Even games like OpenRCT2 have problems with Linux Libs. Like Fedora doesn't package libcrypto.so.1.0.0, and hasn't for several versions, because LibCrypto and associated packages have moved on for several versions. But the build software they use (apparently) is reliant on that one particular version of that library.

Happy l337!

I noticed that too: 1337 rep. :-)

About the subject, I didn't see that one coming, but I see why developers would stumble on this roadblock.

I think shmerl has a good idea here :-)

Quite a LEET post subject to hit 1337 rep with too 8-)

Thanks :)

Vikings - Wolves of Midgard can be a potential victim of this issue. Monitor their Linux release. If it will come out on Steam, but not on GOG, lack of Galaxy libs will be the likely culprit.

* https://www.gog.com/forum/vikings_wolves_of_midgard/linuxport_for_gog
* http://steamcommunity.com/app/404590/discussions/0/343787920136290410/?ctp=2#c1368380934285001612

or maybe the (game) devs are just lazy *shrug*

War for the Overworld shows that it is perfectly doable to do a Linux release despite of the Windows version using Galaxy. can the libraries even do anything meaningful on their own (without the client)?
I always imagined that the library needs to open some kind of communication channel to the client. (like steam does afaik)

It's surely doable. You can even make just stubs which do nothing, and address linking against a given API (and then handle those functions returning errors properly). It's not the question of feasibility, but the question of whether developers want to apply that extra effort. At the very least, GOG could provide those stubs for developers themselves, until they are ready with normal implementation.

You can call developers lazy, but in the end some developers won't do it, just because GOG didn't provide those libraries. So we can point fingers all we want, but some games simply will be missing Linux versions here, until GOG will pull themselves together and release Galaxy libraries for Linux. I suppose those libraries are responsible for integration with Galaxy services (multiplayer, cloud saves and what not). Client (for installing / updating) on the other hand is something orthogonal to that. At least that's how I would have designed such thing. I'm not really sure how GOG are doing it.

Yeah, I'm not exactly surprised. I'd suggest you send your "@fables22 and Galaxy team" to Support or post it in the Galaxy thread, as they'd have a better chance of seeing it.

Done.

A vague answer from Galaxy developers, but it doesn't really explain much.

From the answer it looks like it won't be soon.

I'm more interested in whether they care to address this lacking releases issue. I guess we'll have to wait and see with some real example. Vikings - Wolves of Midgard is a good use case. They are supposed to use Galaxy (on Windows), and they plan Linux version as well. If it will come out on GOG, it means it's not such a problem as I expected. But if it won't - it will show what GOG don't do enough to address this.

I think the main problem is gog galaxy.
Games don't need clients.
Developers don't need clients (multiplayer, cloud saves etc... are possible without a client).
Windows, Mac and Linux games don't need clients.
Gog does not need a client.

When they decided to create a client that was the first real problem:
- they decided to offer some API for developers to easily implement features but they lack many features and they don't support linux.
- Developers decided to leave the coding of those features to clients like gog galaxy.
- People that don't want to use galaxy lose many features.

Just look at Broken Age save clouds with Dropbox... I have the humble bundle version and I can save the game on the cloud in the same way I can do it on the steam (or any other) copy of this game.
Just look at Frozenbyte games achievements... they unlock ingame and you don't need any clients.
And fo multiplayer you can look at most games out there released before clients.

I think a really good clients is just a good downloader.