So to put it basically, there is a program for Linux called Lutris. It's basically what GOG Galaxy is; an all in one client and games organizer for whatever you please; even with pretty little installers to make things a breeze.

Meanwhile, on the GOG side of things:


And that's your lot. A decade old installer using graphical widgets all but sunset, no proper patching support, and certainly no effort to even support Wine. It's not rocket surgery to make a new installer, all you need is Python or something. Heck, Appimages eschew the entire process. (The less said about flatpack and & snaps, the better.)

What I'm trying to gently say is, why is it that GOG is letting a competing service give them a complete runaround when the code is basically there for the cleanroom taking and reengineering?

then why dont you sort it out yourself and then sell it to gog?

It's because they don't give a fuck. Linux is not that important and tends to be taken over by elitist shitbags that push people away. There's Aspyr, Lutris and Phoronix, what else? SteamOS on Debian 2014? Fuck that noise.

Even your shitty post reeks of cork-sniffing insignificance.

Linux-integration for the GoG SDK is (still?) being worked on. VERY SLOWLY.

What is there to...sell? Do you mean sell as in the concept, or monetary exchange?

either / or. like i said, you are apparently the expert.

there is is your answer. reengineering takes up development resources that GOG feels is spent better elsewhere.

The chariot of the gods must be driven by a snail then. Most of the code is python which is already portable? What would need to be added? GOG specific API hooks?

why you are asking me? Your post mentioned reengineering ...
I am not familiar with the internals of lutris

Besides, regardless of how ready lutris is, I hope we can agree that rolling out a new client would in any case come with additional workload.
And if you look at all the galaxy discussions and people's aversions against clients, they can hardly cut back on that workload and remove the current standalone installers.

Lastly, there is the question if you really would like to be stuck with two different code bases/clients. One for linux and one for windows. That doesn't seem a very wise long-term perspective.

Except with Python being Python, that's the beautiful thing; it's not just portable but portable.
Though I suppose they would be reluctant to give up that shiny client that they've made on some proprietary API system.

For starters, I use PlayOnLinux for that. I never liked the Lutris. I found it clunky and the programs I was able to make work with POL did not work on Lutris.

Why did you mention Python? As a utility to mass-update all GOG installers wrapped with wine?

About the WHY? Because they do not want it. None of the big publishers (EA, SEGA, EPIC, UBISOFT) like Linux and as far as I know, they do not support Linux in any way. Linux gamers have been under the banner of Steam for a long time now which not only has excellent support but also actually invests in developing new tools for the community. But even there, the Linux share is about 1%


GOG knows very well that they are no match for that and the return value is not great. So they are doing the only logical thing they can do: focus on what they already have. Especially with the integration of other stores, GOG has a lot on its plate right now.

I would probably use Linux Galaxy, but all aforementioned doubts explains everything. It's all about numbers. GOG is niche. Linux users are niche in niche. Some of them are against using any client, which makes Galaxy Linux users niche in niche in niche.

No such option as Galaxy for Linux.

I guess the best thing we can expect as Linux community is some Linux-friendly policy, which means keeping offline installers up to date, making them easily extractable, delivering Linux port of possible, maintaining and documenting GOG API to make it simpler to build some independent tools like Lutris.

1) I've found PlayOnLinux to be a well of insanity; bearing ancient versions of Wine from a deep crypt because that's the last time anyone tested them and a myriad array of other issues.

2) I mentioned Python because Lutris is coded in Python.

3) Which given what Lutris is doing, is a commonality that Galaxy and Lutris share.

If they really think like not a lot people use linux so we don't support it than people will keep away from linux. If they start support it, people my want to try linux. Not talking about GOG only, but to all store or plublisher who doesn't support linux.

1. You do not have to use the default settings on POL. You can customize anything and test lots of different versions simultaneously without any risk. And if the setting you make gets messy, it takes 2 seconds to delete it and you can start from scratch. This makes the testing period fast and efficient. I managed to make a lot of games and programs work that way. Because most of those programs do not work in the latest versions of WINE. So your argument of the ability to use "ancient" versions of WINE is what makes POL so great.

2. That explains why it is so clunky, messy, and has tons of bugs and errors.

3. What do they share exactly?