more publishers trust GOG's philosophy.
GOG has even become a publisher itself, hinting that GOG is wealthy enough to buy IP.
And GOG may still be far away behind Steam, it already is a major distributor, the 2nd right after Steam to be exact, and the distance with Steam is ever-reducing as GOG's market share is ever growing.
And Steam was second to GOG in The Witcher 3's sales, meaning that more customers bought The Witchers 3 from GOG than from Steam, which is a premiere!
And GOG is the leader of DRM-free market, Steam has no share in DRM-free market, GOG has created its own market and leads it, don't forget this.
I think you underestimate GOG here.
GOG has the resources to support Linux, GOG's executives just don't have the will.
What makes you think that GOG generates loss and is a burden? All hints that I mentioned above lead to think that GOG is a success.


What are you talking about?
GOG doesn't need to develop drivers.
GOG merely needs to actually care about Linux, to port GOG Galaxy on Linux, to port CD Projekt's games on Linux, to actually ask to publishers to provide Linux version of their games.
Moreover, GOG can afford to hire a Linux developer since the Humble Store does and GOG is more wealthy than the Humble Store.
Moreover, GOG could develop partnerships with Linux communities to include GOG Galaxy into Linux distributions, which would be beneficial for both GOG and Linux as GOG would support Linux in showing interest in it, which would draw interest of their customers as well, and Linux would support GOG in promoting it to its communities as a satisfying alternative to Steam's tyranny on Linux.
Of course, GOG and Linux would remain faithful to their philosophy so they wouldn't impose GOG Galaxy to Linux users.
GOG Galaxy would come installed in Linux distributions but users would remain free to uninstall it if they don't like it.
But the mere fact that Linux users would see GOG Galaxy on their desktop would be sufficient to draw their attention and pick their curiosity.
That is all GOG needs to secure a wealthy market share on Linux.
So it would be a win-win-win both for GOG which would secure a market share, for Linux which would draw interest from GOGamers, and for gamers who would have a real choice and would not have to subdue to Steam's rule.
GOG could also do the same as the Humble Store does: cooperate with developers to port their games on Linux if there is no Linux version.
I remind you that GOG is more wealthy than the Humble Store.
So everything the Humble Store has the resources to do, GOG has the resources to do even more.

GOG would be defeated only if GOG gives up.
No matter that GOG doesn't take over Steam, it will be a success nevertheless if GOG manages to at least provide a refuge to gamers who want to run away from Steam's tyranny.
To sum it up, GOG just has to do regarding to Linux what it does regarding Windows.
Because you know, GOG didn't top Steam on Windows market, that is no reason for GOG to give up and shut down, is that?
GOG keeps standing to offer a satisfying alternative to Steam's tyranny, GOG doesn't need to take over Steam as long as it is successful.
The same goes for Linux market.
GOG's weak point is Linux market so what GOG needs to strengthen now is Linux market, it is as simple as that.
That and multi-language support.
Almost all gamers who choose to buy their games on Steam rather than on GOG is because GOG lacks the game in their language or/and for their OS.
If GOG makes sure to offer every language and OS available then there would be no more reason to choose Steam version over GOG version of a game.
The weak point would be no more.

I percieve, it wants to. But… We saw game developers stopping to support OS'es, we know gamers usually don't take that lightly. But we yet to see a game distributor to drop support. I'm sure GOG does not to be the first one in the history.

To drop Linux support is to accept defeat. To invest in Linux support is to endanger own existance (added costs will topple fragile financial balance).
We are in the libration point.

In some anime world, maybe. But in real world not everything can be overcomed by sheer will and determination. Sometimes a defeat is inevitable regardless of your resolve. Try to compete in speed with a jet plane. :)
In case of GOG, no amount of determination will save it from bankruptcy if expences outweight income for too long.

"Claims to" and "does" are not the same things. :)

GOG values money. GOG supports what gives it more money. I fail to see a contradiction. :)

A fine example of attaching imaginary qualities. GOG is not a knight in shining armor. It is a for profit company, trying to maximize its profits however it can with whatever it has. If Linux support is beneficial, then fine. There is no morale, no love or other warm feelings. Only cold calculations (or miscalculations, as GOG's execution officers are people too and make mistakes and misjudgements)

Another delusion. Valve® is also a "for profit" company. It invests in Linux not because of love, but of need. Microsoft Store is threatening Valve's business and apart of all other "store holders" there (EA, Ubisoft, Epic, Discord etc.) Microsoft actually has the power to obliterate Valve and everyone else by simply closing its OS. It is a "nuclear bomb" in Microsoft's hands. And, just like with real deal, there are other aspects keeping Microsoft from pressing the Red Button. By basically owning Linux Valve is trying to get a holt of a nuke of it's own, installing something akin to M.A.D. doctrine.

Actually, according to financial documents available in this document (pp. 29-31), GOG has been detrimental in the 2018.
Hard financial numbers are harsh, I know. :(

I think I'm taking "GOG Sp. z o.o." for what it is. ;)

I'm not going to take part to the discussion, but this is not the full truth. Yep, GOG has been a loss for CDP in 2018, but that's just because Gwent (and Thronebreaker) development (which also involved consoles) was counted as a "GOG cost" (GOG and Gwent take their resource from the same source, inside CD Projekt, so they share the same spot in their financial statement). GOG's revenue, on the other hand, is growing.

Direct quote: "Nevertheless, when denominated in USD (the primary transaction currency for GOG.com sales), total revenues from online sales carried out via GOG.com and GOG Galaxy for products licensed from external suppliers (i.e. not affected by the release schedule of CD PROJEKT RED), aggregated over the nine-month period between 1 January and 30 September 2018, were 24 732 USD, which represents a 22% increase compared to the reference period in 2017"

You don't hold GOG in high esteem, do you? :-3

Actually, GOG shows itself as a knight in armor, look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zCtynCk-S0&list=PL1F3FBEB10D92C9E8&index=2&t=0s :-3
And since you keep saying that we attach imaginary qualities to GOG, I suggest you to watch the 3 other GOG's promotional videos in the playlist so you see how GOG shows itself.

I never said that Valve Corporation invests into Linux out of love, I know well that Valve has no love, aren't you putting words in my mouth that I didn't actually say?
I thought it was clear that I said that Steam invests into Linux for its own agenda and that Valve Corporation uses Linux to expand its control on gamers' computers.
Valve Corporation pursues the agenda that you say, to gain power to obliterate Microsoft.

Wow, how did you manage to get your hands on CD Projekt business documents?
GOG is so secretive about its contracts, I don't imagine CD Projekt to publicly disclose its financial documents.



See? GOG'w wealth has grown of 22% this year, I knew GOG was growing and not shrinking.

I don't. It is just business for them. It is just business for me. The moment I find a store with cheaper DRM-free games and adequate support (not a high bar, honestly) I'll switch without second thought. Then, the moment GOG offers better support/sales, I'll switch back to GOG. Seems fair.

Deeds speak louder than words, IMO. "GOG Galaxy for Linux", lack of updates for owned games and constant debacles with fresh releases ("Pathfinder: Kingmaker" with broken installers and unsupported DLCs, anyone?) have told me everything I need to know about GOG. :)

Sorry, I misunderstood the phrase.

GOG? No, they are not obliged to share their data. " CD PROJEKT Capital Group", on the other hand, is publicly owned company and has to provide its financial documents to all people (and potential stockholders). This document is from its own site. :)

No, that 22% is gross revenue (money income before expenses substraction) increase. Net profit is firmly in the red zone.
See (p. 30.):
Gross profit from sales for the 01.07.2018 - 30.09.2018 period is 8761 thousands PLN.
Gross profit from sales for the 01.07.2017 - 30.09.2017 period is 11 295 thousands PLN.
That's 22.43% of decrease.

My point here is that we didn't attach imaginary qualities to GOG out of nowhere, this is how GOG wants to be seen, read how GOG talk about themselves in the "about GOG" page et watch GOG's 4 promotional videos and you will understand that we talk about GOG the way GOG talk about themselves.
"GOG Galaxy for Linux", ouch! That hurts... :'-(

I didn't know that CD Projekt was a trademarked company. I thought CD Projekt all belonged to CD Projekt...

Didn't you read what Desmight said above?
"Yes, GOG has been a loss for CD Projekt in 2018, but that is because Gwent and Thronebreaker's development costs are counted as GOG's costs. If you remove Gwent and Thronebreaker's development costs then GOG's revenue has grown 22% this year."

Linux support is good, the community is indeed growing. But it's not reason enough to downvote a game that doesn't offer native Linux support. Seen that a lot in review page.

Well, I personally don't write reviews because I don't want to influence other players' opinion with my own, I want every one to make his/her own opinion without exterior influence.
So I don't down vote nor up vote games.
But I think it is actually quite a good reason to be upset if you can't play a game that you want to play because it is not available for your OS or/nor in your language.
Especially if you know this game IS available for your OS and/or in your language elsewhere.
You have then all reasons to be upset at a store and express your disappointment about it.
But down vote a game and make everyone think it is a bad game, yes, I agree that's unfair.
I don't give scores anyway as I think it is utterly arrogant to judge and give a score at something or someone.

And no, GOG's Linux support is not good.
GOG's Linux support is far away to be good.
Actually, there is no such thing as "GOG's Linux support".
It would be more accurate to talk about GOG's disappointing lack of Linux support.

Would be nice to see linux support for Turok 2 like the 1st game has, Turok 2 has linux support on steam

I use windows 10 on my main rig but Ubuntu on an old build which is perfect for running older games, turok 2 does work in wine just fine however would still be better to have the native port that 'already' exists